[LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

In Low-Tech, why are so many specific examples given for head and neck protection? Are they supposed to be exhaustive lists?? No other body parts seem to have received so much detail... Why wasn't the hit location+armor type formula used elsewhere sufficient?

Oh yeah! And what hit locations 'make sense' to allow only frontal/rear armor?
skull/face/neck/torso/thighs/shins make sense to me, but I'm unsure of hands/feet/andy part of arms/knee/groin...

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

the main reason I can find for it is because there were a large number of helmets and collar protection in the ages, each area had a slightly different way of doing it. while chain mail was the same premise no matter who made it they may have different metal though.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

The neck/head is pretty important and a lot of work went into armoring it.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

Consider "front" of a hand to be it's external side, and "back" to be it's palm/internal side.

The groin doesn't seem to make sense from the back, but the knees do... for instance, if you want to armor the front of the knee with plate, but the inside of the joint with a leather backing.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

I wouldn't allow front/back protection on the arms, hands, groin, or feet. The arms are doubtful ... some manicae only protect the front, but in that case the bottom of the arm can be attacked when you extend your arm to strike or parry.

That wasn't the intent as far as I know. The given weights include an allowance for armour gaps.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

Take not however, that LT says the back of the knee can't be protected by rigid armor, it's perfectly legal to armor it with flexible armor (also keep in mind that flexible armor doesn't have gaps, i.e. it protects those locations, and can be worn underneath rigid armor exactly to protect gaps).

There's no need to use flexible armor underneath the entire leg just to protect the back of the knee, however. I can't se a problem with protecting just the back of the knee with flexible armor, say cloth or light leather, or even mail. Voiders are basically this.

Protecting just the front of the arms is a little exotic, and since the arms move a lot, it'd be hard to say what's front and what's back. It'd be easier to say you're protecting "one face" of the arm (call it back or front, or whatever) and have armor protect on a 1-3 roll.

The feet are tricky, protecting just the front is a possibility, but that's most of the foot. The "back" would be just the heel and the achilles tendon, basically. Another way to divide the foot is into "top" and "sole".

I'm not talking about particularly realistic or historically accurate, just possible.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

Better off to call it "inside" and "outside". There are plenty of armours that only cover the outside of a limb. On a leg for example the inside thigh is often exposed. Usually this location is more vulnerable from the rear.

You could create a new armour gap called "inside thigh". When the leg is hit, the thigh is normally struck on a roll of 5-6. The GM may declare that a roll of 5 hits the armor on the outside of the thigh and a roll of 6 hits the unarmored inside thigh. The inside thigh may also be deliberately targeted at -8 if the target is facing the attacker. If the attacker is striking from behind then the entire thigh is unarmored and the penalty is only -3. When designing armour that only covers the outside of the thigh, the cost and weight would be half that of regular thigh armour. Note that this gap cannot be hit when the wearer is mounted.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

So you are saying that it esssentially covers the front w/ a targetable chink in the armor that gets hit 50% of the time?

If a leg can get hit from the front or back, and then inner or outer, then this should either protect outer in front or back w/ 50% leg armor cost or else inner in the front and have 25% leg armor cost.

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

You could certainly protect only one side of the arms, hands, and feet, though in the case of arms and hands which side faces forward varies significantly (I don't see a problem with armoring the front of the feet; it means that it protects the ball of the foot but not the heel. It might not be 50% weight, but it's certainly doable). Front/back for the groin doesn't make sense because the groin is not really targetable from the back to start with.

Inside/Outside protection, seen moderately often on the upper arms and legs, should be very reliable against swing attacks, much less so against thrust attacks -- the only swing attacks that will hit the unarmored section are ones that cross over the body, missing the other limb. Since the lower arms and legs are much more mobile, they're more likely to be exposed (and inside/outside armor is less common).

Re: [LT] Why specifics about helmets and neck?
 

Because Dan can only be killed if someone chops his head off.