Studded Leather Armor

[Bill_in_IN]

Back in the 80's, after TFT had gone out of print, we came up with Metal Studded Leather Armor. It had the advantage of stopping 3 hits instead of 2 while still causing the same DX and MA mods as if it was Leather Armor.

Later, we saw in a gaming publication where this one was fairly common across other gaming groups.

Of course, if a wizard were to wear it, the metal studs had to be silver and increased price accordingly.

It's interesting that this one was figured out before the internet was available to argue about stuff like this. LOL!

I wonder if anyone is doing this today?

[TippetsTX]

Yes, but it's called 'reinforced' leather armor on my list and it covers the spot where chainmail exists on the RAW list (I use an expanded list of armors).

[Chris Rice]

It kinda breaks the cost/benefit dynamic of TFT armour because it gives the same protection as chain mail without the DX penalty. So it makes chainmail redundant unless there is another penalty like cost or availability. Personally I don’t like the idea.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

It kinda breaks the cost/benefit dynamic of TFT armour because it gives the same protection as chain mail without the DX penalty. So it makes chainmail redundant unless there is another penalty like cost or availability. Personally I don’t like the idea.

I don't remember the exact cost that we used but it would have been similar to making a fine version of leather armor. So, it was expensive compared to leather or chainmail. We looked at it in terms of time and materials. Making and adding the studs would be like that.

So, does that make you like it more?

I know fellow that actually makes armor. He also is into gaming. He makes mostly various forms of leather with studs and plates in various styles but are mostly Roman and medievil. He agreed with our approach but failed to see how it would be more expensive than chainmail. He showed me chainmail that he made and it took massive amounts of time. He said that studded leather would take much less time to make but would require more maintenance. He is a long time member of a local SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism) group.

[Shostak]

I don’t see metal studs providing all that much protection over standard leather if an entire seamless coat of fine, interlocking rings beats it by only+1.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I don’t see metal studs providing all that much protection over standard leather if an entire seamless coat of fine, interlocking rings beats it by only+1.

My friend that makes armor actually prefers adding small metal plates to the leather because they are easier to make, attach, and maintain. He said that they do add a little more protection over straight leather without adding enough weight to change the encumbrance factor. So, if someone wants to pay for the extra time, material, and maintenance. I think that I will follow the guidance of someone that has been making armor for over 30 years. It is possible but has some pitfalls.

He makes armor for other SCA members that actively engage in non-blade fighting. Much of the armor that he makes is actually used and maintained. They have minimum armor requirements for safety. This guy is a true craftsman.

The added studs is what we came up with ourselves back in the day but studs was a broader label for metal pieces. If I had know my armor making friend back then, we probably would have called it something different per his recommendation.

Having said all of this, my armorer friend said that he would still rather make either Leather Armor or Chainmail. He wasn't fond of making chainmail because of the making of rings and then intertwining them was very time consuming process. He did make some Roman style 'skirts' (I can't remember their exact name). It was basically worn like a skirt. It was a leather belt with plate metal strips hanging down with flexible leather pleats. They were the bottom part of Roman Breast Plate. Most of the metal that he added to leather armor was ornamental. Usually thin stamped, bronze plated metal that he would stamp artwork into.

So, the addition of such an armor type would be very costly if someone really wanted it. Getting Toughness talent would probably be more easily obtained.

[Shostak]

I thought we were talking about studs. Wouldn't metal plates sewn onto leather be categorized as scale armor? Referencing GURPS, which has a reputation for being pretty well researched, leather armor for the torso weighs in at 10 lbs, scale armor at 15 lbs, and chainmail at 16 lbs. If we use weight as a reference, the scale is closer to chainmail than leather. And if we consider the damage resistence it offers, the scale lies between leather (2) and chain (4) (GURPS provides finer-grained resolution than TFT).

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

My friend that makes armor actually prefers adding small metal plates to the leather because they are easier to make, attach, and maintain. He said that they do add a little more protection over straight leather without adding enough weight to change the encumbrance factor.

This sounds like what would be called Lamellar Armour, which is made with attaching overlapping plates to cloth or leather. Imperial Chinese armies wore the best of these, using bronze plates sewn to leather. Different cultures at different times made Lamellar Armour not just from bronze, but from sea shell, turtle shell, horn, bone, and even pangolin scales (the latter being really expensive and reserved for royalty). What we usually call scale armour is the heir to this design, just made with iron or steel plates. Lamellar could be quite advantageous to wizards.

In TFT Chainmail seems under-priced for all the time and work that really goes into it. Lamellar, or Scale, could readily take it's place in TFT, with Chain kicked up to stopping 4 hits and costing more than it does now.

[David Bofinger]

How does this new form of armour make the game more fun?

Creating a new kind of equipment that's better than what everyone else uses is good for the character who owns it, or the character who is about to kill the boss who is wearing it and take the armour as booty. But the test for whether it's a good idea to include it in TFT should be harsher than that. It should need to make the game more enjoyable, e.g. by making it more tactically interesting, or by allowing a new dimension for characters to vary.

More variety in armour might be fun. You could have armour that was better against certain kinds of attacks, or which blocked any damage roll of 6, or whatever. You could give one kind of armour a greater penalty to DX and a lesser penalty to MA, you could introduce vision penalties. Differences like this might give characters an interesting decision to make. But just making the armour better doesn't do any of these.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

How does this new form of armour make the game more fun?

That wasn't the focus but it seemed fun back in our classic TFT days several years after it went out of print. It gave an option that stopped an extra hit above leather armor without taking in the DX and MA hits of chain mail. It didn't effect the game much because higher levels of armor were still desired. Why do any of us experiment with new ideas in TFT? There is a some amount of fun associated with providing more options, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Creating a new kind of equipment that's better than what everyone else uses is good for the character who owns it, or the character who is about to kill the boss who is wearing it and take the armour as booty. But the test for whether it's a good idea to include it in TFT should be harsher than that. It should need to make the game more enjoyable, e.g. by making it more tactically interesting, or by allowing a new dimension for characters to vary.

For the few times that it did come up, it met your litmus test.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

More variety in armour might be fun. You could have armour that was better against certain kinds of attacks, or which blocked any damage roll of 6, or whatever. You could give one kind of armour a greater penalty to DX and a lesser penalty to MA, you could introduce vision penalties. Differences like this might give characters an interesting decision to make. But just making the armour better doesn't do any of these.

I agree but that was not the intent of this thread.

As I have stated before in this very thread, after starting this thread a long time ago, I started talking about this type of armor with someone that actually makes armor. He was saying the studs on the leather wouldn't be of much benefit other than appearance and it would be costly in time and material. He preferred small plates of metal to achieve the same result of some additional protection. Even then, it faced the same time and material expense. So, you could do it but the cost makes it less practical with respect to the amount of protection it provides. I have not introduced this armor type into my Legacy TFT game. If I were to do so, I would call it Plated Leather or something more correct per my armor making friend's input.