10-08-2012, 06:43 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Quote:
Its unfortunate that we have very little advice on how to attack 16th and 17th century harness with edged weapons on foot. I would have to see it in motion, but I would be inclined to treat long tassets like your example as protecting Thigh Front and Knee Front even if that errs on the side of weight and protection.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
10-08-2012, 07:16 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Quote:
OTOH, I don't really see any harm in allowing a thrusting attack at -8 for the inner thigh. It's harder or as hard as hitting the face past cheekguards and a nasal guard, so it's not unbalancing in any way. If a character can't Parry, Block or Dodge an attack made at -8 skill*, he's either down, stunned, exposing himself something fierce or he's fighting someone good enough to shave him close without even a skin rash during a fight anyway. *And thus 4 points less Deceptive than the equivalent attack at a +0 target, whether that's done by lower Deceptive Attack or Telegraphic Attack.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
10-11-2012, 05:14 AM | #13 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Is the following a reasonble model for a rich mercenary's suit of armour?
Helmet: [Heavy Plate Bassinet (covers Skull and back of head; medium plate hinged visor. Don't actually know how to model a visor that isn't the same as the rest of the helmet, due to the peculiarity of Helmet Weight and Cost being used as the base of modifications to it, rather than using the normal Hit Location and Armour Table.] Gorget: Heavy plate front (covers Neck(F), x0.025). Weight 0.8 lbs.; Cost $40; DR 9. Light plate rear (covers Neck(R), x0.025). Weight 0.2 lbs.; Cost $25; DR 3. Spaulders: Heavy+ segmented plate* (covers Shoulders, x0.1; +1 DR, +6 Weight and +$300 Cost). Weight 3 lbs.; Cost $150; DR 6. Cuirass: Heavy plate breastplate (covers Chest(F), x0.375). Weight 12 lbs.; Cost $1,500; DR 9. Medium plate backplate (covers Chest(R), x0.375). Weight 7.5 lbs.; Cost $937.5; DR 6. Fauld: Heavy+ segmented plate* (covers Abdomen(F), except Groin, x0.1; +1 DR, +6 Weight and +$300 Cost). Weight 3 lbs.; Cost $150; DR 6. Medium segmented plate (covers Abdomen(R), except Groin, x0.1; +1 DR, +6 Weight and +$300 Cost). Weight 2.4 lbs.; Cost $90; DR 4. Tassets: Light segmented plate (covers Thighs(F), x0.225). Weight 2.7 lbs.; Cost $67; DR 3. Vambraces: Light segmented plate (covers Forearms, x0.25). Weight 4 lbs.; Cost $75; DR 3. Total Weight: 35.6 lbs.; Total Cost: $3034.5. (excl. bassinet) *I use Dan's modified weight for segmented plate and scale and his modified cost for mail and plates. Without these, the Armour Table doesn't make much sense and segmented plate goes from being an intergral part of TL4 suits to being poor TL2 armour that inexplicably continued in use.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
10-11-2012, 05:45 AM | #14 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
The area of the inner thigh, as well as other areas not covered by plate, was covered by mail. Plate, even at its peak, could not cover everything - some areas were just mpossible, such as armpits and that small area where the thighs meet at the groin.
So, consider that the areas in question are armored, just not with plate. And mail was pretty good against most weapons - plate was just better.
__________________
The World's Tallest Dwarf |
10-11-2012, 06:10 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Quote:
In any case, irrelevant, as the rules-question needs answering whether or not I choose to use mail to armour any areas left uncovered by plate.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
10-11-2012, 08:21 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Quote:
|
|
10-11-2012, 08:52 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
I would really expect Knee and Elbow coverage, since the tassets are segmented and its not much work to extend them to below the knee. They just make too good targets otherwise, and a bad injury to either can end a career. Upper Arm is debatable ... its not a very good target for edged weapons, but a bullet or arrow there is no fun, so many armours covered it.
I would just work out the cost and weight of the helmet and visor by percentages: the helmet bowl is 25% (Skull, Face Rear) and the visor 5% (Face Front).
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
10-11-2012, 11:54 AM | #18 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Quote:
Then again, I felt that elegance and simplificity was better served by presenting Face protection using the same coverage percentages as all other armour pieces and not a new sub-system.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
10-11-2012, 12:24 PM | #19 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
Quote:
More comfortable, if realistically slightly more expensive, are poleyns (and couters for the elbows). But while an individual warrior might well get himself some of those, they simply aren't standard for all three-quarter plate suits. A lot of the time, comfort seems to have been valued more highly than full body protection. Since musket and pistol shots would penetrate a lot of the thinner pieces of armour anyway, the wearer has already made his peace, in a philosophical way, with the fact that an unlucky hit might kill or cripple him. If he expects to do a lot of melee combat, he might opt for more complete limb protection anyway, reasoning that while he can't stop bullets everywhere, he can still do something about swords. But it appears that not everyone did that. There's also the fact that while knees, elbows and upper arms are unprotected, they aren't easy targets from a distance and in a melee on horseback, the arms are easy to defend with your own weapon while the knees are fairly difficult to reach. The knees are still vulnerable to footmen, of course, but then, even if the tassets were a few inches longer, they would still offer scope for thrusting upwards and under them. Just have to avoid giving someone an opportunity to leisurely murder you while your horse stands still. My experience is that PCs nearly always opt for joint protection, of the maximum level they can get without compromising their ninja climby-crawly skills. NPCs, some of whom may wear their armour month after month without ever getting into a desperate melee, may find that comfortable armour is more important than full-coverage armour. Especially if they're mostly wearing it to make missiles less of a threat. We see that even the best equipped troops on today's battlefield don't cover all of their bodies, even when they know that limb hits, especially hits on complex, fragile joints, may cause them permanent crippling injuries. Even spec-ops entry teams sometimes opt for plastic (to protect from minor dings) over truly ballistic protection over very significant areas (like the skull, but also elbows and knees). Even the most bad-ass warriors spend most of their time doing day-to-day stuff and when your armour is your day-to-day wear, sometimes you make sacrifices for comfort. Quote:
Since it's the same Brim/Visor/whatever, this shouldn't happen. If anything, adding extras to a minimal helmet ought to be slightly heavier and more expensive, to account for the need to securely fasten them with fewer anchor points available. For simplicity and elegance, simply basing weight and cost on the amount of Face* that is covered would seem to be the way to go. *Full coverage is 5% of Torso armour.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
10-11-2012, 12:47 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Re: [LT] Knight field plate harness, three-quarter plate and leg coverage
As a note, knee armor makes for far more comfortable crawling than a lack of knee armor
|
Tags |
armor, historical armor, low-tech, low-tech armor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|