Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage tab

[apoc527]

The simplest fix is to give cutting damage a (.5) AD. Problem solved.

You can go with your more complicated table, but if you don't want to change the ST table (and I get why you don't), I think that single change is the easiest.

But really, if you do this, even if "realistic," it's not going to lead to fun gameplay if you can't hurt anyone in armor. OR it will require immense skill to target chinks or armpits or what have you.

[Rasna]

This system is strictly simulationist and it isn't adequate for fantasy settings or gameplay. It's suited for historical campaigns with a strictly realistic game approach.

Swords aren't anti-armor weapons at all (and they aren't the main weapon for the vast majority of historical warriors during the ages). For a swordsman, the best tactic against an armored opponent is targeting the unprotected areas of his body (anyway in most eras and cultures, full-armored warriors were a minority in the armies). Against a full-armored opponent in a battle situation, the best thing the swordsman could do is sheathe the sword and draw a mace, a warhammer or another weapon suited for fighting armored opponents.

Battleaxes generally don't perform very well against armor, especially for thick metallic armor. Against metallic armor, they're generally better than swords and worse than maces.

Most spears and pikes could pierce through mail only with very strong thrusts and if the mail isn't well-padded and/or it isn't of the sturdiest type.

War bows and crossbows were effective against mail armor at close range, but not against plate armor.

My HRs have the purpose of reproducing this in game.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Rasna

This system is strictly simulationist and it isn't adequate for fantasy settings or gameplay. It's suited for historical campaigns with a strictly realistic game approach.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that fantasy equals over-the-top wackiness. I tend to disagree, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

My ST table, I think, pretty well fixes your concerns. ST 10 swing damage is 1d-1. That is pretty much incapable of cutting through any metallic armor with a broadsword using the Low Tech blunt trauma rule (you can just barely penetrate the lightest metal armors by putting all your force behind it for an All-Out Attack), and can't even hurt someone in medium or heavy plate. I imagine it isn't perfect, but it solves other problems too (notably ST contests) and is very low overhead.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Rasna

This system is strictly simulationist and it isn't adequate for fantasy settings or gameplay. It's suited for historical campaigns with a strictly realistic game approach.

Swords aren't anti-armor weapons at all (and they aren't the main weapon for the vast majority of historical warriors during the ages). For a swordsman, the best tactic against an armored opponent is targeting the unprotected areas of his body (anyway in most eras and cultures, full-armored warriors were a minority in the armies). Against a full-armored opponent in a battle situation, the best thing the swordsman could do is sheathe the sword and draw a mace, a warhammer or another weapon suited for fighting armored opponents.

Battleaxes generally don't perform very well against armor, especially for thick metallic armor. Against metallic armor, they're generally better than swords and worse than maces.

Most spears and pikes could pierce through mail only with very strong thrusts and if the mail isn't well-padded and/or it isn't of the sturdiest type.

War bows and crossbows were effective against mail armor at close range, but not against plate armor.

My HRs have the purpose of reproducing this in game.

Have you looked at my thread here? I am curious what you think because you and I are attempting to do the exact same thing (I think), fix the armor penetration problem with muscle powered weapons without changing the ST table. We also come to some very similar conclusions (though not the same always) about how much things should penetrate armor. However, I think my AD's are a little simpler without losing too much accuracy.

In general it seems to me that my AD's penalize most weapons a little more, but I also have an expanded system of blunt trauma through armor that, perhaps, evens this out a bit.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Rabenrecht

You are somehow implying that a ST 10 creature with a broadsword should deal no damage against someone wearing medium plate.

If so, what is the Basis for this assertion?

Also, see this video at the 36 second mark. If this armor is an accurate model of 15th century armor, then the breastplate should be roughly DR7 according to Loadouts: LT. Notice the guy in armor does not even flinch when the longsword hits him in the chest from what is probably an CA (S) or AoA (S). DR6 plate really should be proof against a broadsword.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by apoc527

The simplest fix is to give cutting damage a (.5) AD. Problem solved.

So you think men with spears should usually pierce armor?

A ST 10 man with a spear held in both hands does 1d+1 damage, or 1d+3 damage on an AoA Strong. The former usually penetrates regular mail. The latter always does.

Why do you imagine armor to be so useless against spears? If the armor was so bad that most attacks penetrated it, then why didn't the men who wore it choose thicker armor?

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

So you think men with spears should usually pierce armor?

A ST 10 man with a spear held in both hands does 1d+1 damage, or 1d+3 damage on an AoA Strong. The former usually penetrates regular mail. The latter always does.

Why do you imagine armor to be so useless against spears? If the armor was so bad that most attacks penetrated it, then why didn't the men who wore it choose thicker armor?

1. Because people died to spears.
2. Because you need a way to hurt opponents in a game.
3. Because against most opponents in most situations against most armor, the game works fine, particularly with a (.5) AD for cutting weapons.
4. Because the quality of armor was highly variable and the force imparted from a sharp point will overcome quite a bit (stab a kitchen knife through a tin can).

But most important for me is point 2. I just don't see how the game plays out if armor is 100% realistic. Unless nobody has armor (which would also be realistic in most eras), but if you do that, what's the point?

The video included in this thread is interesting, but doesn't the (.5) AD largely help with that? ST 11 man has Sw 1d+1, even assuming those are greatswords (which they don't appear to be), that's 1d+4 cut. If that is DR 7 plate, then against the sword attack it's DR 14. 1d+4 isn't getting through DR 14.

Problem solved, no?

[Tomsdad]

I agree AD is the way to go. Or adjusting and splitting DR by damage type which if I really felt inclined would be how I'd do it, but it's functionally the same thing in terms of end result.

Personally my quick fix would be give hand held weapons AD(0.5) and apply edge protection on top of that.

Originally Posted by Anthony

No, really, it can't. There is no solution to the strength damage chart being nonsensical other than changing the strength damage chart.

It depends if you think the ST damage table is inherent nonsensical at the initial basic Sw / Thr damage point, of just has problems when it runs up against DR.

I agree with the later at some points of the scale, but not sure the former is shown.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by apoc527

1. Because people died to spears.

They did, but not necessarily because spears reliably went through the full thickness of their armour (i.e unarmoured location's, or thinner areas of armour)

Originally Posted by apoc527

2. Because you need a way to hurt opponents in a game.

Well that's a game concern rather than relevant to how spears interacted with armour in RL. But even then the system allows you way to deal with armoured opponents. However I take your point, it's just we're now on a different (albeit related) subject.

Originally Posted by apoc527

3. Because against most opponents in most situations against most armor, the game works fine, particularly with a (.5) AD for cutting weapons.

I agree with that to an extent.

Originally Posted by apoc527

4. Because the quality of armor was highly variable and the force imparted from a sharp point will overcome quite a bit (stab a kitchen knife through a tin can).

Well poor quality armour is represented by lower than the norm DR for that type of armour, and tin cans are not armour.

Originally Posted by apoc527

But most important for me is point 2. I just don't see how the game plays out if armor is 100% realistic. Unless nobody has armor (which would also be realistic in most eras), but if you do that, what's the point? ...

Ok well IME such games are work out like this. Armour is a huge advantage, and the most effective ways of dealing with it are fighting in some combination of:

Hitting where it's not (full coverage armour was quite rare historically)
Hitting were it was weak
Fighting in a way that doesn't involve penetrating armour with force

[Rabenrecht]

Originally Posted by Rasna

Physics.

If you manage to bend a 2mm thick good quality breastplate with a broadsword you're a superhero, not a human.

Originally Posted by phayman53

Also, see this video at the 36 second mark. If this armor is an accurate model of 15th century armor, then the breastplate should be roughly DR7 according to Loadouts: LT. Notice the guy in armor does not even flinch when the longsword hits him in the chest from what is probably an CA (S) or AoA (S). DR6 plate really should be proof against a broadsword.

As with many complaints leveled against rules in an RPG System, they stem from the complainers chosen framing. Since rules of game System never model reality and are thus always an abstraction, how you model a specific instance of Action with rules, or conversely how you translate a sequence of game System Code into actual Events depends on your perspective, that is how you Frame Things.

When you look at a Piece of rules and go "man, those rules are stupid" it may very well that those rules are not very good. Or, those rules simply appeared to be bad because of your framing.

Let me illustrate: so you see the Video above and be all like "Man, look how the guy in armor just takes the hit of the sword and there isn't even a dent! But in GURPS a hit of a sword can totatly wound someone wearing such armor. The GRUPS rules are stupid!"
But maybe this is because you choose to model the swordstrike the guy in the Video performs as an actual attack dealing like 1d6+2 damage or so.

Instead, I offer a different perspective. The guy in the Video has absolutely no Intention of harming the guy in armor. This is not what is modeled in GURPS with an attack.
If, on the other Hand, an attack with a sword against someone wearing full plate armor manages to deal damage, the attack landed in a place or way for it is possible to deal damage.
This is contrasted by Targeting Chinks were the atttacker actively tries to circumvent the armor.

I'm not saying that the damage/armor model in GURPS cannot be made better. All I'm saying ís that it may be better then you make it out to be.
Just adjust your framing.