[Low-Tech] Some simple TL1 fantasy armor loadouts

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That's why you have the villain be the one who's wearing a full suit of black plate armor. If you want the arrows to bounce off, you have a cut scene of arrows flying through the air, then a target with a bunch of shattered arrows on the ground around it, probably tromping menacingly through the shards making additional crunching sounds. c.

at this point in time CGI would either be easier, work better or both.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

at this point in time CGI would either be easier, work better or both.

I was just talking about what someone could have done pre-CGI.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Part of the reason i would be surprized to see this done it the implied message "See how good the hero's armor is? He's not really in much danger!". It would be an unusual production that wanted to send that message.

This is the reason why hidden armor tends to be the only type that actually works in movies - particularly as you can be a big dramatic scene of the hero apparently being mortally wounded, but with the hero actually being uninjured (aside from perhaps some blunt trauma). Consider the scene in the Peter Jackson version of The Fellowship of the Rings when Frodo is stabbed; in the book, it's a particularly-large orc (Frodo scared off the troll by stabbing it in the leg when it tried to force its way into the room) and Frodo pretty much immediately gets back up; in the film it's this big, dramatic, slow-motion moment of "Oh no, Frodo's been skewered." Of course, you don't have to make visible armor useless to show the hero in potential danger - there's a short film (really just a bit of build-up and then a big fight scene) on YouTube called "Knight of Hope" that has a fully-armored knight up against a group of bandits. His armor is indeed very effective, but he's clearly in danger. Fight scene starts here. There's even an instance where an arrow (well, crossbow bolt) bounces off his armor, although without slowing down the video it looks more like a miss (it's still hard to make out in slow motion, although it kinda looks like they may have just straight-up thrown the arrow at him, as it appears to be tumbling before it even reaches the armor).

[pawsplay]

Honestly, I think it might have more to do with, pre-CGI, having a scene where most of the arrows bounce off, but one or two stick in. That would be the best looking scene, but doing it practically would be an all-day shot.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Honestly, I think it might have more to do with, pre-CGI, having a scene where most of the arrows bounce off, but one or two stick in. That would be the best looking scene, but doing it practically would be an all-day shot.

But the trope of armour never working is not just in video but also in prose and poetry. Back to the Iliad, stories about combat tend to focus on the occasional effective strikes and not pounding ineffectively on armour. There are a handful of scenes in the Iliad where a weapon penetrates one layer of armour but not others but a lot more "and then he killed ... and ... and ..."

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

But the trope of armour never working is not just in video but also in prose and poetry. Back to the Iliad, stories about combat tend to focus on the occasional effective strikes and not pounding ineffectively on armour. There are a handful of scenes in the Iliad where a weapon penetrates one layer of armour but not others but a lot more "and then he killed ... and ... and ..."

I think people prefer the poetry of slaying to very detailed and accurate accounts of opponents exhausting each other, until they end up on the ground in a big mess and someone uses a weapon on their fallen opponent, repeatedly, until desired results are achieved. As it is, most people think of swords, rather than axes, spears, and maces; most Westerners don't think of Japanese warriors as using axes at all, but they were much more decisive than swords in most pitched battles. And no one likes to talk about daggers.

Swords are associated with people of valor, and so they get the mystique. And people like the tale of the perfect kill shot, a tradition that continues to this day with modern action movies. To actually subdue an enemy to the point where they can no longer provide meaningful resistance is often a bloody mess. Even with firearms, and lightly armored, most shots just aren't instant kills.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Swords are associated with people of valor, and so they get the mystique. And people like the tale of the perfect kill shot, a tradition that continues to this day with modern action movies. To actually subdue an enemy to the point where they can no longer provide meaningful resistance is often a bloody mess. Even with firearms, and lightly armored, most shots just aren't instant kills.

Firearms, like other piercing weapons, have the problem that unless they hit something that's immediately fatal, they are fairly bad at forcing a combatant (or prey, in the case of hunting) to stop fighting/fleeing.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Firearms, like other piercing weapons, have the problem that unless they hit something that's immediately fatal, they are fairly bad at forcing a combatant (or prey, in the case of hunting) to stop fighting/fleeing.

It is the old "edge vs point" debate. The point is more likely to eventually prove fatal but the edge is more likely to immediately incapacitate.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

no one likes to talk about daggers.

.

Steve Jackson made sure that "misericorde" ended up in the Martial Arts weapons glossery even though it's a function of a dagger and not a form of dagger.

There was other talk of daggers in that playtest as well.