PDA

View Full Version : Linothorax [3.5]



Sarco_Phage
2011-04-19, 07:03 PM
Okay, so by now we know* that much of later Greek-era armor was not, in fact, composed of heavy Bronze plate, but rather sheets of treated linen in multiple layers that would, with use, eventually conform to the wearer's body thus providing protective equipment with a certain flexibility to it that nonetheless allowed for a level of protection that defied the idea of the whole "cloth armor" thing; scholars have noted that its protective capabilities against arrows resembled Kevlar in that the material's properties would allow it to spread the force of a blow over a greater area.

So I come to the Homebrew sub-forum to ask: how do we represent this marvelous development in 3.5? Assuming someone is running a campaign set in Bronze-age levels of technology.

*for a given value of "knowledge"

Thomar_of_Uointer
2011-04-20, 10:31 AM
I'd just say it's equivalent to leather or hide armor.

Eldan
2011-04-20, 10:43 AM
It's much more effective than that, though. (Well, unless by leather you mean boiled leather). There's some test videos around online, these things stop an arrow at short distance square on the chest.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 11:25 AM
I'd just say it's equivalent to leather or hide armor.

Not quite, since it'd be effective against threats that would punch right through cuir boulli, layered so that it was essentially plate armor - and yet it wouldn't be as effective against some threats that cuir boulli would stop.

I think my main beef is that I've seen a lot of magic items in DnD that are magic specifically to represent some property the weapon or armor should bloody well have. The stupidest example, and my personal favorite, is the Spear of Impaling. It's a SPEER WHAT CAN IMPALE.

Of course the base system doesn't really provide for resistance to different kinds of attack, just assigning a flat AC and Dex penalty and crimping your move rate...

Eldan
2011-04-20, 11:27 AM
You could put it in the exotic armour category (some books have that. Races of Stone, I think) and make it exotic light or medium armour with increased AC bonus.

Tacitus
2011-04-20, 02:46 PM
Or specifically increased AC against Ranged, or DR against Ranged. Not like either one is all that new to D&D (in the form of armor crystals or protection from arrows for precedence).

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 02:54 PM
It's leather, cloth, or whatever armor.

Armor out of multiple layers of linen wasn't exactly rocket science, was widely used in Europe in 15th century as well.

D&D doesn't represent any armor well, so trying to represent one certain "well" is like extinguishing burning house with a box of milk. :smallwink:

Eldan
2011-04-20, 02:59 PM
Still. See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ERSx1o8wwk

That's some impressive stuff.

lesser_minion
2011-04-20, 03:03 PM
Agreed with Spiryt. This is comparable to armour types that D&D already models.

Giving it special treatment because it's ancient is not a good route to go down.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:05 PM
Agreed with Spiryt. This is comparable to armour types that D&D already models.

Giving it special treatment because it's ancient is not a good route to go down.

It's... actually not. It's a drastically more effective light armor.

Eldan
2011-04-20, 03:06 PM
I'm just saying, it's probably better than D&D's light armour. I'd probably put it in the medium category. Breastplate, maybe?

It could also be a special material: just lighter, nothing much else.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:07 PM
In terms of AC or AC/DR if you're using that variant, would you say chainmail is around that territory? Except for the decreased DEX penalties.

EDIT: I suppose it's technically a Breastplate, except made out of linen.

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 03:08 PM
Still. See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ERSx1o8wwk

That's some impressive stuff.

Can't say I see anything other than the fact that adequate number of layers disperse energy pretty well.

Anyway, too bad that they couldn't afford any more realistic target.


I would also add that AFAIR, data about linothorax is pretty..... Low. They have found few barely recognizable pieces of glued or whatever linen, so any reconstruction is educated guess, even more than many other things from the period.

Eldan
2011-04-20, 03:10 PM
In terms of AC or AC/DR if you're using that variant, would you say chainmail is around that territory? Except for the decreased DEX penalties.

EDIT: I suppose it's technically a Breastplate, except made out of linen.

Eh. Refluffing goes a long way. Most of the time, weight doesn't matter much in D&D, and how often do rules like "you sweat less, because your armour isn't metal" actually come up?

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:13 PM
I would also add that AFAIR, data about linothorax is pretty..... Low. They have found few barely recognizable pieces of glued or whatever linen, so any reconstruction is educated guess, even more than many other things from the period.

Actually, they're basing it not on actual fragments - the fabric armor tends to decay - but on primary sources. Might be a little less reliable, but hey.

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 03:23 PM
I'm just completely not sure why are you're trying to make "normal" armor another "supreme" thing? And what's your comparison?

It's not any "better" or "breastplate only lighter" armor.

Linen armor was used widely, as I mentioned, and widely by people who couldn't afford metal armor.

It was also not really "light" - really solid one (~20 layers of linen) on torso could easily weight more than 10 - 12kg. If it was also glued, or whatever...

In short it's "just" linen armor - classification would depend on number of layers etc.

But it shouldn't be in any way really superior to armors existing in 3.5.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:34 PM
Dude, the OP. Assume Bronze Age levels of technology. Meaning that the linothorax is compared to the coeval breastplates that it replaced.

(Not to mention the fact that DnD's basic leather armor is kind of far from what boiled leather armor really is)

Regardless of that, I'm not looking for Linothorax as, say, superior to chain mail - except relative to the materials and weapons it was coeval with. Would linothorax be a (bronze) breastplate or chain equivalent?

lesser_minion
2011-04-20, 03:45 PM
It's... actually not. It's a drastically more effective light armor.

Incorrect.

This is not the only armour to have been recreated and tested -- poke around for a bit on the ARMA website, and you'll find at least one reference to a cloth gambeson proving virtually impervious to all cuts, for example.

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to regard this as superior to its medieval and renaissance equivalents.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:51 PM
Incorrect.

You're saying DnD leather armor is an accurate model of what Linothorax or a cloth gambeson can do? :smallconfused:

DnD's basic leather armor isn't good armor by any measure. In fact, I think you could argue that it isn't armor.

Eldan
2011-04-20, 03:51 PM
Better than chain? Why would it be? I think that's unlikely.

The Romans adopted chain, and they did beat the Greeks, so...

It's also not light armour. It might be lighter than steel, perhaps, but it's not D&D light.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:53 PM
Better than chain? Why would it be? I think that's unlikely.

The Romans adopted chain, and they did beat the Greeks, so...

Not in terms of protective value, as I think we can agree that the combination of Roman arms and tactics were what allowed them to so effectively stomp the Greek nations.

Would it confer more or less of a max Dex bonus? And also, what about arcane spell failure, and suchlike?

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 03:56 PM
Dude, the OP. Assume Bronze Age levels of technology. Meaning that the linothorax is compared to the coeval breastplates that it replaced.



I've never heard about linothorax replacing any kind of bronze or similar breastplates...

AFAIR bronze, or sometimes steel breastplates were used to the very end of period of independent Greek warfare - well into the Iron Age.



The Romans adopted chain, and they did beat the Greeks, so...

The Celts invented mail, and they were beaten by Romans, so.... :smalltongue:

I just mean that adopting or not "better" or not armor has little to do with someone beating others. It's little part of equation, at most.

Eldan
2011-04-20, 03:57 PM
If there was one thing the Romans were good at it was adopting whatever they thought was good from everyone around them. Hispanic swords, Gallic helmets and armour... if Linothorax offered better protective value at lower weight and didn't need any expensive metal, don't you think they'd have made their own?

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 03:58 PM
I've never heard about linothorax replacing any kind of bronze or similar breastplates...

AFAIR bronze, or sometimes steel breastplates were used to the very end of period of independent Greek warfare - well into the Iron Age.

They were swapped out during Alexander's campaign, I've heard, due to Bronze armor being hotter over time.

I'm not sure if they became standard equipment for hoplite infantry during that period, or if it was just a desert combat thing.



If there was one thing the Romans were good at it was adopting whatever they thought was good from everyone around them. Hispanic swords, Gallic helmets and armour... if Linothorax offered better protective value at lower weight and didn't need any expensive metal, don't you think they'd have made their own?

Hmm, considering the Romans adopted chain around, what, 200 or 300 BC, right? I'd say they didn't find the linothorax superior. So how much lower would it rate than chain mail protectively, you think?

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 04:01 PM
If there was one thing the Romans were good at it was adopting whatever they thought was good from everyone around them. Hispanic swords, Gallic helmets and armour... if Linothorax offered better protective value at lower weight and didn't need any expensive metal, don't you think they'd have made their own?

They could very well had done so.

Because none prevailed till today, we shall never know.


They were swapped out during Alexander's campaign, I've heard, due to Bronze armor being hotter over time.

They were used before and after, in fact AFAIR excavated pieces are much older than Alexander.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:03 PM
OP, I think your problem is that the armors in D&D are, in and of themselves, pretty messed up. I'm sure everyone loves to think of studded leather as a reminder (aka brigandine, which works on a completely different basis than what D&D suggests.)

I like your idea, and think it should be better than, say, a chain shirt (provided it is as good as you describe. It would be nice to see any of the sources to get a better grasp of the details.) But, for this to work, and not seem slightly wonky, you'd be better off rebuilding the armor from scratch (I certainly am tempted to every time I see the armor section in the PHB...)

lesser_minion
2011-04-20, 04:04 PM
You're saying DnD leather armor is an accurate model of what Linothorax or a cloth gambeson can do? :smallconfused:

No, I am not. At no point did I compare linothorax to leather (which you are entirely correct in noting was absolutely no good at all in the form D&D claims it took).

The problem is that giving linothorax better stats than a cloth gambeson entails subscribing to a variant of the same weird disease that makes people think that katanas routinely cut through the armour of battle tanks.

Basically, it's OK to be wrong as long as you're equal opportunities wrong.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 04:10 PM
I like your idea, and think it should be better than, say, a chain shirt (provided it is as good as you describe. It would be nice to see any of the sources to get a better grasp of the details.) But, for this to work, and not seem slightly wonky, you'd be better off rebuilding the armor from scratch (I certainly am tempted to every time I see the armor section in the PHB...)

I think the main problem is that armor, yeah, in DnD, doesn't exactly perform differently against different threats, and important considerations such as weight, mobility et al are only given a barest nod.


But that has nothing to do with the fact that giving linothorax better stats than a cloth gambeson entails subscribing to a variant of the same weird disease that makes people think that katanas routinely cut through the armour of battle tanks.

Ahhh, "padded armor". Well yeah, saying linen armor of the bronze age is somehow inferior to medieval period cloth armor would be silly. But then the problem becomes the fact that DnD's armor stats are kind of wonky. That would mean I'd have to restat the gambeson as well... or would, if that was something that appears in a Bronze Age campaign. Hehe.

EDIT: "Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash." :smallamused:

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 04:10 PM
Hmm, considering the Romans adopted chain around, what, 200 or 300 BC, right? I'd say they didn't find the linothorax superior. So how much lower would it rate than chain mail protectively, you think?

Romans around that time used pectorals, a.k.a pieces of bronze or other metals strapped to the chest. Or mail, or perhaps some scale armors if one could achieve it somehow.

A lot of different armors, and they could have used some cloth armor as well, we may just don't know.

Armors were used, or not, from many different reasons, and it's impossible to rate them as "superior" or not, as in D&D or Age of Empires.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:17 PM
Alright, my question is, how well did the linothorax perform against other weapons of the time, such as a spear or a club? I'm thinking that what you could do, as something of a step in a more nuanced direction, is just have different ACs against different weapon types. For example, the linothorax could perform well against piercing attacks (arrows), but less well against a slashing or blunt attack (mind you, I make no claims as to this is accurate, it is only for demonstration.)

EDIT:
Another thought is to actually work on making armor combinations possible. For example, if you wanted to add the kazargand, it is really just mail with padded armor over it; it should not need its own stats. Although I'm not sure how to make the work without some oddball combinations. Maybe some basis off of ACP and weight, for one?

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 04:26 PM
Alright, my question is, how well did the linothorax perform against other weapons of the time, such as a spear or a club? I'm thinking that what you could do, as something of a step in a more nuanced direction, is just have different ACs against different weapon types. For example, the linothorax could perform well against piercing attacks (arrows), but less well against a slashing or blunt attack (mind you, I make no claims as to this is accurate, it is only for demonstration.)



Still pretty though, some modern experiments suggest that layers of linen indeed resist arrows very well.

Yet against sword (or spear, accordingly) thrust they're not so useful.

Both, obviously, piercing damage under D&D rules. :smallwink:

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:28 PM
And I saw that one coming. Sigh. Perhaps an AC specifically on whether or not the attack was ranged?

... Stupid ballistics getting all up in my fantasy grill! :smalltongue:

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 04:29 PM
Still pretty though, some modern experiments suggest that layers of linen indeed resist arrows very well.

Yet against sword (or spear, accordingly) thrust they're not so useful.

Both, obviously, piercing damage under D&D rules. :smallwink:

I think the general idea is that they were useful at dissipating the force of an arrow, concentrated in a small contact area, over a larger area, preventing it from penetrating. Wouldn't the sword or spear thrust be harder to dissipate? The reasons I'm thinking have to do with the speed and duration of the the thrust. Would the sword or spear user thrust and keep pushing, thus allowing for a prolonged effort of slightly more than an arrow's shot to breach the armor?

EDIT: The idea being that the arrow's force, while greater, is expended immediately. I'm no physicist, so I have no clue.

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 04:33 PM
I think the general idea is that they were useful at dissipating the force of an arrow, concentrated in a small contact area, over a larger area, preventing it from penetrating. Wouldn't the sword or spear thrust be harder to dissipate? The reasons I'm thinking have to do with the speed and duration of the the thrust. Would the sword or spear user thrust and keep pushing, thus allowing for a prolonged effort of slightly more than an arrow's shot to breach the armor?

Sword would be much more massive than arrow.

It would also have human, which is also way more massive than arrow, "behind it".

Even if thrust doesn't have that much energy, it cannot be simply dissipated or deflected like arrow.

I think it's the main reason, pushing or any sort of 'prolonged' effort wouldn't be important, it's not really good way if thrusting anything.

EDIT: More stuff, like sectional density of sword/arrow etc. would be also important and all, but the main difference is arrow being ~ 50 g object moving trough the air. And sword being ~ 1000 g object with 80 kg of human moving together.

Eldan
2011-04-20, 04:36 PM
This is, however, really getting too complicated for the D&D system. THis is, after all, the same system where a blow either deals full or no damage, depending on whether you get "hit". A fist hurts less often, but still causes the same damage to a guy in plate.

And, well. D&D armours are already supposed to be layered. Plate already has chain and padding included.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:37 PM
Now, the OP did say that the linothorax is layered enough times that it contours to the body. Would this in any way mean it could attempt to redirect the thrust, like a suit of plate would?

EDIT:


This is, however, really getting too complicated for the D&D system. THis is, after all, the same system where a blow either deals full or no damage, depending on whether you get "hit". A fist hurts less often, but still causes the same damage to a guy in plate.

And, well. D&D armours are already supposed to be layered. Plate already has chain and padding included.

Very true, although one could argue that the damage roll is attempting to reflect to what degree the "full blow" was mitigated by the defender as much as the attacker's own efforts (which would not contradict DR in any way. Nope. None. :smalltongue:) However, that does not mean that we cannot look into smaller changes that work within the framework already given; I'm not even proposing changing armor from using AC, just that AC applies to different attack types. I always thought that the attack types were fairly trivial outside of a few situations anyways...

As for the latter, good point, and I was thinking of how to get around that. If nothing else, you could just create another armor to reflect more layers, but I do wonder how consistently the idea of the ACs combining is applied...

lesser_minion
2011-04-20, 04:39 PM
EDIT: "Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash." :smallamused:

*twitch* *brutally eviscerates in a wild frenzy with a rusty butter knife*

Now, where were we? Oh yes.

Rusty butter knives are underpowered in D&D.

Thatís it. Iím sick of all this ďImprovised daggerĒ crap thatís going on in the d20 system right now. Rusty butter knives deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what Iím talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine rusty butter knife in Tescos for £0.20 (thatís about $0.35) and have been practising with it for almost 2 years now. I can even spread slabs of solid steel with my rusty butter knife.

Chinese factory workers spend seconds working on a single rusty butter knife and test it up to 0.01 times to produce the finest kitchen utensils known to mankind.

Rusty butter knives are thrice as sharp as katanas and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a katana can cut through, a rusty butter knife can cut through better. Iím pretty sure a rusty butter knife could easily eviscerate a katana fanboy wearing full o-yoroi with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why the katana fanboys never bothered conquering the rest of the world? Thatís right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined sandwich makers and their rusty butter knives of destruction. Even in World War II, soldiers targeted the men with the rusty butter knives first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Rusty butter knives are simply the best kitchen utensil that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for rusty butter knives:

(Light Simple Weapon) 1d12 Slashing and Bludgeoning; 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage; All attacks inflict poison (Injury; DC40; initial and secondary damage 2d6 Con) and disease (Enhanced Filth Fever; Injury DC 32; Incubation 1 day; Damage d10 Str and d10 Con; no recovery by successful saves)
(One-handed Simple Weapon) 2d10 Slashing and Bludgeoning; 17-20 x4 Crit; All attacks inflict poison (Injury; DC40; initial and secondary damage 2d6 Con) and disease (Enhanced Filth Fever; Injury DC 32; Incubation 1 day; Damage d10 Str and d10 Con; no recovery by successful saves)

Now that seems a lot more representative of the spreading power of rusty butter knives in real life, donít you think?
tl;dr = Rusty butter knives need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

On-topic, if you're only interested in the classical era, then yes, you're probably going to be messing around with all of the armours. I'd say it would be fair to give it maybe as high as a +5 armour bonus, assuming that you're keeping the pattern that the best mundane armour available is around +8.

Spiryt
2011-04-20, 04:44 PM
Now I know why butter on roasted trout becomes so deliciously brown here and there, and all.

Chief is using venerable rusty knife.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:45 PM
*twitch* *brutally eviscerates in a wild frenzy with a rusty butter knife*

Now, where were we? Oh yes.

Rusty butter knives are underpowered in D&D.

Thatís it. Iím sick of all this ďImprovised daggerĒ crap thatís going on in the d20 system right now. Rusty butter knives deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what Iím talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine rusty butter knife in Tescos for £0.20 (thatís about $0.35) and have been practising with it for almost 2 years now. I can even spread slabs of solid steel with my rusty butter knife.

Chinese factory workers spend seconds working on a single rusty butter knife and test it up to 0.01 times to produce the finest kitchen utensils known to mankind.

Rusty butter knives are thrice as sharp as katanas and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a katana can cut through, a rusty butter knife can cut through better. Iím pretty sure a rusty butter knife could easily eviscerate a katana fanboy wearing full o-yoroi with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why the katana fanboys never bothered conquering the rest of the world? Thatís right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined sandwich makers and their rusty butter knives of destruction. Even in World War II, soldiers targeted the men with the rusty butter knives first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Rusty butter knives are simply the best kitchen utensil that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for rusty butter knives:

(Light Simple Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(One-handed Simple Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the spreading power of rusty butter knives in real life, donít you think?
tl;dr = Rusty butter knives need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

Clearly, the rust butter knife is going to leave a terrible unclean wound, and should thus deal some kind of damage overtime! :smallwink:

Eldan
2011-04-20, 04:51 PM
Fanboy disease. It deals wisdom damage and gives you a shout attack that deals intelligence damage and has a chance to stun.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:52 PM
Fanboy disease. It deals wisdom damage and gives you a shout attack that deals intelligence damage and has a chance to stun.

However, if two opponents shout in quick sucession, it causes flames to erupt between them,which rise as the shouting continues and drag others into the fight.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 04:53 PM
*twitch* *brutally eviscerates in a wild frenzy with a rusty butter knife*

Now, where were we? Oh yes.

Linothorax is underpowered in D&D.

Thatís it. Iím sick of all this ďpadded armor equivalentĒ crap thatís going on in the d20 system right now. Linothorax deserves much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what Iím talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine linothorax in Macedon for 3000 drachma (thatís about $12.50) and have been practising with it for almost 2 years now. I can even deflect slabs of solid medieval longsword with my linothorax.

Greek armorsmiths spend hours working on a linothorax and fold it up to 1000 times to create the finest linen armor known to mankind.

Linothoraxes are thrice as tough as gambesons and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a gambeson can protect against, a linothorax can protect against better. Iím pretty sure a linothorax could easily prevent you from being eviscerated by a longsword with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why the Persians never bothered conquering the rest of the world? Thatís right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Macedonian army and their linothoraxes of destruction. Even in the Macedonian war, soldiers targeted the men with the linothoraxes first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Linothoraxes are simply the best body armor that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for linothoraxes:

(Medium Armor) +10 to AC, DR 20, max Dex 8, max speed 40 ft, 2 lb.

Now that seems a lot more representative of the blocking power of linothoraxes in real life, donít you think?
tl;dr = linothoraxes need to protect better, see my new stat block.

True story. They're that effective and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a gambeson fanboy with a bias.:smalltongue:

Daverin
2011-04-20, 04:58 PM
Right...

So, here is a very wild stab at a linothorax; it will be padded armor, but with the AC changed to so:

Piercing AC: +1

Slashing AC: +3 (it sounds like it would still turn a few blows better than leather, if nothing else...)

Blunt AC: +2 or +3 (If it is alot of linen, it might soften the blow?)

Ranged AC bonus: +2

This probably is not even close to doing it right, but here is where my thoughts were going nonetheless. Suffice it to say, probably would be odd if used with only vanilla armor.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 05:06 PM
Yeah, if I'm gonna try and run a bronze-age type campaign I'd have to restat the other armors as well (not that too many would be available, but ah well).

EDIT: Hmm, your stats are very usable, but I'd probably feel the need to incorporate the variant "armor as DR" rules at some point, hehe.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 05:14 PM
Honestly, that probably is not a bad idea. Especially if the armor is based more on absorbing the impact than deflecting or redirecting the blow (or that might just be me; I have this specific idea of the difference between the two as far as armor goes.)

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 05:18 PM
Thinking about it a little, we've got a longsword that deals 1d8 damage, right? Let's assume that the 1 to the 8 represents the "cleanness" of the hit, with a 1 being basically a glancing blow and an 8 being a solid clean hit.

So if I go with DR partly, then a piece of armor that can stop a 1, a glancing blow from a sword (regardless of STR bonuses at first) but not anything more "solid" than that would be a DR 1 armor (say, a leather jacket or something). A piece of armor that can solidly stop an 8, a clean hit from a sword, would be a DR 8 armor. But then things like armor damage would have to be worked in...

Daverin
2011-04-20, 05:26 PM
That is also a good way of looking at it. Although, how would this interact with things like being flat footed and touch attack, since those use effects on AC (although if I understand correctly, most abilities that would involve touch attacks would not be affected by DR anyways...)

lesser_minion
2011-04-20, 05:28 PM
Armour as DR has some problems of its own, but you might be able to work around them -- in short, it's just not easy to make it worth the effort.


True story. They're that effective and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a gambeson fanboy with a bias.:smalltongue:

Cannot... resist...

Leather is overpowered in D&D

That's it. I'm sick of all this "+2 armour bonus to AC" crap that's going on in d20 right now. Leather armour deserves much worse than that. Much, much worse than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine suit of leather armour in Tewkesbury for £30 (that's about $50) and have been practising with it for almost 2 years now. I am even injured by a midge sneezing while wearing my suit of leather armour.

English tanners spend years working on a single suit of leather armour and add hot water and dog faeces to produce the weakest suits of armour known to mankind.

Cloth gambesons are thrice as hard as leather armour and thrice as sharp too. Anything a suit of leather armour can deflect ain't gonna be much. I'm pretty sure a midge can brutally dismember a leather armoured soldier with a simple vertical sneeze.

Ever wonder why guys in leather armour never bothered to conquer medieval England? That's right, they were afraid of the disciplined midges and their sneezes of destruction.

So what am I saying? Leather armour is simply the worst armour the world has ever seen, and thus, requires worse stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for leather armour:

-30 AC, +0 max dex bonus, -10 armour check penalty, 75% arcane spell failure, take triple damage from all attacks.

Now that seems a lot more representative of the protective power of leather armour in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Leather armour needs to absorb less damage in d20, see my new stat block.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-20, 05:32 PM
I need to think of one of those for Roman chain mail now....


Armour as DR has some problems of its own, but you might be able to work around them -- in short, it's just not easy to make it worth the effort.


It does make low-magic games a lot more survivable, though, which is always a plus. Doing an Arthurian or Bronze Age style campaign in 3.5 E6, for example, DR = armor is appropriate and makes things a bit easier on the whole rerolling business.

I need to figure out how armor damage would work, though. Probably based on the already in-place HP and Hardness systems...

---

Well, touch attacks are against your base armor, which is 10 for a medium critter + your Dex bonus (gets lower the bigger you are and higher the smaller you are). Touch attacks ignore AC that isn't dodginess-based entirely, so it's literally based on how hard you are to touch. For example, to touch attack a Great Wyrm Dragon, you only need to beat AC 6.

Being flat footed denies you your Dex bonus to armor, on the other hand, but still takes into account your other bonuses.

So using Armor = DR won't really change those things too much.

Daverin
2011-04-20, 05:41 PM
It may not be that much effort; the biggest things I see are providing separate levels of defenses for separate kinds of attack, a way for weight to factor in better (or just make sure the ACP, max dex, and speed are attuned appropriately), and maybe actual effects based on the armor. It does not need to be some massive overhaul of the system so much as making the separate armors more nuanced. At least I wouldn't think it would be that much effort...

And the reason I see DR as being a problem is that it makes flat-footed at the least kind of a non-deal, at least as an advantage to breaking past defenses. Although either way the armor's effects are intact, with DR it means the AC probably does not matter anymore (at least for non-dodgy types...)

Actually, looking at it further, it probably is a non-deal. I saw DR as reducing the advantages of flatfooted, since DR will be in play either way, while having AC reduced in any way ultimately reduces defense in general. But really, since the same people will get high dodging ac as before, and the same people get the same benefits from heavier armors, it ultimately probably is not going to change all that much.