Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. XIV

[Rhynn]

Tried out Blade of the Iron Throne? TRoS successor, by the same company. I was considering getting it.

Nope, I could never find any useful information on their (really weirdly designed) website (that won't even fit in my regular browser without losing things apparently). I missed the beta, and honestly, nothing I did read caught my interest: it looked like they were focusing on narrativism, and the first word they use to describe the combat system if "cinematic." Besides, I've already got TROS. Not going to support the KS.

Seriously, though, their website is horrible. The Twitter feed isn't working, I can't tell if the front page updates are from this year or one year ago, there's a giant lack of links (none in the Forum and Publishing Schedule at the bottom, etc.)...

Actually, having dug out the 35-page sample PDF... the graphic design is awful and cluttered (colored backgrounds should be a crime; I'll bet the example character sheet won't be B&W either), the base attributes names are gimmicky, character creation is already narrativist in ways I don't like (e.g. no two PCs can have 9, the top score, in the same attribute or skill), and you don't get even a whiff of the combat system, which seriously was the main draw of TROS. (And enough of a one, even given that the rest of a system was just fine but nothing special.)

Er, actually, I'm confused - is the game out? Their website gave me the impression they're starting a Kickstarter for it soon, but that was a year old, and it's been funded since last April... and the game seems to appear on DriveThruRPG so I guess it's done? Man, they should probably update their website, the first thing that shows up when you Google "Blade of the Iron Throne," to reflect the situation.

edit: Apparently, BotIT uses d12 dice pools, and your pool can be 10+ dice. I'm not sure I even have enough d12s for that game! /edit

I'll have to get Harn Master first, I figure.

Be aware that there are many editions, and everyone's got their favorite. 3rd and Gold are parallel, rather than one following the other; they've got some differences but are pretty compatible. On balance, 3rd edition is simpler and more straightforward, Gold is more detailed with more optional rules and fiddliness.


Uh, this should all probably go in a different thread somewhere, though, because this is at best tangentially related to a thread that is specifically not about games but about real-world matters... sorry!

[Stephen_E]

Rolemaster should probably get a honourable mention for realistic combat system as well.

Never quite worked right but still pretty good. And I'll never forget the critical failure when wielding a 2H Sword - You lose control and overbalance resulting in doing the splits with a high chance of ripping most of your groin muscles. Opponent has a 50% chance of been incapacitated for 1-4 rounds with laughter.

[Mr. Mask]

Thanks for the advice. I'm working out which RPGs I should give another study before I start recruiting playtesters.

It is a pity about BotIT. It seems like it has some good points. I'll make sure to get the gold edition of Harn, since optional rules and the like are of interest to me.



To make this relevant to the thread, I would like to ask if there is anything you can think of which is unfortunately lacking in TTRPGs, in relation to real combat, weapons, armour, etc.?

[Incanur]

I can see why folks like TRoS. I've never run it, but I looked through the main book a while back. I didn't like how much of a plenty armor gave, some of the specific relative advantages between weapons, the emphasis on initiative, and the whole pain/shock part of the wound system. As George Silver wrote, "the thrust being made through the hand, arm, or leg, or in many places of the body and face, are not deadly, neither are they maims, or loss of limbs or life, neither is he much hindered for the time in his fight, as long as the blood is hot." But of course TRoS comes out of the Liechtenauer school, not Silver's system, which doesn't place the same importance on initiative.

[Mr. Mask]

Having read and tested TRoS, I will point out it has its flaws.

It is very hard to hurt people with weapons without a very solid strike even when they do not wear armour. It is largely due to the fact there is a toughness stat, that can give you an armour rating rivalling or possibly exceeding plate armour (a fix would be to limit the players to practically no toughness).

The bleeding rates didn't seem correct, but I can't comment with certainty as it has been too long since I tried them.

Armour had a penalty, but it was much too severe. They did move to fix this in an expansion, I will mention.

If I examined the book again, I could name other issues, largely minor ones. It does do an good job in many ways, I must say.

[Deffers]

OK, I've got a question.

Rapiers are thrusting swords, right? You're supposed to essentially stab with them, correct? So how damaging would one be if you tried to slash with one instead? Would it pretty much do nothing or just be seriously subpar for the job?

What about side swords? These intrigue me, since what little I've read about them paint them as a predecessor to the rapier but with more capability for cutting and slashing. I was wondering if anybody had enough experience, either personal or from knowing more about swords than me, to clarify as to how effective side swords were at slashing and thrusting?

[Mike_G]

OK, I've got a question.

Rapiers are thrusting swords, right? You're supposed to essentially stab with them, correct? So how damaging would one be if you tried to slash with one instead? Would it pretty much do nothing or just be seriously subpar for the job?

What about side swords? These intrigue me, since what little I've read about them paint them as a predecessor to the rapier but with more capability for cutting and slashing. I was wondering if anybody had enough experience, either personal or from knowing more about swords than me, to clarify as to how effective side swords were at slashing and thrusting?

The answer is "it depends."

Lot of things fall under the category of rapier, and many of these had some kind of edge. The blade is better at thrusting, but would still cut. True point only swords aren't really rapiers.

Side swords tend to include shorter broader blades that would be better at cutting than rapiers, but still balanced for thrusting.

The thing is, within categories, there is just a ton of variation. We pretty much are force to speak in generalities.

[Rhynn]

Having read and tested TRoS, I will point out it has its flaws.

It is very hard to hurt people with weapons without a very solid strike even when they do not wear armour. It is largely due to the fact there is a toughness stat, that can give you an armour rating rivalling or possibly exceeding plate armour (a fix would be to limit the players to practically no toughness).

You need the Companion; the designers acknowledge the Naked Dwarf problem (they even used the WFRP term!), and suggest a few different fixes. (Most are honestly too complicated for me, for too small of a problem.)

Generally, though, I don't concur with you there at all. Unarmored combatants are going to get destroyed, fast. The thing is that a margin of success of 1-2 isn't a very good hit. The game is about tactics: you can't just go in with Cuts and Thrusts, you need to use maneuvers that deplete your opponent's dice pool and then land a good attack. A 6-dice attack that they can't defend against will probably hurt them badly, and then they'll be easier to hurt next round (possibly entirely defenseless, meaning they'll die).

Feints, counters, and so on are essential. This is why I find the game so awesome, largely: it's actually fun to play combat in it. D&D 3E/4E combat is a terrible, boring, grueling slog of repetition. TROS combat is tactical and interesting - you have to try to out-think, out-guess, and out-maneuver your opponent.

This is why my personal favorite weapon/style in TROS is longsword: it's awesomely versatile, and Counter is a great defense. Opponent attacks -> stabbed in the face! (And winding & binding from TFOB is fun.)

This is even more true for heavily armored fighters, who need to strike some kind of staggering blow or knock their opponent down in order to get a good hit in and deal real damage.

The bleeding rates didn't seem correct, but I can't comment with certainty as it has been too long since I tried them.

Couldn't say. It just amounts to "you might bleed to death during a fight if you get hurt badly enough." Sounds accurate enough for me.

Armour had a penalty, but it was much too severe. They did move to fix this in an expansion, I will mention.

Yep, The Flower of Battle is a must, the armor rules are much better.

OK, I've got a question.

AFAIK, most (edged) rapiers would slice/slash all right (it takes perhaps surprisingly little force to cut unprotected flesh wide open), but they wouldn't really hew through bones the way broaded swords would, lacking the mass in the blade. Some rapiers definitely were use for cuts - it doesn't matter that it's not the best attack overall, sometimes it's the best (or the only) attack you can make.

Side-swords have somewhat wider, heavier blades, generally, so they'd probably do a better job at cutting deeper. I'm not sure how well they'd hew through limbs, though - that's definitely something I have zero experience in. I was a little surprised that the gladius, for instance, was reckoned a terrible limb-lopping sword (arms and legs both), but I guess it really does come down to blade width and weight.

[Incanur]

It depends what you mean by a rapier or a side sword. The latter is a particularly troublesome term. The rapier as taught by Salvator Fabris and various other Italian masters could cut rather well. The late Elizabethan rapier described by Joseph Swetnam, on the other hand, had less cutting ability. If by side sword you mean the sword used by Bolognese masters, then it was a little shorter and more substantial than the kind of sword used by Fabris.

As far as The Riddle of Steel goes, if you care about realism - another dubious term but I think you know what I mean here - then I recommend rewriting the wounding table. Eliminating the pain penalty completely - at least for characters with decent willpower - would be a good start. Reducing shock, especially for thrusts, would be the next step. Thrusts to the belly or lungs should impose only a minimal penalty or none at all. And even a pierced heart could often allow ten or more seconds of activity before collapse. Even thrusts to head doesn't necessarily cause immediate incapacitation. Also, bleeding out from lung and belly thrusts generally takes a while. Even thrusts to the heart, major vessels, etc. can take minutes to incapacitate. See The Dubious Quick Kill parts one and two.

The Flower of Battle updated armor penalties are much better but still a bit heavy for my taste. For example, I don't think mail sleeves merit -0.5 CP and -0.5 move.

[Mr. Mask]

Deffers: Well, knives tend to do a lousy job for slashing at reach because they aren't weighted for it. So, it depends on how well the rapier is weighted for slashes. You could till stab into someone and then cut out. Or you could slice them.

That being said for use, not for damage potential. A good slash with a rapier will inflict a disturbing wound (even though George Silver puts them on the level of sticking fowl, they are still swords).



TRoS: Naked dwarf? That is either the most interesting or most horrifying problem I've come across.

Hmm... I was going to dispute the results. However, I feel the RPG I've been working on would be a better argument. Even if I can show TRoS doesn't do the best job, what right have I to complain if I can't do a better one?

[Rhynn]

TRoS: Naked dwarf? That is either the most interesting or most horrifying problem I've come across.

It's Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay term, originally from 1st edition, not as present in second. Basically, Strength and Toughness worked the same way as in TROS: Strength directly increases damage, Toughness directly reduces. Armor works like more Toughness, and weapons can modify damage. Humans had Toughness 2-4 to start, 3 being the average. Dwarves averaged 4 IIRC, and could get 5, maybe 6 at the start (I forget the specifics by now), and then increase it by 1 as their first career advancement... I think 1E capped S/T advancements at +4, so they'd top out at T 10 or so. Armor, though, only reduced damage by 1 by default (I think the heaviest mail + plate may have gotten to 3, without magic). So, a fairly hardy and naked dwarf could be more impervious to hurt than a normal man in full plate armor.

Even if I can show TRoS doesn't do the best job, what right have I to complain if I can't do a better one?

If that logic held, none of us could express negative opinions on pretty much anything. I've always found it a petulant and empty defense of something you don't want to hear criticized, myself.

Just pointing out a RPG that works better is more than sufficient, IMO. My top two, out of dozens (honestly, probably more than 100 by now) are HârnMaster and The Riddle of Steel, as far as realistic and playable combat goes. Both are quick, simple, and easy, and require manageable amounts of tables. I've run Tablemaster Rolemaster for years and years, and it doesn't compare. Neither does any edition of RuneQuest, really. But both systems have other advantages that make them worth playing.

Certainly, it's possible to construct a more realistic system, but constructing a more elegant one with that level of verisimilitude? Highly unlikely.

[Deffers]

Woah, so rapiers had a blade that was, like, 40 inches long? Holy hell. That's some reach. I guess since it's not meant to, say, pierce armor, they could make a sword thin enough to both weigh two/three pounds and be forty inches long. Damn.

How much shorter would a side sword be?

EDIT: Speaking generally, of course.

[Mr. Mask]

Rhynn: Hard enough to get it real without the elegance, but I'm gunning for both. You should look at the testing thread when it's up, it might be worthy of your RPG collection.


Deffers: I'm not sure where the idea of rapiers being anti-armour weapons came from. Possibly from stiletto blades or something.

[Deffers]

Mr. Mask: I'm actually saying it's NOT something a rapier would be used for, hence it'd be so thin and also forty inches long. Like, an estoc is a super-pointy thrusting blade, but you use it on armor, and it's quite thick at the base, at least in comparison to a rapier.

Generally, thrusting swords get a reputation as anti-armor weapons in general. Though that's probably not accurate at all.

[Mr. Mask]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that you were saying that. Just commenting on that myth since you brought it up.

And yeah, thrusting blades aren't really anti-armour. Daggers sort of are, but that's more about opening your opponent's visor and removing eyes and brain matter then penetrating armour.

[Incanur]

Speaking of how armor works in TRoS, that's another problem. You can wound through a breastplate (or whatever) with a sword (or whatever) just by rolling enough successes. Realistically, a 2+mm breastplate of the best hardened steel basically says no to muscle powered attacks up to and including the couched lance. Maybe somebody extremely strong could pierce a good breastplate with a couched lance or - less likely - with a two-handed staff weapon point, but that's about as far as it goes.

Looking at it in terms of kinetic energy sheds light on the problem. In TRoS, toughness (TO) is often around 4-5 while plate gives armor value (AV) 6. By contrast, in our reality inflicting a fatal wound with a sharp point takes something like 1-3 J against flesh - more against bone - versus at least 300 J against 2mm hardened steel and light padding. Your average human underarm knife stab according to modern tests delivers about 20-40 J. So defeating 2mm hardened steel with a dagger thrust would require being about ten times stronger than the average person.

It's funny that TRoS goes to all the trouble of called shots and detailed hit locations yet still allows you to penetrate a breastplate with a dagger.

[Mr. Mask]

All I'll criticise about TRoS for now is to agree that Incanur has touched on one of the major points. They needed to look at more accounts of muggings, knife victims, etc..

[AgentPaper]

Speaking of how armor works in TRoS, that's another problem. You can wound through a breastplate (or whatever) with a sword (or whatever) just by rolling enough successes. Realistically, a 2+mm breastplate of the best hardened steel basically says no to muscle powered attacks up to and including the couched lance. Maybe somebody extremely strong could pierce a good breastplate with a couched lance or - less likely - with a two-handed staff weapon point, but that's about as far as it goes.

If you score a direct hit with a couched lance, strength doesn't come into it, it's the weight of the horse, the speed you're moving at, and where you hit them that matters. A warhorse charging at full speed that hits you square is going to do some serious damage, even if the armor can technically survive it. You don't need to pierce armor to deal damage through it, after all.

A sufficiently strong man with a decent sword isn't going to do as well as the couched lance, but it could still cause some injury if you hit them just right and your weapon is fairly strong. The system may also be representing you defeating the armor through other means, such as hitting into joints or other vulnerable areas.

[Incanur]

Woah, so rapiers had a blade that was, like, 40 inches long?

Jospeh Swetnam recommended a rapier of at least four feet. This most likely refers to the blade, as that's how folks tended to measure swords at the time and we've got extant of rapiers with even longer blades, but even if conservatively we read it as the entire length of the raper you still get a blade of 42-43 inches. George Silver wrote that many rapiers had 42+-inch blades. He suggested 37 inches of blade for his short sword for a man of average height, which only qualifies as a short sword because of how popular long rapiers were during the period.

Holy hell. That's some reach.

Yep. What I want to know is how you quickly draw a sword with a 42+in blade. I'm not sure it's possible. Various 16th-century military writers wrote that sword blades much longer than 36in became difficult and slow to draw.

How much shorter would a side sword be?

I don't really know what this means. "Rapier" is at least a period term.

If you score a direct hit with a couched lance, strength doesn't come into it, it's the weight of the horse, the speed you're moving at, and where you hit them that matters.

This is a common misconception. To arthe contry, strength is crucial for delivering energy with a couched lance.

A warhorse charging at full speed that hits you square is going to do some serious damage, even if the armor can technically survive it. You don't need to pierce armor to deal damage through it, after all.

Probably true, but both Fourquvaux (1548) and Francois de la Noue (1587) considered the lance ineffective against armor. Fourquevaux specifically instructed the men-at-arms of his ideal army to avoid targeting their opposing counterparts with the lance but instead aim for their unarmored horses. (Fourquevaux wanted considerable barding for the horses of his own men-at-arms.) On the other hand, an Iberian jousting manual from the same period instructs readers to aim for the belly should they find themselves in battle but also notes the possibility of going for the horse. And Sir Roger Williams in the 1590s wrote glowingly about the lance, though he didn't specifically address with it could pierce armor.

Of course, do note that by the time de la Noue and Williams wrote armor had gotten rather thicker and heavier to resist guns. The couched lance may have done better against breastplates in the 15th century.

The system may also be representing you defeating the armor through other means, such as hitting into joints or other vulnerable areas.

As I mentioned, TRoS has elaborate hit locations. And a breastplate doesn't have joints. It's just a shaped piece of metal.

[Deffers]

Jospeh Swetnam recommended a rapier of at least four feet.

WHAT? Jeez, just get a spear. Like you said-- how're you supposed to unsheath that? At that point you may as well just carry it around all the time.

Also, fun fact: Side sword is a period term. Spada de lato!

[Twixman]

Hello all. I just need some help on armour effectiveness in the real world. I have looked all over the web and it contradicts each other at times. If anyone knows any good sites to look at how medieval armour is effective against certain types of damage would be real swell. And if you know just telling me here would be awesome as well.
The three types of damages being slashing, piercing and bludgeoning. The armours I want to know are;
Leather
Studded Leather
Scalemail
Chainmail
Plate and Mail
Full Plate (The fully armoured, gothic knight sorta stuff)
And Lamellor
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks

[Incanur]

Also, fun fact: Side sword is a period term. Spada de lato!

I've read otherwise, that spada da lato just referred to a sword at the side rather than any specific kind of sword.

[Mr. Mask]

Twix: I'll give you a list of armours.


Textile (padded cloth, etc.)
Cuir bouilli (Boiled leather, usually used with mail--there might have been some case it was used on its own)
Leather hide coats (these were worn much later to slow bullets, and there is one account of such a garment being worn by an early Laird)
Scale (metal or leather plates sewn to a cloth or leather garment)
Mail
Lamellar (either metal, or lacquered leather)
Coat of plates (metal plates inside a coat)
Laminar (It's what the Romans wear in Asterix and Obelix)
Plate harness, articulated plate, fluted plate, etc.


That's a very basic overview of armours. I can tell you a bit more about a given armour, but explaining it all generally would take a long time.

Making a game?

[Twixman]

At Mr Mask
I just want to know what some armours effectiveness against different types of damage. I dont know much is all. Chainmail good against slash, alright against piercing and not so good against bludgeon (my guesses) is all I really need.
I am just doing up some stuff on weapons and armour in my Unisystem games that are set in a fantasy/medieval setting and just want to add some depth to combat.

[Mr. Mask]

Mail is nearly always worn with padding, so it actually does fine against bludgeoning. Bludgeoning weapons tend to be better against armour in general, though.

Same for other armours, the differences from damage type tend to be minute or not there, with a few exceptions.

[Twixman]

Hehe. Thanks for the info. I want some accuracy but atm I want flavour to be there. I want choice of armour to be more tactical than "this armour protects me more so I will take that". Anyway, thanks for the help Mr Mask. And thanks for telling me about more armours, I love variety

[Mr. Mask]

I've heard that theory, but I've never seen it used successfully. Unless your enemies use almost solely one type of weapon for an extended period of time, you can't justify buying the armour good against that type.

[Brother Oni]

I've heard that theory, but I've never seen it used successfully. Unless your enemies use almost solely one type of weapon for an extended period of time, you can't justify buying the armour good against that type.

Actually there are reports of armour adapting to account for the enemy's weapons. The imported tameshi gusoku breastplate of samurai armour against matchlocks is a good example, as is the thicker spalders/pauldrons of late medieval Mongolian armour (samurai were very fond of the downwards strike with the katana).

Often though, it boiled down to cost - the soldier wore whatever they could afford/find/scavenge or what their lord could provide.

Edit: I think Twixman may be labouring under the misconception that all armours were available during all periods. In reality different armours were available at different times as technological and industrial advancements made them either viable or obsolete, so often it was 'this armour was worn as it gave the best protection against everything'.

[Rhynn]

As I mentioned, TRoS has elaborate hit locations. And a breastplate doesn't have joints. It's just a shaped piece of metal.

Yeah, that's like the one complaint I have: sometimes, the tables tell you you've e.g. cut a location that is covered by metal armor. IMO this just means you have to do some interpretation of the table results (same as Rolemaster, or really any game with such a table). TROS still stands head and shoulders above basically all other RPGs, though; most of the contenders, like Rolemaster and RuneQuest, have the exact same problem.

HârnMaster does better (HM Gold, anyway), in that there's rules for armor turning cutting and puncturing strikes into bruises. HM combat is just less tactically interesting. (But it's fast and simple, which is the other good thing to be: either so fast it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the game, or so interesting you don't mind spending time on it.)

Actually, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World does the same thing as HMG: mail armor turns cuts into bruises, and plate armor turns cuts and punctures into bruises; unless you get a critical hit. (A sword being thrust through plate armor is still unrealistic on a crit, but this is a setting where magic allows people to legit be strong enough to shear an armored person in two with a sword, etc., so whatever.)

[Mike_G]

Actually, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World does the same thing as HMG: mail armor turns cuts into bruises, and plate armor turns cuts and punctures into bruises; unless you get a critical hit. (A sword being thrust through plate armor is still unrealistic on a crit, but this is a setting where magic allows people to legit be strong enough to shear an armored person in two with a sword, etc., so whatever.)

But if it's only on a crit, could that be interpreted as finding a gap/joint, etc?

If they do locations, that may be harder to justify, but "plate armor" as a whole has gaps that could be exploited on a good or lucky hit, which is what a crit is all about.