The equipment tables in the BoK&L introduce armour absorption rates that are different from those in the core rulebook, for example;


Chain and nasal helm - 11 points
Cuirbolli and nasal helm - 10 points
Reinforced chain and closed helm - 12 points
Gothic plate and frog helm - 21 points


Are these to be considered canon or merely optional? Are they being widely used by other GMs? I like the idea of slightly different armour values but I'm not so sure these values have been thought through. Cuirbolli & nasal helm being as effective as chain & open helm seems odd for example.

I've upped the protection threshold of plate from 14 to 15 to give more "breathing room" for the differences between various combinations of chain, heavy chain, open helm, nasal helm & closed helm but I admit it's a bit of a hack.

The equipment tables in the BoK&L introduce armour absorption rates that are different from those in the core rulebook, for example;


Chain and nasal helm - 11 points
Cuirbolli and nasal helm - 10 points
Reinforced chain and closed helm - 12 points
Gothic plate and frog helm - 21 points


Are these to be considered canon or merely optional? Are they being widely used by other GMs? I like the idea of slightly different armour values but I'm not so sure these values have been thought through. Cuirbolli & nasal helm being as effective as chain & open helm seems odd for example.


That is odd.
Here is what was intended: a curve of single-point development at the lower levels of armor. I just used the helmet difference as convenient. I should probably not try to quantify it like that because next we will see a dense, complicated definition of quilting, plate, light and heavy chain, and their combinations.
I think that is much fun, frankly--one of the coolest things about my old RQ was crafting your armor protection.
But KAP was not intended to reproduce such detail. Me specifying it with helms making the difference is symbolic, not literal



I've upped the protection threshold of plate from 14 to 15 to give more "breathing room" for the differences between various combinations of chain, heavy chain, open helm, nasal helm & closed helm but I admit it's a bit of a hack.


If you are going to fiddle with armor values, here is one that I wish I HAD done:

Full Plate: 22 points of protection; to use a shield wearing full plate causes a -10 to all weapon skills except Lance

Thanks for the reply, Greg

I realise the armour values in KAP take a more holistic approach to protection than say the individual definites of RQ. As I'm GMing the Uther phase at present the only thing my players have access to is chain and nasal helms so it's not been much of an issue.

I've given nasal helms a +1 to any armour they are worn with but again that's a hack which doesn't mesh with the intent of the syste, and I can see problems ahead with the introduction of closed helms, frog helms etc,. I take it full plate is gothic plate, and then some.

Greg, et. al,

Is there room for providing both worlds? Make the simplier version canon, but offer an (optional) more detailed set of rules that allow players to customize their armor with mods based upon what they take? I think it would only take 1/2 or at most 1 page of tables to include it all, based upon period with its attendant costs.

Just a suggestion.

Bob

I've just noticed this thread, which makes some of the same points;

http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=574.0

Also, I'm sure I remember seeing a detailed home made breakdown of armour types and their component values. I just can't seem to find it now.

The equipment tables in the BoK&L introduce armour absorption rates that are different from those in the core rulebook, for example;


Cuirbolli and nasal helm - 10 points



From memory, I thought this was 8 points?

The equipment tables in the BoK&L introduce armour absorption rates that are different from those in the core rulebook, for example;


Cuirbolli and nasal helm - 10 points



From memory, I thought this was 8 points?



Cuirbolli and nasal helm is definitely listed as being worth 10 points. I'm reading it directly from the book.

I've just noticed this thread, which makes some of the same points;

http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=574.0

That explains the deja vous feeling I got while reading this thread ;)




Also, I'm sure I remember seeing a detailed home made breakdown of armour types and their component values. I just can't seem to find it now.


The detailed brreakdown was in KAP37s Knight's Adventuerous. In KA a doublet was worth 2 points, an open helm 1 pt, and a closed helm 2. The outer armor (mail, plate,etcf), made of the rest of a suit7s AP rating, and only applied half value if the doublet was not worn underneath. UNfortunately, the armors given in K&L can't be broken down in quite the same was as in KA. Or, if it can, I haven't figured out how. The nasal helm only improves the protection of mail by 1 AP, but adds 3AP to cuirboilli!

I think that disntinguishing the armor types by helms wasn't a good approach. It suggests to players that they can min 'n match armor and helms for better protection. I've been going with terms like "improved mail" "double mail" and "bezainted cuirboilli" to give the impression that there is more of a differnce that just a helm swap.

I think that disntinguishing the armor types by helms wasn't a good approach. It suggests to players that they can min 'n match armor and helms for better protection. I've been going with terms like "improved mail" "double mail" and "bezainted cuirboilli" to give the impression that there is more of a differnce that just a helm swap.


That's my philosophy too.
Though I dispense with the cuirbouilli being any better than 6AP. I think that main reason better cuirbouilli was introduced, was because in K&L, starting PCs can be poor knights and have worse armour than chainmail. This meant that they didn't have to have armour quite as bad as 6-point. For poor knights, I give them Poor Mail, which may be poorly made, or old and oft-repaired, or most likely, just gives less coverage (mail shirt and leather elsewhere, for instance), for 8 points.

I think that disntinguishing the armor types by helms wasn't a good approach. It suggests to players that they can min 'n match armor and helms for better protection. I've been going with terms like "improved mail" "double mail" and "bezainted cuirboilli" to give the impression that there is more of a differnce that just a helm swap.


Good idea. I've been struggling somewhat trying to fit the nasal helm in with the different armour types, too. I might just nab that suggestion, Atgxtg, for my own campaign.



If you are going to fiddle with armor values, here is one that I wish I HAD done:

Full Plate: 22 points of protection; to use a shield wearing full plate causes a -10 to all weapon skills except Lance


Having armour affect your weapon skill - both positively and negatively - is an interesting idea. I know that wearing no armour *used* to give a +5 weapon skill mod but was withdrawn for exploit reasons. I've not used any such mods so far but I have considered it. The only downside I can see is when weapon skills reach very high values. For example, using the old +5 no armour mod, if your skill was 34 you'd actually be better off fighting with no armour than you would with it when facing a single opponent - you'd always critical meaning a 1-3 HP wound at worst.

That's my philosophy too.
Though I dispense with the cuirbouilli being any better than 6AP. I think that main reason better cuirbouilli was introduced, was because in K&L, starting PCs can be poor knights and have worse armour than chainmail. This meant that they didn't have to have armour quite as bad as 6-point. For poor knights, I give them Poor Mail, which may be poorly made, or old and oft-repaired, or most likely, just gives less coverage (mail shirt and leather elsewhere, for instance), for 8 points.




In the expanded armor chart I did for KAP3 &4, I used to allow lethaler armor to be reinforced with metal (studdent/jazeranited, bezainted, rings, etc.) in order to up the AP protection a little. Hard LEthaer +rings used to work out at 8 AP. It might be a good option for "poor" knights.

Another difficulty with the new armors is that they don7t work out with the new "helmless" rules. For instance, someone with cuirbolli and nasal helm (10 points) who fights without his helm still gets 8 AP (75% of 10 = 7.5 AP rounds to 8), the same as a full suit of cuirbolii! While someone who is wearfing curibolli (8AP including cap) would only have 6 AP without the cap.
If both armors are the same, then they should give the same protection without the helms.





Good idea. I've been struggling somewhat trying to fit the nasal helm in with the different armour types, too. I might just nab that suggestion, Atgxtg, for my own campaign.



I could update the expanded armor table I worked up, based on Knight's Adventueous, if you'd be interested.
I could probably come up with alternate armors to replace the "armors by helm" in K&L with the same AP ratings. . For the most part it isn't too difficult, as there were incremental improvments that could be used to allow for mix 7n match armors and helms. Mail, for instance, could be imrpoved by using smaller links, 5 links instead of four, "bars" on the links, or even two layers of mail.

I'll be happy to post it on the official site

-g





That's my philosophy too.
Though I dispense with the cuirbouilli being any better than 6AP. I think that main reason better cuirbouilli was introduced, was because in K&L, starting PCs can be poor knights and have worse armour than chainmail. This meant that they didn't have to have armour quite as bad as 6-point. For poor knights, I give them Poor Mail, which may be poorly made, or old and oft-repaired, or most likely, just gives less coverage (mail shirt and leather elsewhere, for instance), for 8 points.




In the expanded armor chart I did for KAP3 &4, I used to allow lethaler armor to be reinforced with metal (studdent/jazeranited, bezainted, rings, etc.) in order to up the AP protection a little. Hard LEthaer +rings used to work out at 8 AP. It might be a good option for "poor" knights.

Another difficulty with the new armors is that they don7t work out with the new "helmless" rules. For instance, someone with cuirbolli and nasal helm (10 points) who fights without his helm still gets 8 AP (75% of 10 = 7.5 AP rounds to 8), the same as a full suit of cuirbolii! While someone who is wearfing curibolli (8AP including cap) would only have 6 AP without the cap.
If both armors are the same, then they should give the same protection without the helms.





Good idea. I've been struggling somewhat trying to fit the nasal helm in with the different armour types, too. I might just nab that suggestion, Atgxtg, for my own campaign.



I could update the expanded armor table I worked up, based on Knight's Adventueous, if you'd be interested.
I could probably come up with alternate armors to replace the "armors by helm" in K&L with the same AP ratings. . For the most part it isn't too difficult, as there were incremental improvments that could be used to allow for mix 7n match armors and helms. Mail, for instance, could be imrpoved by using smaller links, 5 links instead of four, "bars" on the links, or even two layers of mail.

I'll be happy to post it on the official site

-g


Thanks Greg,
I'll go over what I got and finish it up in a couple of days, after adding in stuff form K&L and BoA. Currently, it matches the point values for everything except Cuirboilli+Nasal Helm, and Lamellar.

BTW, THat 22 point full plate you mentioend above, is that the equivlant of the old 16 pont plate? The 16 point plate plus the 6 point "jousting plates", or an upgrade to the new 21 point Gothic Plate?

Thanks Greg,
I'll go over what I got and finish it up in a couple of days, after adding in stuff form K&L and BoA.




Great news! Could you include the cost of all armor, in towns and cities too? A lot of information is missing in that respect; as is the cost of barding.

Great news! Could you include the cost of all armor, in towns and cities too? A lot of information is missing in that respect; as is the cost of barding.


Do you mean making up and adding a cost for armors types above Partial Plate (10L)? Yeah, I guess I could at that, although Greg would have to be the one to make any such prices offical (or not). I'd suspect that the progression of +2 AP = x2 cost probably holds, although like horses, the price of the better armor should drop over time.

The approach I'm taking is:

1) Using Knight's Adventuerous as a starting point.

2) Adding in the "new" armot types from the GPC, K&L, and Book of Armies.

3) Working up the armors as a foundation and reinforcement. In other words, something like ring armor would be treated as a soft leather(3) or hard leather (5) foundation with heavy (rings +3 point) reinforcement. That way things like reinforced mail, double mail, and partial plate will all be a sort of continue progression from mail to plate as in hostory. In theroy this approach will help to account for the 10 point cuirbolli +nasal helm, and prode a basic method for working out costs.

4) Helms will be handled in a manner similar to KA, but with a few more types to reflect things like nasal helms, roman helms, cloth caps, frog7s helsm and such.

5) Armor suits will be able to be broken down "piecemeal", mostly to aaccount for armour types like the roman loricas, or a mail bynie. Note that you don7t have to break down a suit this way if you don't want to.

6) Some fractional vaules will be used, but rounded off in standard Pendragon fashion. For example, a Nasal Helm might be worth 1.5 points, and when worth with mail (7) and doublet (2) would be worth 11 points (10.5 rounded to 11).

7) Hopefully, this will work out without changing any of the AP values. Currently everything matches up except curiboill+Nasal helm, and I think I can get that to work if replaced it with something like reinforced curiboilli + Nasal Helm.

8) If possible, I'd like to get this to match with the 75% AP if unhelmed rule from KAP5, but that would mean dobuleing most of the helm values and reducing the other armor scores a little. I'm not sure if it is possible to pull this change off and still get the AP values to work out.

Do you mean making up and adding a cost for armors types above Partial Plate (10L)?

Yes. It would be very handy information.

I7ve got a couple of questions for my fellow Pendragon players.

I7ve got the armor worked out in the "old style" , a modfiered version of the one used in Knight Adventuerous, with open helms at 1 pt, and closed at 2 pts, aand I also have it worked out in a "new style" for KAP5 format with head protection being worth 25% of the total protection.

I'm having some difficulty deciding on which method would be best.

For comparison:

Old Style

Mail, 10 points
(Mail [7pts] + Padding [2 pts] + Open Helm [1pt] = 10 points)

Reinforced Plate, 18 points
(Plate [12 points] with Medium Reinforcement [+2]+ Padding [2 points] + Closed Helm [2 points] =18 points)

Roman Lorica Sementata (Segmented Legionaire7s Armor), 12 ponts
(Segmented Torso [4 points] + Shoulder Pieces and Armored Belt/Moderate Reinforcement [+1] + Padding ([2 points] + Plate Greaves [3 ½ points]+ Roman Helm [1 ¾ ] = 12 ¼ rounds to 12.

New Style

Mail, 10 points
(Mail [5.5pts] + Padding [2 pts] + Padded Cap [0.5 point] + Mail Coif [1 point] + Closed Helm [1.5 points]

Reinforced Plate, 18 points
(Plate [10 points] + Medium Reinforcement [+2] + Padding [2 points] + Padded Cap [0.5 point]+ Mail Coif [1 point]+ Visored HElm [2.5 points] = 18 points)

b]Roman Lorica Sementata (Segmented Legionaire7s Armor), 12 ponts[/b]
(Segmented Torso [2.75 points] + Shoulder prieces and armored "belt"/Medium Reifncrement [+1] + Padding [2 points] + Plate Greaves [4 points] + Roman Helm [ 1.75 points] = 11.5 points, rounds to 12.


The total AP for all the old suits of stuff is the same, the difference is in the breakdowns.I got the "piecemeal" armor worked out for both methods. Which looks better?

If you're going to break down armor into layers (in your example, mail + padding), please be aware of some potential abuses I've seen of other such rules -- you may wish to take steps to prevent them:

1) Multiple underlayers. Three layers of 2-point padding are far cheaper to make than the listed 5.5 points of mail. Tempting to any powergamer. But anyone trying to wear that in reality would be unable to fight due to immobility and heat stroke. Back when I played Harn, I remember a number of characters covered in Cloth + Quilt + Leather armor -- I imposed major social penalties when someone stands downwind of such characters ...

2) Cheap uberarmor. Cuirbolli is cheap but protective. Put it over quilt (again I'm thinking some versions of Harn) and you get something almost as protective as mail for a fraction of the cost. In reality, this (like the above) would be too hot and restrictive.

3) Mail without padding. In reality the mail gets driven into the flesh even if the blow doesn't penetrate. Not a pretty sight. Even those who have tested arrows vs. mail have said that padding under the mail makes more of a difference than one expects.

As a general rule, if an armor combination wasn't used historically, there was generally a Good Reason even if a rules lawyer can show how it would work within the game system.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to reading your armor list.

I7ve got a couple of questions for my fellow Pendragon players.

[---]

The total AP for all the old suits of stuff is the same, the difference is in the breakdowns.I got the "piecemeal" armor worked out for both methods. Which looks better?

tip: lose the padding parts. does anyone EVER wear armor without padding? add the padding-pts to whatever armor it's for. maybe my tip is just about "cosmetics", but it'll at least make your system more easily overviewed (if that's a word).

// M

If you're going to break down armor into layers (in your example, mail + padding), please be aware of some potential abuses I've seen of other such rules -- you may wish to take steps to prevent them:

1) Multiple underlayers. Three layers of 2-point padding are far cheaper to make than the listed 5.5 points of mail. Tempting to any powergamer. But anyone trying to wear that in reality would be unable to fight due to immobility and heat stroke. Back when I played Harn, I remember a number of characters covered in Cloth + Quilt + Leather armor -- I imposed major social penalties when someone stands downwind of such characters ...

2) Cheap uberarmor. Cuirbolli is cheap but protective. Put it over quilt (again I'm thinking some versions of Harn) and you get something almost as protective as mail for a fraction of the cost. In reality, this (like the above) would be too hot and restrictive.

3) Mail without padding. In reality the mail gets driven into the flesh even if the blow doesn't penetrate. Not a pretty sight. Even those who have tested arrows vs. mail have said that padding under the mail makes more of a difference than one expects.

As a general rule, if an armor combination wasn't used historically, there was generally a Good Reason even if a rules lawyer can show how it would work within the game system.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to reading your armor list.


As a power-gamer and rules-lawyer, I would suggest a clause of : "Only one 'use' of any type of layer". i.e. Players may not use three layers of padding with a Cuirbolli shell. Simple and prevents most abuse.

Or second layers of similar/identical could impose penalties to attack rolls equal to [i]N+1 to the [i]N+1th power, where [i]N is the listed value of the armour. i.e. padding is, say, 2 pts of protection, making the second layer of padding give a -9 penalty to combat skills and the third layer give a -27 penalty to combat skills. At a 3 point underlayer, it becomes 16 for the second and 64 for the third, which proper power-gamers and rules-lawyers would avoid like the plague it is.

Both possibilities would discourage me from using padding over padding over padding. As would a DM that said "No".

As would a DM that said "No".


Hey! In KAP we have Gamemasters, not DMs! We don't even officially have GM's!! :)

If you're going to break down armor into layers (in your example, mail + padding), please be aware of some potential abuses I've seen of other such rules -- you may wish to take steps to prevent them:

1) Multiple underlayers. Three layers of 2-point padding are far cheaper to make than the listed 5.5 points of mail. Tempting to any powergamer. But anyone trying to wear that in reality would be unable to fight due to immobility and heat stroke. Back when I played Harn, I remember a number of characters covered in Cloth + Quilt + Leather armor -- I imposed major social penalties when someone stands downwind of such characters ...

I have to disagree with you here. In reality mutliple layers were possible and happend quite freequently. Two common exmaples are Quilt (essentially mutliple layers of cloth) and Brigadine (a leayer of plates sandwitched inside a leather doublet, designed to be worn over a suit of mail).

But game rules wise, I see what you mean. 3 layers of cloth shouldn't be as good as a coat of mail, at least against most weapons. So, I7m going to put something in the game to prevent excessive layering. Either the 1/2 AP for the lesser layers, or simply another -5 DEX penalty for each layer of armor. After a certain point (-20?) peanlties will apply to weapon use. Hopefully that will cover stuff like "jousting plate", too.

For the most part the "piecemeail armor is there for flavor, and pllayers amd GMs can use full suits as normal. someone wants they can go hunting down quarter points of armor to try and sneak another point of protection, but probably not much more than that.



2) Cheap uberarmor. Cuirbolli is cheap but protective. Put it over quilt (again I'm thinking some versions of Harn) and you get something almost as protective as mail for a fraction of the cost. In reality, this (like the above) would be too hot and restrictive.

Yes, but a few points that will make such problem less likely in Pendragon than in a game like Harn..

1) Mail is 5.5 points, but mail is worn with padding that increase it to 6.5-7.5 points. Cuirboilli, on the other hand is something like 4.5 points with padding. The latter bit I discovered when reading the cuirboilli description in Knight's Adventerous.

2) THere are status issues to consider in Pendrasgon. A knight who is wearing cuirboilli is probably going to be looked on as someone who is too poor to afford mail.

Case in point, Brigadine is a great way to add 4 or 5 points to a suit of mail in the latter part of the campaign (say Grial QAuest onwards). But, the name stems from the workd Brigand, which orginally referred to a foot solider. What knight want's to go riding around wearing "foot solder7s armor"?

3) THe cheap armor route might become an option for footsoliders and along with pikes, longbows, heavy corssbows, close order tactics, and gunpodwer will help to knock the knight down from his posistion as the dominant factor on the battlefield.

4) "Cheap" is realtive in Pendragon. Cuirboilli might be cheap for a PK at 60d, but 60d is a small fortune to footsoldiers who are making 240d a year.



3) Mail without padding. In reality the mail gets driven into the flesh even if the blow doesn't penetrate. Not a pretty sight. Even those who have tested arrows vs. mail have said that padding under the mail makes more of a difference than one expects.

Yup. Knight's Adventerous had a rule where metal armor protection ratings were halved if padding wasn7t worn underneath, and I'm incoporating that into the armor values. SO that 5.5 point mail is really 5.5 point mail with 2 points of padding to get 7.5 points of protection. Same mail without the padding would be worth only 2.75 points of protection. So mail without padding will help a little, unless the other guy is using a mace. But there is really no reason why someone shouldn7t wear padding. About the only exception I can think of would be a mail coif, and that is becuase the knight's hair can act as padding.



As a general rule, if an armor combination wasn't used historically, there was generally a Good Reason even if a rules lawyer can show how it would work within the game system.

Yes. No argument there. Part of the problem is that in RPGs armor soaks damage points, where is real life armor not only soaks up ipact but prevents a weapon from penetrating or cutting the wearer. There is a point of dimishing returns that doesn7t quite work out with a straight +x points per layer.

What I am hoping to pull off is to base the total DEX peanlty of the protection rating. Probably rounded off to the nearest increment of 5. THen apply a layering penalty. So someone who wears 10 points of cuirboilli will end up with a -10 DEX peanlty plus another -5 or -10 for excessive layering.



Thank you very much, and I look forward to reading your armor list.


I hope it is useful and goes over well.

If you're going to break down armor into layers ... please be aware of some potential abuses I've seen of other such rules ...
1) Multiple underlayers. Three layers of 2-point padding are far cheaper to make than the listed 5.5 points of mail. Tempting to any powergamer. But anyone trying to wear that in reality would be unable to fight due to immobility and heat stroke. ....

I have to disagree with you here. In reality mutliple layers were possible and happend quite freequently. Two common exmaples are Quilt (essentially mutliple layers of cloth) and Brigadine (a leayer of plates sandwitched inside a leather doublet, designed to be worn over a suit of mail).

You are correct - these are indeed good examples of real-life layering that worked, as was the Greek Linothorax. But what I perhaps should have said more clearly is that *some* layer combinations and quantities do not work in reality, but may be optimal in a game’s armor-layering rules if one is not careful.



But game rules wise, I see what you mean.... So, I7m going to put something in the game to prevent excessive layering.

Perfect - that's all I'm asking for.





2) Cheap uberarmor. Cuirbolli is cheap but protective. Put it over quilt (again I'm thinking some versions of Harn) and you get something almost as protective as mail for a fraction of the cost....

Yes, but a few points that will make such problem less likely in Pendragon than in a game like Harn..

1) Mail is 5.5 points, but mail is worn with padding that increase it to 6.5-7.5 points. Cuirboilli, on the other hand is something like 4.5 points with padding. The latter bit I discovered when reading the cuirboilli description in Knight's Adventerous. ...

Glad to hear it – it’ been a pet peeve of mine ever since a good friend got her arm broken IRL through her padded cuirbolli vambrace.





3) Mail without padding....

Yup. Knight's Adventurous had a rule where metal armor protection ratings were halved if padding wasn't worn underneath, and I'm incoporating that into the armor values.... About the only exception I can think of would be a mail coif, and that is because the knight's hair can act as padding.

IIRC, that was usually in addition to a layer of horsehair padding under the helm. So I suggest not having it as an exception. But again, the rule you're planning to use sounds good.

You are correct - these are indeed good examples of real-life layering that worked, as was the Greek Linothorax. But what I perhaps should have said more clearly is that *some* layer combinations and quantities do not work in reality, but may be optimal in a game’s armor-layering rules if one is not careful.

Ah. Yes, I see you point. A big factor on layering depdning on just what is being layered and how. Most of the latter era suits of plate use extensive layering, but get away with it becuase they were designed that way from the start. But then the "suits" are really designed as such and can't be "mixed and matched" quite the same as the other armors.

THanbks for the warning. You helped me spot a couple of errors when looking over my notes.. I had Brigandine higher than the Jack of Plates.



Perfect - that's all I'm asking for.

I think it will work out to an increased penalty to DEX, and a modifer to fatigue and combat rolls. THe modfier will be lower for actual suits of armor. SO there will be a difference between wearing two layers of plate with mail and doublet and and wearing a suit of gothic plate with overlapping pieces of plate, mail and a doublet.

I suppose someone could make a suit of "Gothic Cuirboilli" with overlapping sections, but since it would require a master armorer and a master leatherworker, it would probably not be "cost effective".




Glad to hear it – it’ been a pet peeve of mine ever since a good friend got her arm broken IRL through her padded cuirbolli vambrace.

It's a good pet peeve. In real life wepon effects are not linear. Two layers of mail really aren't twice as good as one. Hopefully, I7ll set things up so they won7t cause any more problems.

As a GM I don7t have a problem with a player sqeeking out an extra point of protection by adding a better helm, cowters, spauders, and poelyns. Someone adding 10 points by wearing two cuirasses and three arming doublets would be a problem.

I did he section armor partly to get the "curboilli andnasal helm" combo to work out to 10 points, but mostly becuase I wanted to have fun with the Roman armors.

Frankly, I expect most players to stick with the "pre-designed" suits and ignore most of the sectional stuff.






IIRC, that was usually in addition to a layer of horsehair padding under the helm. So I suggest not having it as an exception. But again, the rule you're planning to use sounds good.


I've including an "arming cap" in the builds for all the armors. It is worth a 1/4 point, but is needed to get the full protection out of the rest of the head armor (I suppose a great helm would be an excpetion, but knights will have a mail coif, or a pot helm underneath that will need padding).

Since Pendragon doesn7t use hit locations the "piecemeal" method jworks by adding up the values of the various pieces. THis might help a bit to counteract lexcessive layering as the lighter armors won7t be worth much in smaller pieces. For example, padding under the cowters(elbow plates) would have a protection value of 0, but is required to get the 1/4 point that the cowters provide. SO wrapping 12 layers of padding around the elbows won't work.

Anyone know a good source for some public doman images of armor?

I think it might be a good idea if I added images of the various armor types to the document. Perhaps with lines poining to the various pieces. It would help in knowing the difference between an aventiail and a cannon.

If you are going to fiddle with armor values, here is one that I wish I HAD done:

Full Plate: 22 points of protection; to use a shield wearing full plate causes a -10 to all weapon skills except Lance



Greg,

I'm fiddling with armor values, but I have a question before I can get it done.

When you say 22 points for "Full Plate" did you mean the 16 point Plate of the 22 Point Gothic Plate?

I've got the thing so close to working, I just need that little detail. In suit constuction terms 22 pts is working out perfectly for full plate with mail underneath. In a slightly modifed KNight'S Adventerous format it looks like:

Plate (11) + Mail (6) + Doublet (2) + Visored Helm (3) = 22 points.

Or should I just revise Gothic Plate to 22 points?


Any insight will be appreciated, and thank you.

I've got the thing so close to working, I just need that little detail. In suit constuction terms 22 pts is working out perfectly for full plate with mail underneath. In a slightly modifed KNight'S Adventerous format it looks like:

Plate (11) + Mail (6) + Doublet (2) + Visored Helm (3) = 22 points.




What about arming doublets. Basically just padding with gussets of mail at the armpits and inside the elbow....certainly in latter periods full mail shirts weren't worn under plate, and not at all on the legs. See:

http://www.chronique.com/Library/Armour/armyd1.htm

When you say 22 points for "Full Plate" did you mean the 16 point Plate of the 22 Point Gothic Plate?


I mans the 16-point plate. It was so good no one used a shield.




Or should I just revise Gothic Plate to 22 points?



:) GM choice, sir.

When you say 22 points for "Full Plate" did you mean the 16 point Plate of the 22 Point Gothic Plate?


I mans the 16-point plate. It was so good no one used a shield.

Thanks! Now I can hammer out the final details and put the PDF together.




:) GM choice, sir.



Good. The way the numbers worked out, I can cover both version with the same rules. The extra 6 points of protection provided by the mail haubergoen and leggins bumps the DEX penalty up high enough to get the -10 weapons penalty.

I've got the thing so close to working, I just need that little detail. In suit constuction terms 22 pts is working out perfectly for full plate with mail underneath. In a slightly modifed KNight'S Adventerous format it looks like:

Plate (11) + Mail (6) + Doublet (2) + Visored Helm (3) = 22 points.




What about arming doublets. Basically just padding with gussets of mail at the armpits and inside the elbow....

An arming doublet is really what the tern "doubet" is referring too. It7s not just the standard medieveal-rennasance quited shirt. For game puposes it could be an actual arming doublet (with points to attach pieces of plate), a gambeson, jack, underjerkin, aketon, or a host of a dozen similar gamets. THe 2 points of protection also inclues an arming cap (or padded lining) for the helm, and padded leggings.

An arming doublet does not necessarily have mail pieces attached to it. That specific garmet was so called becuase it has the points of arming to attach the pieces of plate. Mail was not a requirement.






certainly in latter periods full mail shirts weren't worn under plate, and not at all on the legs. See:

http://www.chronique.com/Library/Armour/armyd1.htm




Mail was always worn as part of plate, at least as far as knightly armor goes. Sometimes the mail haubergeon was worn over the doublet, sometimes it was sewn inside the dublet (jazeraint) and other times indiviidal pieces sections of mail, goussets, were sewn into the padding at the joints or tied armound the arms and legs. Sometimes a jack of plates (a doublet with plates sewn insde) was worn instead.

Go look at suits of plate, especially the latter Gothic Milinese, and Maximillian suits, and you will see a lot of mail. Even on the legs. I don't think I've ever seen a suit of Knightly plate that didn't have at least some mial on the leegs. Most images show the front, but the back of the knees and the back of the thighs are at least partially exposed.


But, as far as the booklet goes, it will be your (or your GM's) choice to add mail to your plate or not.

Iif you decide to use the "piecemeal" armor option, you could duplicate the specfic "arming doublet" from the webpage with some mail sewned in and add sections of mail to your arms and legs, and probable get something that comes out to around 18-19 points, and a lesser DEX Peanlty and either just catching or missing a -5 weapons penalty.

Go look at suits of plate, especially the latter Gothic Milinese, and Maximillian suits, and you will see a lot of mail. Even on the legs. I don't think I've ever seen a suit of Knightly plate that didn't have at least some mial on the leegs.

I agree there was always some mail. However, I was refering to the full mail shirt, which was not universal. In many cases, the mail you see is only the gussets for the armpits and elbows, 'standards' around the neck or faud/skirts around the lower waist. They did not necessarily wear full mail shirts. I believe the Italians had a prediliction for using the mail shirt longer than other areas. However, the description of arming a man clearly does not include a mail shirt and the associated pictures shows a man wearing a doublet with gussets etc.

The description of arming a man does include a reference to mail breeches, but I've never actually seen them in contemporary pictures. I'm not aware of a lot of pictorial evidence that really lets you see the back of the legs. However, the ones of which I am aware (eg several panes of Ucello's Batagia di San Romano) clearly show cloth, black in one case , red in another. Likewise, Andrea del Castagno's painting of Farinata degli Uberti clearly shows no mail but white cloth on the back of the legs. There is plenty of mail in various pictures that is probably a faud. In Farinata's case it looks more like a mail shirt, but then he is Italalian....and the picture is really from the first half of the 15C.

Of course much of this depends on the time period.

I agree there was always some mail. However, I was refering to the full mail shirt, which was not universal. In many cases, the mail you see is only the gussets for the armpits and elbows, 'standards' around the neck or faud/skirts around the lower waist. They did not necessarily wear full mail shirts. I believe the Italians had a prediliction for using the mail shirt longer than other areas. However, the description of arming a man clearly does not include a mail shirt and the associated pictures shows a man wearing a doublet with gussets etc.

Quite true. I was just pointing out that the example given isn't the only way it was done.



The description of arming a man does include a reference to mail breeches, but I've never actually seen them in contemporary pictures. I'm not aware of a lot of pictorial evidence that really lets you see the back of the legs.

Yeah, most pics tend to focus on the front. I'm lucky. There is a armoury in the city that I live, so I've had the chance to see some armor in 3D.




However, the ones of which I am aware (eg several panes of Ucello's Batagia di San Romano) clearly show cloth, black in one case , red in another. Likewise, Andrea del Castagno's painting of Farinata degli Uberti clearly shows no mail but white cloth on the back of the legs.

Ah. That might not mean that there wasn't mail. In some cases cloth (or leather) was worn over mail. Also, sometimes the take the mail out of suits that are on display. I've seen some photos of a suit of maximillian plate without even a faud, but have other ppcture of the same suit (or something very similar) with the faud.



There is plenty of mail in various pictures that is probably a faud. In Farinata's case it looks more like a mail shirt, but then he is Italalian....and the picture is really from the first half of the 15C.

Of course much of this depends on the time period.


Not just time period. Region makes as difference, as does the wealth and preferences of the knight wearing it and the armorer making it. There is also a matter of if the armor is being set up to be worn in the field (combat armor), the lists (foot combat), or for tilting (jousting). A particular suit could vary in protection based upon which pieces were being worn. Knights could (and did) customize the amount of armor they wore based upon the circumstances.


BTW, I'm trying to work it out is to let GMs and players decide for themselves. I'm tying the weapon penalty to the DEX Penalty. The more armor one wears, and the more "layering" they do, the higher the penalty. There might even be a in game benefit to not wearing as much mail, sacrificing a couple of points of protection in order to lower the DEX and weapon penalties. A DEX penaltry greater thn -20 will result in an peanlty to weapon use. So a character might drop a couple of point to hit the break point. Or forgo the use of a shield (No Shield negates 10 points of DEX Penalty).Conversely, a knight who is expecting to fight on foot, might replace his usual skirt, rump guard, and tassets with a big knee length skirt called a tonlet. It give more protection but you can't ride in it.

Yeah, most pics tend to focus on the front. I'm lucky. There is a armoury in the city that I live, so I've had the chance to see some armor in 3D.



Interesting--because I've seen plenty of armor, either in museums or else where, and I've never seen Italian/Gothic (or later) armor displayed or depicted with mail on the legs (really here I mean the back of the thighs...the area unprotected by the plate). On some Italian armors you do see a bit right below the knee, which always seem weird. You also see the mail 'sabatons' on some armros.

Certainly earlier 'transtional' armors you'll see sort of incomplete plate defenses over mail leggings (chausses).

Either way, I like the idea of piecemeal armor.

NT

Interesting--because I've seen plenty of armor, either in museums or else where, and I've never seen Italian/Gothic (or later) armor displayed or depicted with mail on the legs (really here I mean the back of the thighs...the area unprotected by the plate). On some Italian armors you do see a bit right below the knee, which always seem weird. You also see the mail 'sabatons' on some armros.

The mail might be hidden under leather. Or there just might not be any mail. It might not mean an improvment in protection, though. After a point, they started to reduce the armor, especially on the legs. I suppose dumping the mail would have been the first step.

I thought I might as well put these out for inspection to see if this will appeal to people.

Here is how the page for plate armor, both 16 and 22 point versions look: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/900/platepreview.png

The image isn't a prefect match to the pieces (the knight in the image is wearing a short skirt with llarge tassets, and I can7t tell if he is wearing a gorget or not, but it's reasonably close).

The way the layering rules are coming out, both versions could conceviable coexist in a campign, with a knight adding a little more (or taking a little off) to adapt to the situation.



And here is a breakdown according to "How a man shall be armed" page: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3670/howamanshallbearmed.png


Do these look okay?

If you are going to fiddle with armor values, here is one that I wish I HAD done:

Full Plate: 22 points of protection; to use a shield wearing full plate causes a -10 to all weapon skills except Lance


At the same time, I feel that the image of a knight wearing plate armor and wielding a sword and shield is so ingrained into modern perceptions--for better or for worse--that it would be counterproductive to actively penalize players for adhering to that image.

At the same time, I feel that the image of a knight wearing plate armor and wielding a sword and shield is so ingrained into modern perceptions--for better or for worse--that it would be counterproductive to actively penalize players for adhering to that image.


I can see your point. It is one reason why I did dueal stats for plate (16 and 22 points), as shown on the preview page. That way each GM can decide on what version to allow (or even both).

The weapon peanlty is kinda needed to prevent players from just layering on as much armor as they can get. The DEX Modifer is nearly a non-penalty, since most PCs will hit "zero DEX" long before they get into full plate.

At the same time, I feel that the image of a knight wearing plate armor and wielding a sword and shield is so ingrained into modern perceptions--for better or for worse--that it would be counterproductive to actively penalize players for adhering to that image.


The problem is that changing how armor worked is like playing Pendragon with modern social sensibilities on things like class – things that are subtle but important get lost. I’m not saying *never* do it (my polearm-wielding wife would be Very Unhappy if I started saying that “women can’t fight”), just be sure you think through all the ripple effects first – including the loss of learning opportunities for your players.

In game terms, plate and shield means attacks do D6 less damage (1-handed vs 2-handed weapons) and defense has 6 more points PLUS more armor. That makes combats outside of the joust longer and safer, changing the tone of the game.

In reality, armor above Partial Plate gets part of its protection from big arm/shoulder pieces that deflect blows – pieces that wouldn’t fit well under a shield.

If you really want plate plus shield, use ca. 1380s Partial Plate (for an illo se BoKL, p. 43, lower right-hand-corner). Most folks with even Partial Plate used two-handed weapons afoot, but I have a PK whose shield use reflects his personality (famously Prudent) and conscious choice to accept doing less damage than his buddies in return for taking less himself.

Plus what Atgxtg said.

Try this site for pictures of Arms and Armours. It is the biggest collection in England to the best of my knowledge.

http://www.royalarmouries.org/home

I have really enjoyed reading this topic. About half of my players could be considered power-gamers, the with other half willing to take it if the rules don't detract from their viewpoint of 'history'. The one absolute agreement was "no hit locations" when they first saw examples of this. From the reading, I get the impression that is not even being discussed.
That's good.

The details here might also require some new combat rules (Fatigue, Encumbrance) and modifiers to combat skills (something I think is missing). Having certain armor having dexterity penalties which then modifiers combat skills is one solution that I think wouldn't be too hard to pen into rules. Once the armor side is complete, I think the other half should be considered.

Bob

For me, encumbrance and overly complex fatigue rules are something I can do without. I'm glad that Pendragon has a believable combat system which is also fast and relatively simple. I've often found that very complex combat systems are no more enjoyable than uber simple ones; the "drama" if you like, being far more dependent on the quality of the GM and the mood of the group.

These armour tables are probably a little too complex for my group (going into point fractions is a bit too much *for me*) but I'll definitely be using something like this. I do think it's a worthwhile idea having a point penalty to weapon skill based on very heavy/bulky armour purely to stop everyone switching to 2 handed weapons. But getting the balance right is key.

There won7t be a lot of new rules or complexity. Since the thing is about 85% complete I can give a little info on how it works.

Encumberance (ENC): This starts off as the protection value of the armor. So 10 point armor would have an ENC of 10. But, if someone is layering armor they have to double the ENC of the layered bits. The total ENC value determines the DEXModfier.

It is set up so that all the exisiting armors will have the same DEX Modifers as in the KAP5 rulebook, but the new plate with mail (22 point) will have a modfier severe enough to give the -10 weapon peanalty. Fighting without a shield reduces the DEX Modifer by 10.

My design goal is to allow characters to add more armor but suffer if they go overboard.

Armor Tables: Are, like the rest of this, entirely optional, and don't affect game play. You still have a protection rating that soaks damage points as before. THe tables just add some color. I set them up in 4 tiers of complexity. It starts off with just protection scores, then to around Knights Adventerous level, followed by RQ like locations, and finally individual pieces.

My intention is that you should be able to pick what level of complexity you want. Hopefully the results are all interchangable, too. For instance, if someone were to add 1 point of reinforcement to a suit of plate, in he basic version he does just that, up his ENC by 1 point, and pays 400 libra. In the complex tier the player could select a plackard (a lower breastplate) and beseagews (plates that cover the armpits) to get that 1 point, but it is still just upping the protection by 1 point.


New Bits: Here is what is "new".
-The ENC table
-A few new helms
-Reinforced Cuirboill (the 8 point curibolii from KAP5, renamed to explain why it protects as good as mail).
-Several different methods for upping the armor rating, each interchangable..
-Each suit of armors broken down into indiviual pieces.
-A few samples of "custom" suits of armor, historcially accruate by Period. For example, wearing a padded surcoat and an open helm under a great helm for addtional protection during the Conquest Poriod.
-Roman and some other ubnusual armors.
-Possibly a little on barding
-Price tables.

-Possibly a little on barding
-Price tables.


Great news. I think perhaps that your system will bring more detail than I will want to use in my game, but the new plate rules sounds really good and the tables will add some depth to the whole knightly equipment business and help us all to envision what all those knights look like.

And I´d love to see something on barding and prices. The Knights of the Round Table demands it!

-Possibly a little on barding
-Price tables.


Great news. I think perhaps that your system will bring more detail than I will want to use in my game,

Only if you allow it to. As far as game play goes 12 points is still 12 points. You don't really need to know what is respobile for those points other than "armor". Yes, you can use this to match sets of armor you see in a museum or while watching Exaclaibur, but that is only fun the first couple of times.



but the new plate rules sounds really good and the tables will add some depth to the whole knightly equipment business and help us all to envision what all those knights look like.

Exactly. I don't expect, let alone demand that players start worring about thier armor down to the smallest detail. But if you want to know what you call those things on the shoulders are called you can find out.



And I´d love to see something on barding and prices. The Knights of the Round Table demands it!


There doesn't seem to be much to barding. A bard seems to be much simplier than human armor, breaking down into about 4 pieces (head, neck, front, and flanks).

The Price lists were tricky. I wound up doing an alternate table for the Grail Quest and Twilight Periods based on thre assumption that what happened in history would happen in Pendragon (the price of plate dropped and mail increased). It makes plate much more affordable during the latter periods and helps to show why Partial PLate is the most common armor at that time.

I did a version without the historical adjustments for those who don't like it.

Atgxtg, did you finish your new armor tables? I would sure love to see them!

Any news?

Apologies for the BUMP, but when I found this thread, I couldn't stop reading this topic and thinking of the possibilities it presents. Atgxtg, please keep us posted on your progress!

My apologies for being so late to this post, but this topic is of special interest to me. I, too, would love to see the fruits of your labor

Don't worry guys, this forum has no rule against resurrecting old threads.
It would be great to see the completed system.

Consider it resurrected. After a long break from RPGing in general and Pendragon in particular, I'm back to working on this. Anyone still interested?

Yes, of course! Please, give to us whatever you have on this topic!

Well I have a 9 year old incomplete PDF that I'm in the process of revising and updating, but I could use some more eyes and opinions on it. Any victi, I mean, any volunteers?

After reading through all of the posts of this thread, I would be very interested to see the final tables in this project!

After reading through all of the posts of this thread, I would be very interested to see the final tables in this project!

Me too, I just have to finish them!

I'm fine tuning armor values now. Pieces of armor break things down into quarter points (which round off for the final value), and I'm shifting points here and there as I learn more, and find out just what knight were actually wearing, and when. Mt goal is to be able to take a picture of a knight and break his suit down into game terms to get an Armor rating. I'm also trying bring things in line with Greg's 25% un-hemeted rule. I think I can get it to work for the heavier armors, as they kept adding more bits to helms, but I can't see why someone in curboili looses twice as much protection as someone in leather.
One possible pitfall is that, once PKs can start to customize their armor it's very easy for them to layer up and exceed the "best" armors of the period. It's also historically possible and accurate. It is costly though, and can bring on higher DEX and even skill penalties though.

Well, post them or tell us where we can find this if you do decide on posting/or want others to look over what you have done so far and give feedback.

I'm very interested, thank you for you work

Not much to thank me for...yet.
I might have a rough draft of an armor table within a week, though. I would probably help to have people try to "break" it in order to deal with any problems. Basically you can stack on a lot of armor if you want to, can afford it, and it's available, but the penalties start to accumulate. Full plate over a suit of mail should give us that 22 point -10 to skill (except Lance) Plate that Greg mentioned way back on page 1.

One little historical tidbit I discovered is that in the latter phases mail should be more expensive than plate! Late in the Middle Ages, armorers develop the ability to stamp out plate armor fairly quickly, while mail still has to be made link by link. Maybe we should adjust the prices?

One little historical tidbit I discovered is that in the latter phases mail should be more expensive than plate! Late in the Middle Ages, armorers develop the ability to stamp out plate armor fairly quickly, while mail still has to be made link by link. Maybe we should adjust the prices?

This was true during latter Roman periods as well. Riveted chainmail was considered superior protective armor over lorica segmentata, yet they continued to use lorica because it was less expensive (it was also more comfortable). Later medieval coats of plates have the same feature: low costs enabled even polearmed footmen to afford them for quite good protection when combined with a metal helm.

By the way, to the point on helmet being 25% of protective value, I read that as a combination of the relative worth of targeting the head, combined with the general better protection that the head would be given. Even if you wore thick padded armor (which was great against slashes, for example) you'd want a metal helm. Further, the helmet would increase in protective complexity as periods progressed, covering more and more of the head and then refining the angles to deflect blows and arrows.

You could, by the way, apply a similar armor penalty if there is some other major body segment not protected, based on the premises that opponents will exert more effort toward blows there. No leg armor? No arm armor? That could help explain differences in protective values between full chain suits and chain hauberk shirts, for example.

--Khanwulf

This was true during latter Roman periods as well. Riveted chainmail was considered superior protective armor over lorica segmentata, yet they continued to use lorica because it was less expensive (it was also more comfortable). Later medieval coats of plates have the same feature: low costs enabled even polearmed footmen to afford them for quite good protection when combined with a metal helm.

The Lorica Segmentata was cheaper than mail because it was faster to produce, which matters when you'r outfitting hundreds or thousands of men at a time.


By the way, to the point on helmet being 25% of protective value, I read that as a combination of the relative worth of targeting the head, combined with the general better protection that the head would be given. Even if you wore thick padded armor (which was great against slashes, for example) you'd want a metal helm. Further, the helmet would increase in protective complexity as periods progressed, covering more and more of the head and then refining the angles to deflect blows and arrows.

Yeah, and anybody with any brains is going to go for the head if it isn't protected-especially if the rest of the opponent is covered in layers of plate, mail and padding. But how do we reflect that in KAP? Using Gregs example earlier, why does a guy with curboilli lose 2 points of protection while a guy in leather only lose 1, when they are both removing the same type of helm?




You could, by the way, apply a similar armor penalty if there is some other major body segment not protected, based on the premises that opponents will exert more effort toward blows there. No leg armor? No arm armor? That could help explain differences in protective values between full chain suits and chain hauberk shirts, for example.

--Khanwulf

That's exactly what I'm doing with the advanced armor rules, where you can assemble a suit piece by piece, like in RuneQuest. A Roman Mail (Lorica Hamata) might not have as good an AP rating as a Mail Bynie, since it doesn't have (long) sleeves. It seems to work okay at the high end, too. It's when you have too suits with similar headgear than I runinto problems. Plate and Mail are easy becuase you got layers you can play with to get the right values. But what do you do about a guy with curiboilli+open helm?

One little historical tidbit I discovered is that in the latter phases mail should be more expensive than plate! Late in the Middle Ages, armorers develop the ability to stamp out plate armor fairly quickly, while mail still has to be made link by link. Maybe we should adjust the prices?

No need to adjust the prices. While it is true that chainmail is more labor-intensive than plate armor once you have the technology, thanks to KAP's compressed timeline, you have TONS of legacy chainmail floating around that no one (who can afford plate) wants. Supply is very high, demand is low = low price.

Furthermore, again thanks to the speed of development, most of that new technology would be in the hands of a few master armourers, probably based in Camelot. They don't want to share their trade secrets, since that would increase the supply and lower the price. Now they can charge premium prices (low supply, high demand). Meanwhile, other armorers are still making chainmail or, more likely, shifting to brigandine which is much easier than chain and plate both, but gives comparable protection as chainmail, especially if you make the flexible joint bits out of chain mail and use brigandine for torso and limbs.

Partial plate is introduced in 531 and Full Plate around 548, if memory serves. Camlann hits in 560s, so you have about half a generation between Full Plate and Camlann. That is probably not even enough time to train an apprentice to master status, and it is still the same masters who are doing Full Plate.

Works for me. It's a lot simpler, and matches with the experience of my previous Pendragon groups too. Usually by the time Partrial Plate rolls around some of the PKs are tripping over all the mail they've gotten in battle and tourney, especially the older "Norman" stuff. I had one PK who outfitted all his men at arms in leftover 10 point mail. I can always put a sidebar with a simple x2 and 1/2 multipliers for those who want it.

Funny you should mention Brigadine, I was doing that, and the Jack of Plates last night. It is easier to to make than mail, somewhat superior, but from what I read it was more for commoners than knights.

Speaking of when certain armors become available, I just noticed that the timeline actual goes backwards in the GPC! We have:

Uther Period = Dark Ages
Anarchy Period = 11th Century
Boy King Period = 12th Century
Conquest Period = Late 14th/Early 15th Century (Henry V)
Romance Period = Early 13th Century
Tournament Peroid = Early 14th Century
Twilight Period = Late 15th Century (War of the Roses)

I wonder if the big jump in the Conquest Period was intentional, since the technology isn't 15th Century, or if there was an error.?

For the head... let's consider it from the standpoint of the man in armor.

If he's wearing a leather jerkin, losing his helm is a psychological blow more than the loss of significant protection versus, oh, that spear-prodding Saxon over there. He loses a point of armor to reflect that.

The knight in full chainmail, on the other hand, has to pay much less attention to the spear overall, and can focus on attacking and trust that he can move to reduce injury if it catches. He loses that helm? It's an obvious and significant weak point, which he needs to give great attention--lessoning his ability to defend the remainder as well. -3 points.

The knight in full plate is virtually invulnerable to a spearman, will mostly ignore him (interpose shield if possible of course), and upon losing his helm is suddenly mortal again! -4 points.

I think my math is right in comparison to the values. The point (ha!) of this is that armor is both a barrier, a psychological protection, and a whole-of-warrior factor that makes vulnerabilities in a kill-zone such as the head outsized in effect.

Here's an idea on how you could handle this, in a piecemeal approach: look at the overall armor technology level (tier? per timeline) and assign the helm styles to them as well. Assign helms their own values per other bits, then wearing a helm of a lower technology level compared to the rest of your suit is a -1 to overall protective value--it's both an more obvious target and something you as wearer are aware of.

Similarly, a helm of a higher technology level is a +? amount, as you choose to protect it a bit less? (+1/4th or +1/2 perhaps?) And of course if you lose the helm, it's minus a fourth of the total armor value, still.

--Khanwulf

That's pretty much how it is working out. At the armor advances they keep adding little bits to the helm, and it ups the protection a little. I'm just trying to match it up with the existing armor types.

I'm also assuming a mail coif underneath the helm, or something similar (aventail, bishop's mantel) as that is what they did historically.

Speaking of when certain armors become available, I just noticed that the timeline actual goes backwards in the GPC! We have:

Uther Period = Dark Ages
Anarchy Period = 11th Century
Boy King Period = 12th Century
Conquest Period = Late 14th/Early 15th Century (Henry V)
Romance Period = Early 13th Century
Tournament Peroid = Early 14th Century
Twilight Period = Late 15th Century (War of the Roses)

I wonder if the big jump in the Conquest Period was intentional, since the technology isn't 15th Century, or if there was an error.?


Here is the full quote of Conquest (emphasis mine):

"The king, in his warring against France, must be
compared to Henry V of England, for Agincourt oc-
curred the same year that Thomas Malory was born,
and the king, who died so tragically just seven years
later, was fondly remembered by everyone in those
years. His dates do not fit the historical Period scheme,
of course, but the comparison can not be ignored."

It is clear to me that Greg was drawing a comparison between KING ARTHUR and Henry V, NOT the technology level.

Compare this to how GPC introduces the Romance period (emphasis mine):
"This game Period is roughly equivalent in many
ways to the early 13th Century of western Europe.
Think of Richard the Lion-Heart and the conquests
of Edward I."

That makes sense, so Conquest Period is probably late 12th century technologically speaking, falling between Boy King (12th) and Conquest (early 13th). Thanks.

Now if only I could get my math to work out as easily for unhelm armor values. It's hard to find values for mail and plate that work for all the armors with the 25% unhelmeted rule. I'm tempted to try and pass this off as a AP reduction based on the fact that opponents will naturally attack the head more often if exposed. Much like how someone who is whose only armor is plate sabatons on his feet is probably never going to have someone attack his feet.