Updated Armors

Talk about Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, based on George R.R. Martin's best-selling fantasy series. Winter is here!

Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:48 am

As I promised, here's an updated list of the armors, with stats, descriptions, and a few more of my personal house rules regarding armors, including a revamp of Improved Armor Mastery.

EDIT: Updated version uploaded

Version 2: http://www.mediafire.com/file/7449ip2du ... sifrp2.pdf

Version 1: http://www.mediafire.com/?e784e7719me25ur

Feel free to comment!
Last edited by Cataphract on Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Mudd » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:14 am

That's good work. I'll show it to my group and see what people think.

We've already brought down the armour penalty significantly but this might be an improvement.
Mudd
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:45 am

Thanks! Let me know about any comments, I'd love to hear them. The more critical and mean the better- I've found out they generate the best results.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Tobi » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:01 am

Mhm. I don't feel comfortable with these rules. I feel armor is far too powerful with these rules.

A extraordinary full plate costs 15000ss, that's about 70 gold dragons. That is a lot of money, but a lord or a heir could spend it anway. Let's have him Armor Mastery and Improved Armor Mastery...

Now he has: AR 13, AP -1, Bulk 1.

Holy cow...

I guess the problem of full plate is that the combat defense is that low, that you will always land a critical hit. I would prefer to modify these rules. I like the idea (found here), that a character must beat the double combat defense or combat defense + AR whichever is higher. And I would reduce the bonus damage of criticals to +1 / +2 / +injury / +wound. But your rules make high prices armor far to powerful.

Anyway I like the types of armor more than in the original rules. : )
Tobi
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:09 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:35 am

The point is not just spending the money- it's also finding a smith capable of producing it.

Also don't forget that Armor Mastery and Improved Armor Mastery are two destiny points. Those don't come free or cheap.

Also, they might be powerful, but they're far from foolproof. Getting peppered by ten skilled archers (Marksmanship 4, Agility 4) will still net you little. And that's not even considering specific armor-shattering weapons such as warhammers.

Finally, under the original rules, you can get AR 12 the same way. Of course you have a CD 5 less, which means a free degree of success, but I think armor is a lot less restrictive than portrayed. Armor that rare and expensive should be powerful, but it's not foolproof against a group of dedicated attackers or as single highly skilled opponent (Fighting 5, Athletics 4, Weapon Mastery and Long Blade Fighter I, Under the current rules, should be able to give somebody an average of 17, usually surpassing the average combat defense of 10-12 by two degrees plus a free degree, that's 18 points of damage with a single-handed sword before armor is applied. And we're not even considering the heavy weapons that a knight would carry when in full harness- a warhammer, poleaxe or great sword)
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby muggie2 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:26 pm

I like it it, but I would make a few changes. These are my ideas, feel free to use 'em if you agree, ignore 'em if you don't.
Soft leather is better against slashing-type attacks than padded, although weaker against impact. Overall, if the soft leather isn't better, then it is at least equal.
If you want to have an armor with a value 1, consider furs and/or soft non-armor leathers. They would be easier to move in than robes, and would be of equivalent armor value, yet still inferior to real armor.
Drop bone/wood back down to an AV of 4. Otherwise, it is by far more cost-effective than any of the other armors in the vicinity without giving up any protection value.
Increase the weights by a bit. If scale (a composite armor) is worn over a mail hauberk (another composite armor), surely the combined weight would be greater than a mere 20% increase over just one layer, even if it does allow you to drop the padded layer you'd probably be wearing underneath it.
The same goes for plate and mail - it should weigh at least as much as the *new* weight for reinforced composite.
Full plate should weigh less than the new weight for plate and mail, but have a worse armor penalty... unless custom-built for the wearer, in which case its penalty should drop to the same as plate and mail. The reason you could get away with having no mail for the joints and such was the articulation of the plates - but that requires careful fitting, and plates that are very close to the sizes required by the lengths and sizes of those limbs.
You want full plate armor? Either have it custom-built (and wait for it), or hope that someone who is very close to your size ordered some and failed to pick it up.

I like bronze. Nice armor, especially plate. Better than iron, though worse than steel. Repairing it, however, is a pain. I'd make bronze simply a little heavier than iron for the same protection.
Copper isn't bad, but it is a touch brittle, and corrodes badly. Brass looks good, but isn't that tough.
I'd rate metal armors made from these as being heavier than iron, while also being weaker (Armor Rating -1)
Other metals, especially gold, are almost useless for defense. Heavy enough to encumber you, while being insufficiently tough to seriously blunt, let alone stop, any decent attack. (AR -2, penalty worse by 1, Bulk +1 or 2)

I'd be tempted to decrease the Armor penalty reduction of Improved Armor Mastery to 1, rather than 2. With the decreases you've already made to heavy armor penalties, it seems a bit too much to also give them a chance to reduce it by another 2.

I like the idea you've put forward of grouping mail, scale, lamellar and such under the generic term composite. Each has its own strengths and weakness, yet overall they're not too dissimilar.

I'd also add another suggestion: flexible and semi-flexible armor types suffer half the usual effects from shattering weapons (either keep the fractions or else round down).

Anyway, here's my thoughts. Use 'em as you will.
muggie2
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:56 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:14 am

muggie2 wrote:I like it it, but I would make a few changes. These are my ideas, feel free to use 'em if you agree, ignore 'em if you don't.

Anyway, here's my thoughts. Use 'em as you will.


Thanks! I'll start dissecting them immediately.
Soft leather is better against slashing-type attacks than padded, although weaker against impact. Overall, if the soft leather isn't better, then it is at least equal.


I would disagree on that one. From a historical standpoint, padded armor was often worn by poorer soldiers (from gambesons/aketons to merely layers of felt etc) with rather acceptable results (http://www.levantia.com.au/) , unlike leather that was not hardened. I wanted soft leather to represent the kind of "non-armor" such as riding leathers or a simple leather jacket . On the contrary, padded armor is this: http://steel-mastery.com/en/padded-armour/gambesons

Also, slashing-type attacks are not as common. Swords did not slash per se- they cut. Slashing (sliding your blade across your opponent) was much more common with knives or eastern weapons (e.g. arakh), while western weapons (e.g. pretty much most in Westeros) cut with forceful blows. Against those, soft leather is not much of a protection.

If you want to have an armor with a value 1, consider furs and/or soft non-armor leathers. They would be easier to move in than robes, and would be of equivalent armor value, yet still inferior to real armor.


Hmm, furs are not a bad idea. They could be grouped under robes. Soft non-armor leathers- well, I consider soft leather to be a non-armor by itself. There are no accounts of leather armor that was just a layer or two of soft leather- and if you stitch several together, you have the "hide" armor.

Drop bone/wood back down to an AV of 4. Otherwise, it is by far more cost-effective than any of the other armors in the vicinity without giving up any protection value.

Hmm, I probably did that because I doubt hides should have an AV of 5. Perhaps I should, making it an alternative to Hides with a higher AP but lower Bulk.

Increase the weights by a bit. If scale (a composite armor) is worn over a mail hauberk (another composite armor), surely the combined weight would be greater than a mere 20% increase over just one layer, even if it does allow you to drop the padded layer you'd probably be wearing underneath it.


I believe the weights in the books are off, by 10 lbs or so. But I think I should up the weights of the heavier armors, like you said, come to think of it. A mail hauberk would weigh around 20-25 lbs, a scale hauberk around 15 lbs or bits of plate armor around 10-20 lbs- Perhaps both reinforced composite armor and mail and plate should be 40 lbs. What I was envisioning for reinforced composite armor is this: http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3159/63741803.jpg (This guy actually wears padded armor underneath, a layer of mail, then lamellar, then extra padded armor on top. Not mentioning the vambraces and greaves). But a gambeson is always worn under metallic armour, for the sake of protecting from blunt trauma.

The same goes for plate and mail - it should weigh at least as much as the *new* weight for reinforced composite.
Full plate should weigh less than the new weight for plate and mail, but have a worse armor penalty... unless custom-built for the wearer, in which case its penalty should drop to the same as plate and mail. The reason you could get away with having no mail for the joints and such was the articulation of the plates - but that requires careful fitting, and plates that are very close to the sizes required by the lengths and sizes of those limbs.
You want full plate armor? Either have it custom-built (and wait for it), or hope that someone who is very close to your size ordered some and failed to pick it up.


The point is, I assume full plate to be custom made for the wearer. If not, it's just the armor penalty- in many cases it cannot even be worn! Perhaps I should include an "armor-fitting" optional rule for those who wish to be more precise with that kind of stuff, though I usually prefer to leave such things on the GM.

I like bronze. Nice armor, especially plate. Better than iron, though worse than steel. Repairing it, however, is a pain. I'd make bronze simply a little heavier than iron for the same protection.
Copper isn't bad, but it is a touch brittle, and corrodes badly. Brass looks good, but isn't that tough.
I'd rate metal armors made from these as being heavier than iron, while also being weaker (Armor Rating -1)
Other metals, especially gold, are almost useless for defense. Heavy enough to encumber you, while being insufficiently tough to seriously blunt, let alone stop, any decent attack. (AR -2, penalty worse by 1, Bulk +1 or 2)


Actually, wrought iron (the kind used for armor in the Middle Ages mostly, before steel became more available) is often considered superior, especially in composite armors. Alas, I'm not a metallurgist so I can't really back the above up with scientific data. Personally I just left the non-metal armors as-is- I've learned a long time ago that putting too much detail on something that will rarely, if ever, used is a waste of time. I doubt anybody would make an armor of solid gold or silver, but I had to mention it. Thanks for the suggestion though!
I'd be tempted to decrease the Armor penalty reduction of Improved Armor Mastery to 1, rather than 2. With the decreases you've already made to heavy armor penalties, it seems a bit too much to also give them a chance to reduce it by another 2.


Well, I think that at -1 it's not that much worth it, while -2 is solid and not too much. I'm also toying of upping heavy armor by -5, but I wouldn't like the progression so far. Perhaps I'll drop it to a reduction of 1 and add some other compensation (I want to add the ability to stand up as a Lesser Action regardless of the armor's AR, but I haven't decided whether to put it in Armor Mastery or Improved Armor Mastery- I'm leaning towards the former).

I like the idea you've put forward of grouping mail, scale, lamellar and such under the generic term composite. Each has its own strengths and weakness, yet overall they're not too dissimilar.


Yeah, I thought that I should since unless we want to delve into the whole different ARs for slashing/cutting/bashing/piercing etc (and we DON'T), they're pretty much the same thing. And I never liked how, in the book, some armors are plain better than others (the most glaring example being Scale being better AND cheaper than mail).

I'd also add another suggestion: flexible and semi-flexible armor types suffer half the usual effects from shattering weapons (either keep the fractions or else round down).


While it makes sense, It would a)be another parameter to consider and b)It would kinda limit shattering weapons.
Of course, the only non-flexible armors are bone/wood (which is fragile enough to actually be MORE damaged), cuirass, mail and plate (which is complicating since it has both mail and plate!) and plate armor. The funny thing is, padded or soft leather armor would more than like not be affected by Shattering. Perhaps I should make up a table which modifies the Shattering quality of weapons, but I think it's too much trouble and more bookkeeping for another, not particularly common occurence (unless of course your group capitalizes on it and everybody has shattering weapons).
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:07 am

Another idea that I've been toying with, after being "surprised" by the Mountain that Rides in our second session (while wearing full plate and riding an armored destrier - hey, he rolled 11 with 2d6, and the DM really wanted this to happen) is to simulate how damn LOUD armor is when you're trying to be silent.

My current idea is to apply a -3 penalty per unmodified point of bulk to Stealth checks that involve moving silently (e.g. trying to Blend in in a crowd of armored knights is not exactly an issue, but try following up a target). Aside from circumstantial bonuses like having a shiny armor at night reflect the light of a torch or lantern, this is going to be a pretty common issue when people start wanting to ambush others in armor. Reducing Bulk by, say, Improved Armor Mastery has no effect, but reducing it by Extraordinary armor would (for a more tight-fitting and well-made suit).

On the other hand, some armors just don't make that much sound. Mainly, non-metallic ones such as hide. Perhaps they could have an optional rule, or I could just say it applies to Metallic armors and be done with it. But then there's also bone and wood, that's loud! You could go with flexible and inflexible armors, as suggested, but mail is pretty loud too (as I can attest from my own hauberk) while a cuirass actually would not be as loud since there's only a couple pieces of metal.

So, in short, my current idea is: -3 penalty to Stealth checks involving sound per each point of unmodified Bulk of the armor. Bone Armor counts its bulk as double, Hide Armor has no stealth penalty.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:06 am

Added an updated version, thanks to comments from Muggie2!
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Zaruthustran » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:40 am

My initial impression on armor was that it was underpowered, but I've since come around. The point of armor is protection from unskilled enemies/random arrows. It fits the fiction if very skilled opponents can turn heavy armor into a disadvantage. I'm thinking of the Bronn vs Ser Egen fight, of course.

Also, remember the Fatigue rules. For the cost of 1 fatigue (imposing a -1 penalty), you can ignore armor penalty for a round. With Plate, this is a better option than Fighting Defensively: -1 for +6 CD, as opposed to -1D for +3 CD. Plate fighters should spend Fatigue for the first three rounds, thereby being virtually untouchable while still being able to hit and cleave through lightly-armored opponents. This also fits the fiction: fighting in heavy armor is tiring.

I'm now of the opinion that the Armor rules should be considered with typical (Trained) troops in mind. In other words, troops with 3 Athletics, 3 Fighting, and 3 Endurance. Plate wearers are virtually immune from such troops. They need 3 degrees in order to do 2 (12-10) points of damage. A difficult feat with 3 dice. More skilled opponents have better odds, but hey: they're more skilled.

Speaking of which, my new pet peeve is how Fighting skill does not impact Combat Defense. I don't know how to remedy this; I'm thinking of basing CD on Awareness, Fighting, and the higher of Agility or Athletics. Or, adding the difference in Fighting to the more-skilled combatant's Combat Defense: if you've got a 5 in Fighting and your opponent has a 3, you get to add 2 to your CD.
Zaruthustran
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:57 pm

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:29 am

Zaruthustran wrote:My initial impression on armor was that it was underpowered, but I've since come around. The point of armor is protection from unskilled enemies/random arrows. It fits the fiction if very skilled opponents can turn heavy armor into a disadvantage. I'm thinking of the Bronn vs Ser Egen fight, of course.


I believe that was more of an issue of "thinking on your feet". Bronn did not win out of superior skill, as much as of combat tactics- for me that's an excellent use of Tactics to give bonus dice. That, and destiny points!

Also, remember the Fatigue rules. For the cost of 1 fatigue (imposing a -1 penalty), you can ignore armor penalty for a round. With Plate, this is a better option than Fighting Defensively: -1 for +6 CD, as opposed to -1D for +3 CD. Plate fighters should spend Fatigue for the first three rounds, thereby being virtually untouchable while still being able to hit and cleave through lightly-armored opponents. This also fits the fiction: fighting in heavy armor is tiring.


It is tiring, but 3 rounds is 18 seconds. *I* can last longer in heavy armor (I've done freeplay with 10 kg mail armor, after wearing it for 3-4 hours straight and having already worn it for a few additional hours before that), and I'm hardly as athletic or have that much stamina as an actual knight.

I'm now of the opinion that the Armor rules should be considered with typical (Trained) troops in mind. In other words, troops with 3 Athletics, 3 Fighting, and 3 Endurance. Plate wearers are virtually immune from such troops. They need 3 degrees in order to do 2 (12-10) points of damage. A difficult feat with 3 dice. More skilled opponents have better odds, but hey: they're more skilled.

Don't forget reckless attacks, assisting damage and/or knocking down your target. Especially the latter was a very viable tactic against armored warriors (not to mention throwing them on their ass and putting a dagger through their visor, extremely historical technique). SIFRP offers a wealth of options that when used tend to even fights a lot- we just need to get out of the D&D-esque mentality of "I roll attack, did I hit him? Here's damage" that we've all been prone to from time to time.

Speaking of which, my new pet peeve is how Fighting skill does not impact Combat Defense. I don't know how to remedy this; I'm thinking of basing CD on Awareness, Fighting, and the higher of Agility or Athletics. Or, adding the difference in Fighting to the more-skilled combatant's Combat Defense: if you've got a 5 in Fighting and your opponent has a 3, you get to add 2 to your CD.


My answer to that was the Parry action: Helps simulate duels where the higher-skilled opponent has the advantage, but still makes ganging up on somebody very effective, since pretty much not getting hit by other opponents in engagements depends on how fast (Agility), aware (Awareness ,duh!) and hardy (Athletics) you are, as opposed to requiring just skill. Of course, there's always ways to improve that through qualities etc.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Pappystein » Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:59 pm

Going through the list of armors you have provided I see a lot of potential. However I am curious. Mirror Armor appears to not be covered.

For those not in the know, Mirror Armor consisted of a Mail Armor base with Round or square large plates covering the soft portion of the Torsos. Every discription and photo I have been able to find of such armor has a Full plate coverage of the lower Torso, a Half Helm (Save Mongol Mirror Armor) and No Vampbraces or Greaves in evidence.

By Comparison of it's description and what you have provided it looks like it would be a lighter more flexiable version of Mail & Plate.

What are your thoughts on this for of Armor?
Pappystein
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:49 pm

Mirror Armor? You're not talking of Lamellar, are you?

Image

It's another version of "Composite Armor". While obviously mail, lamellar, scale and brigandine/coat of plates are not the same armors, I've overgeneralized to keep the game simplified. They do not behave exactly the same, but you'd have to introduce new parameters, like what kind of weapon is hitting them, and also how- were it a longsword, you can cut, thrust or bludgeon. It's overcomplicating, so I lumped them together for simplicity.

My logic for armors is simple. If it's made of little parts cobbled together (regardless if they're rings, scales, plates or lamellae), it's composite, and something made of solid metal (e.g. a breastplate) protects better while being just as encumbering. Light Armor would cover only the torso and maybe the shoulders, normal armor would cover most of the body, and reinforced composite armor would be wearing scale or lamellar (most commonly) over a layer of mail (since mail is the most flexible of all), like cataphracts (whether persian, roman or byzantine). If you put solid plates instead of small pieces of metal, then you have a slightly better armor, hence why reinforced composite armor is 7 AR while mail & plate is 8 AR (and also why light composite armor is 4 AR and a solid cuirass is 5 AR). A full plate harness protects most of all simply because of superior coverage and craftsmanship.

Hmm, another armor I could put is 3/4 plate (which is common in the rennaissance), also known as "partial plate". It would have an AR of 9, obviously, but I see no reason to add it except, say, less bulk? Hmm. Image


I hope the above explains my logic. If I didn't get what you call Mirror armor, I'd be happy to see photos and descriptions.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:59 pm

On a second thought, I think you might instead be referring to Turkish and other oriental armors like this?
Image

Still would be composite armor, I think, since it's only one layer of armor, and since I can't give it 6.5 AR :P Reinforced Composite Armor would be something like this:

Image
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Pappystein » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:04 am

Actually while what you have shown is similar to Mirror armor, what Mirror Armor is is essentially an applique armor atop of Mail or Brigandine armor.

Here is a picture of the Applique itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Char-Aina_IrGIM.jpg

And here is a core article on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_armor

Mind you in my three books on ancient armor that I have access to, refer to Mirror armor as a transitional step between Full Plate and Composite type armors.
Pappystein
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:43 pm

Well, depending on the coverage and how big the plates are, it would either be reinforced composite or mail & plate, so between 7 and 8 AR.

First time I've heard of such an armor (Stupid wikipedia didn't show anything when I typed Mirror Armor, weird), but sounds pretty much like the eastern equivalent of mail & plate.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Ser Daerin » Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:54 pm

I appreciate the work you've put into updating armor. These rules are perfect for my games.
"Heads Held High" - House Vhaeric
User avatar
Ser Daerin
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Updated Armors

Postby Cataphract » Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:53 pm

Ser Daerin wrote:I appreciate the work you've put into updating armor. These rules are perfect for my games.


Thanks! I hope the other ones I'm working on are also going to be as good.
Cataphract
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:02 am


Return to A Song of Ice and Fire RPG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests