Let's Ramble About Weapons and Armor

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Jason
Journeyman
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:28 pm

Post by Jason »

Stahlseele wrote:And if it is the "realistic" approach to weapons and armor in an RPG, prepare to be mocked.
Out of curiosity: why is that? Realistic weapons and armor certainly don't fit every setting. probably not most fantasy settings, but to dismiss them as a mechanical option all together?
FrankTrollman wrote:Large pull bows that could actually draw blood on heavily armored knights were fielded in various parts of the world about a thousand years later.

-Username17
I seriously hope you are not talking about Warbows and Longbows.
darkmaster wrote:So, having watching that video... both combatant's defenses failed almost immediately almost every time and the one who survived did so by a matter of seconds. Bucklers were fit to purpose for civilian defense certainly but that is because they're light and small enough that they're easy to carry. As a military option, color my more skeptical.
An average of 8 individual attacks before victory, if we count apparent mistakes, an avgerage of 9 attack before victory if we discount them. A minimum of 2 individual attacks and a maximum of 17 individual attacks until resolution.
I am not sure how long you expect actual combat to last. Add to that that any of the modern day fighters will have a very low competency with the blade in actual combat, so you could (not nescessarily should) set the average number of attacks at around 10 to 15. Compare that to fighting without shields and you will see a drastic difference.

Also, I am not sure how long you expect fighters to last with other types of shields.
Last edited by Jason on Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Jason wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Large pull bows that could actually draw blood on heavily armored knights were fielded in various parts of the world about a thousand years later.

-Username17
I seriously hope you are not talking about Warbows and Longbows.
Only the second video plays in Europe, but the one you labeled as "longbows" shows a man very obviously not using a longbow but shooting through padded armor with the much smaller bow he was using at short range with direct fire. I have honestly no idea what point you were trying to make, but you were not succeeding in making it.

-Username17
User avatar
Stahlseele
King
Posts: 5974
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by Stahlseele »

Jason wrote:
Stahlseele wrote:And if it is the "realistic" approach to weapons and armor in an RPG, prepare to be mocked.
Out of curiosity: why is that? Realistic weapons and armor certainly don't fit every setting. probably not most fantasy settings, but to dismiss them as a mechanical option all together?
Quite simple really.
As soon as you put ANYTHING into rules, you will instantly lose realism.
Hell, even without rules, as soon as you are only told about things, in mother may i magical teaparty you lose realism already.
Simply because it has to be done in a way that people can understand and work with WITHOUT actually having the needed experience of having worn plate armor or reloaded a pull back crossbow or the likes.
Last edited by Stahlseele on Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:
TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.

Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
Jason
Journeyman
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:28 pm

Post by Jason »

FrankTrollman wrote:Only the second video plays in Europe, but the one you labeled as "longbows" shows a man very obviously not using a longbow but shooting through padded armor with the much smaller bow he was using at short range with direct fire. I have honestly no idea what point you were trying to make, but you were not succeeding in making it.

-Username17
The first one shows a 160 pound warbow tested against a gambesson over a pigs carcass at around 10 yards distance. No penetration.

I don't know what video you were watching on the longbow, but I checked again, and for me it shows a longbow against (a rather light) gambesson (albeit on a wodden board, wich skews the penetration results as the board doesn't give).

I highly doubt that if a 160 pound warbow with verified draw weight cannot pierce gambesson, that a 140 pound longbow will.

Gambessons and arming doublets have been used throughout the middle ages and the renaissance even as primary armor and for good reason. They are mostly arrowproof and cheap to make.

Bows as a miliary weapon are mostly useful in large volleys, not individual shots. By sheer chance they hit unprotected areas if enough of them are loosed at enough people. Longbows and even warbows are not armor piercing sniper weapons. That's a common myth and it needs to be abandoned.
Stahlseele wrote:Quite simple really.
As soon as you put ANYTHING into rules, you will instantly lose realism.
Hell, even without rules, as soon as you are only told about things, in mother may i magical teaparty you lose realism already.
Simply because it has to be done in a way that people can understand and work with WITHOUT actually having the needed experience of having worn plate armor or reloaded a pull back crossbow or the likes.
That makes sense. So you were talking about the kinds of systems that track individual target zones and miultiple injury tables and not nescessarily abstract systems that attempt to maintain a realistic outcome? Or would you discount such systems as well?
Last edited by Jason on Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:35 am, edited 5 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Your broader point that bows are a battlefield weapon that accomplishes things through the weight of large numbers of small hits and rare criticals is generally true. However, you severely undermine your point by linking to a video of someone using a bow noticeably smaller than a longbow and getting demonstrable penetration on a suit of padded armor and then claiming that such padded armor was arrow proof against longbows. Obviously, it was not.

Arrows from bigger bows did penetrate armor. Not a whole lot, but they did. Get hit by an arrow from a longbow or a daikyu and maybe it'll bounce off, and maybe it'll come through and give you a cut or a bruise. If you end up bogged down in muck so that later era archers could pepper you with arrows, eventually you'll accumulate enough wounds that you'll go down.

In D&D terms, we're talking about a hit point or two from an arrow rather than doing a full d8 or whatever the fuck, but the damage is real.

-Username17
Almaz
Knight
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Post by Almaz »

So uhm, arrows made to penetrate breastplates existed? So Frank's point is that direct fire piercing armor is well-attested in the literature, and lo and behold, it turns out that the deciding factor is not necessarily the bow, but perhaps the arrow!

Or maybe all the test bows in the previous videos were hella shoddy. Or maybe it's both? Both arrow and bow must be matched to the task to get good, consistent results? Perhaps.

Not that gambesons should be underrated as armor, several civilizations used quilted armor preferentially over other things, and several times in history when armor was not effective at all people just didn't use it. So, the mere fact of its use suggests it's actually fairly decent, but it's obviously not invulnerable if you use the right tools, because history tells us... it's not invulnerable.

Thinking about it, making permanent, sweeping conclusions on a single test seems like bad science, especially if another test disagrees. So obviously you want to just go with the version of the story your RPG most favors. Personally, I like "arrows can penetrate but don't do a whole lot of damage." Encourages not sitting around like a dumbass while arrows rain on you, but also rewards actually armoring up.
Last edited by Almaz on Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Bertie Wooster
NPC
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:42 pm

Post by Bertie Wooster »

OP classification of machine guns is also make little sense as it is mixture of obsolete and incorrect.

Sub-machine guns have little relations to actual machine guns in all but name. SMGs were used initially as a poor man substitute for machine guns but still were different weapon entirely.

Light machine guns (also called Squad Automatic Weapons in US military or Hand-Held Machine Guns in Russian one) are always man-portable by a single dude. It is their principal role. Most of LMGs are made in some sort of intermediate rifle round caliber (like 5,56 mm NATO, 5,45 mm or 7,62x39mm Russian) and it is possible to fire them from the shoulder like rifle.

Medium machine guns (also called General purpose machine guns) are still man-portable by a single dude. They still usually crew-served but the crew here is mostly for carrying the additional ammo around. They also use a full-sized rifle cartridges as ammunition (like 7,62x51 mm NATO or 7,62x54 mm Russian) and most of them are belt-fed (while LMGs could be magazine fed). The prime difference here is that you cannot really fire MMG from the shoulder like rifle, you need to use a bipod or stabilize the gun by some other means.

Some of the MMGs are also used with a heavier tripod or even wheeled mount for added stability. It is why they also called General purpose machineguns as with a tripod they essentially became heavy machine guns.

Heavy machine gun in the modern sense of the term (a while back anything that was mounted on tripod or wheeled carriage was called a HMG like soviet Maxim machine gun or British Vickers) is a machine gun that uses a high caliber ammunition of some sort (like 12,7 mm or even 14,5 mm rounds). They are only type of machine guns that aren't man portable by a single dude. You usually move them around in disassembled state, one dude carry the gun, other dude carry the tripod and few other guys carry the ammo for it.

Something like that. Sorry for any grammar and other mistakes. English is not a native language for me and I maliciously ignored the opportunities to be formally educated in it.
Last edited by Bertie Wooster on Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jason
Journeyman
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:28 pm

Post by Jason »

FrankTrollman wrote:Your broader point that bows are a battlefield weapon that accomplishes things through the weight of large numbers of small hits and rare criticals is generally true. However, you severely undermine your point by linking to a video of someone using a bow noticeably smaller than a longbow and getting demonstrable penetration on a suit of padded armor and then claiming that such padded armor was arrow proof against longbows. Obviously, it was not.
The bow you are referring to is a 100 pound draw weight longbow. A bit light on the draw, admittedly, but a longow by design, nevertheless.
The penetration it achieved was:

1. Not deep enough for a serious injury
2. against a rigid target (stationary wodden planks do not have the give that a human body would have)
3. on stretched armor (lessening the give even further)
4. on a very light gambesson (more a padded undergarment than an actual arming doublet)

The other penetration test with a 160 pound english warbow against a gambesson armored pig carcass yielded no penetration at all. I merely listed the longbow video in addition to avoid semantics about longbows and warbows. I invite you to do the test yourself with a longbow of your choosing against a 16 layer gambesson over a pigs carcass. I would be honestly shocked if you came up with a different result. I wish there were more proper tests I could show you, but if the first video won't load for you, then I am at a loss. I can hardly expect you to take my word on it.

In case of use against plate armor, heavier crossbows and heavy warbows could indeed penetrate the plate but rarely went deep enough to get past the arming doublet underneath. Now, I agree that some of these penetrations may draw deep ehnough to cause superficial injury and bleeding and along with that agony and limited movement. They were, however, not life threatening. To accrue enough superficial cuts to cause death from blood loss seems rather implausible unless you literally mean "death by a thousand cuts".

Mind you, this argument began about the usefulness of bows against elephants and similar large, thick skinned creates with comparable muscle bulk and bone density. To think that bows would have an easier time to penetrate 2 to 4 cm of elephant skin as opposed to a gambesson doesn't seem likely and english warbows have not demonstarted an ability to penetrate gambesson of equivalent thickness.
Almaz wrote:So uhm, arrows made to penetrate breastplates existed?
The arrows in that video penetrated the breastplate by the depth of their bodkin head. That's not even past the past the padding. But as I said above they would be enough for superficial cuts, especially if the target keeps moving around.
Almaz wrote:Not that gambesons should be underrated as armor, several civilizations used quilted armor preferentially over other things, and several times in history when armor was not effective at all people just didn't use it. So, the mere fact of its use suggests it's actually fairly decent, but it's obviously not invulnerable if you use the right tools, because history tells us... it's not invulnerable.
No armor is invulnerable. And I said "mostly arrowproof" not "arrowproof beyond doubt"
Almaz wrote:Thinking about it, making permanent, sweeping conclusions on a single test seems like bad science, especially if another test disagrees.
That's a fair point. I am basing my conclusions on tests with bows of lesser draw weights as well, though. Especially hun bows and other composite bows with draw weights in the 60 to 70 poiund range consistently fail to penetrate heavy gambesson. It's only in the 100+ range that we see occasional penetrations and even then mostly against static targets with relatively little give.

It is a rather interesting side fact, though, that sometimes gambesson does outperform heavier armor, like brigandine and plate armor as the heads don't get stuck, continuing to cause damage.
Almaz wrote:So obviously you want to just go with the version of the story your RPG most favors.
Partly true, as I am currently working on my own system. My conclusions are based on the results of penetration tests, however, as well as talking to historical archers from among my aquaintances. Granted, not the most scientific database, but better than hollywood myths in my opinion.
Almaz wrote:Personally, I like "arrows can penetrate but don't do a whole lot of damage." Encourages not sitting around like a dumbass while arrows rain on you, but also rewards actually armoring up.


I agree. I favor an armor bypassing mechanic over blanket damage reduction, however.
Last edited by Jason on Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Jason wrote:The penetration it achieved was:

1. Not deep enough for a serious injury
Dude, stop digging. I'm willing to concede that I'm not a materials scientist, archer, or archaic weapons specialist. But I am a medical doctor. I know a potentially lethal penetrating injury when I see one. You linked to a video that proved non-composite bows are capable of inflicting a lethal injury right through a gambeson. That is what it showed.

It didn't show how often they were capable of doing that. It didn't show whether mail reinforcement would be fully protective. It didn't show what would happen at longer ranges. It was pretty fucking short and didn't cover a lot of variables. But the one fucking thing it did show was that your claim that bows can't inflict lethal injuries through quilted armor is simply wrong.

You chose the video. It conclusively showed that your own absolutist point is wrong. The end.

-Username17
Jason
Journeyman
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:28 pm

Post by Jason »

FrankTrollman wrote:Dude, stop digging. I'm willing to concede that I'm not a materials scientist, archer, or archaic weapons specialist. But I am a medical doctor. I know a potentially lethal penetrating injury when I see one. You linked to a video that proved non-composite bows are capable of inflicting a lethal injury right through a gambeson. That is what it showed.
If that is your medical opinion, then I will take you at your word for it and concede my point to you. Out of curiosity though: how deep would it need to be, in your opinion for a lethal wound? I coould use those numbers for my other weapon evaluations.
Last edited by Jason on Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5863
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Jason wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Dude, stop digging. I'm willing to concede that I'm not a materials scientist, archer, or archaic weapons specialist. But I am a medical doctor. I know a potentially lethal penetrating injury when I see one. You linked to a video that proved non-composite bows are capable of inflicting a lethal injury right through a gambeson. That is what it showed.
If that is your medical opinion, then I will take you at your word for it and concede my point to you. Out of curiosity though: how deep would it need to be, in your opinion for a lethal wound? I coould use those numbers for my other weapon evaluations.
Some arteries aren't that deep at all 1-2 inches* in the wrong spot and you bleed out in a minute from the femoral artery. Radial is even closer. If hit in the spine a lucky hit can sever the spinal cord I suppose.

*body types can vary. Obesity can give extra inches.
Jason
Journeyman
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:28 pm

Post by Jason »

erik wrote:
Jason wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Dude, stop digging. I'm willing to concede that I'm not a materials scientist, archer, or archaic weapons specialist. But I am a medical doctor. I know a potentially lethal penetrating injury when I see one. You linked to a video that proved non-composite bows are capable of inflicting a lethal injury right through a gambeson. That is what it showed.
If that is your medical opinion, then I will take you at your word for it and concede my point to you. Out of curiosity though: how deep would it need to be, in your opinion for a lethal wound? I coould use those numbers for my other weapon evaluations.
Some arteries aren't that deep at all 1-2 inches* in the wrong spot and you bleed out in a minute from the femoral artery. Radial is even closer. If hit in the spine a lucky hit can sever the spinal cord I suppose.

*body types can vary. Obesity can give extra inches.
I get that. But the displayed hit was a 2cm chest penetration? Might deflate a lung but we have duel reports from the 16th century that tell us of combatants winning the duel and surviving after receiving a complete lung puncture and I am not even sure it would inflate the lung. Gotta take franks word on that, though since I definitely am not a medical expert. So, maybe we are not talking about the same thing, when we talk about lethal? I dunno. I give up, though. Frank's just calling 'gotcha' on the two penetrating hits, disregarding the bounces, despite the limiting factors of the test. I get it: I picked the video and so I get buried with it. I just would like to know what about that hit was lethal in a "out of the fight functionally" kind of sense not in a "will die if not treated" kind of sense. IT's a shame the warbow video doesn't work, though.

Here I am, rambling again, sorry. I am currently trying to model a damage system that reflects armor effectiveness. It's still rather abstract as I want to keep it simple and down to as few dice rolls as possible (currently 2, including resolution). Such a system will always remain arbitrary to a large degree, but I aim to achieve probable outcomes and went through a lot of literature and articles to get penetration and armor to a degree that reflects reality. If I am wrong on what causes lethal wound, however, my system is borked from the start. Hence my interest.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5863
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

At least one of those looked a fair bit deeper than 2cm and appeared largely stopped by the wood.

Anywho, yes, people can survive lots of hits. People survive being shot in the head repeatedly. We are remarkably durable and remarkably fragile both. Frank's point is that sometimes it can be lethal and you just need 1 example for that to be proven. Doesn't matter how many bounced off or missed.

[edit]
As for what "lethal" constitutes, if it is an artery then you will be out of the fight in a few heart beats, maybe 15 seconds for your blood pressure to drop enough to pass out, and can be dead in about a minute. It can vary for which artery is nicked and if you can apply pressure to choke it off. Radial artery is really close to surface (2cm would do fine) but you could diminish circulation to it a bit more easily than femoral artery.

I'd not worry much about teh raelizms with damage since life is way too complicated to get it right. I'd just accept that it is a poor simulation of reality and focus on making it a mechanic that fits your story conceits. Decide what you want to happen and make the rules to form that reality.
Last edited by erik on Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Stahlseele
King
Posts: 5974
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by Stahlseele »

Jason wrote: That makes sense. So you were talking about the kinds of systems that track individual target zones and miultiple injury tables and not nescessarily abstract systems that attempt to maintain a realistic outcome? Or would you discount such systems as well?
The abstract ones as well. See Shadowrun 3 Damage System.
"Serious Damage? BAAH! Only lethal Damage is Manly Damage!"
The only thing they do differently is that in hit location based systems you go from where you hit to what the damage is and in the abstract system you go from what the damage is to where the hit probably landed to actually inflict that damage. See light Pistol doing 6L Damage. with enough Hits, you get it up to D damage, so from that you can infer that the small itty bitty tiny slow bullet somehow managed to hit a vital organ. Like the CNS or directly above the heart to make it stop beating, or the carothid artery on your neck which will simply bleed you out in a matter of minutes at most.

Same Problem with Armor.
In SR, you have Armor X or X/Y in 3 and 4.
It doesn't matter if you are wearing only a helmet or armored boots, the armor is for the whole body.
Last edited by Stahlseele on Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:
TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.

Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Made thread that somewhat overlaps with this topic, but also talks about 'weapon styles' with dual wielding, different one handed weapon combinations, agile fencing with one hand and so on: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54545& ... sc&start=0

A starting point is "What do my game mechanics measure?", with consideration to how much real world tabletop time you want a combat encounter to take, how many rolls are being made, what decisions does the player think about, and so on.

So you figure out what stats your going to measure, then jot down all of the possible combinations of those stats that seem fair and name the weapon categories. For the Not-Mordheim I've been brewing in my head I decided to measure...

Accuracy: How often you land attacks with this weapon
Damage: How hard the weapon hits when it hits
Parry: How good you are at avoiding attacks when wielding this weapon
Reach: Hit guys from afar, when you out range your opponent you have a parry bonus

There's different 'types' of weapons that are generally good at one of the above stats.

+Accuracy: 'dueling' weapons like jian, katana, rapier
+Damage: 'heavy headed' weapons like the axe, machete, mace
+Parry: bucklers, sais, things you'd stick in your off-hand to deflect your opponent's weapons. Proper arrow stopping shields and turtle formation tower shields fall into an 'other' category of boosting your damage soak and to give bucklers and sais a mechanical distinction from them. I'm familiar with the viking combat videos so in this case I'm sacrificing some 'realism' for the sake of mechanical distinction and abstraction.
+Reach: spears, whips too

So a 1h sword gives you just an accuracy bonus, a 1h axe gives you just a damage bonus. Then you have two handed weapons that give you a bonus in two things like...

+Accuracy +Damage: two handed weapon with a long blade like a greatsword or nagamaki
+Accuracy +Reach: two handed weapon with a long grip and sword-like tip, like a yari
+Damage +Reach: Two handed weapon with a long grip and axe/hammer-like tip, like a pollaxe

++Damage: Two handed weapon with a big killy head like a greataxe or massive scythe so you can have a dark knight running around in grim reaper robes and everyone is scared of how much damage he does.

++Parry: A quarterstaff, from little John on a bridge to Shaolin monks standing at the gate; they're great for turtling against someone trying to pass you. Also gives a bonus lore reason for wizards to carry staffs so they can ward off melee opponents before countering with magic.

++Reach: super long weapon like a pike.

Some combinations I felt weren't well represented by a single two handed weapon, so you'll only get these bonuses from dual wielding:
+Accuracy +Parry: classic sword n' buckler combo
+Damage +Parry: axe n' buckler combo
++Accuracy: twin sword style.

Some of these combinations aren't historically 'realistic' but they fall into a category where there's a more 'realistic' option so your more realistic black knight can have a halberd while your more fantasy one can have a scythe.

So I know what stats I want to measure and what weapons fall into what categories, the hard part is figuring out how to write the rules in a manner that mechanically supports what I want for my game.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply