Jump to content

Barak Shathur

Regulars
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Barak Shathur

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Gamer since 1982. D&D, Drakar & Demoner, MERP/RM and now RQ/BGB
  • Current games
    RQ/BGB
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Minimum standard for the SCA is "rigid material" plus padding, and we always used 1.5 mm steel cops. So yes, I had padding there but that in itself would never have sufficed for the kind of full contact sparring we did. For example, when I started back in the 80s, I and many others wore hockey gloves (the horror) for hand protection, and every now and then someone had a broken hand or finger from an unlucky hit (you're not allowed to intentionally target the hands).
  2. We can agree to disagree on this one. As for me, I'd hate to think what would have happened to my elbows if I hadn't been wearing steel cops (not to mention fingers, we used basket hilts thankfully). However, some thoughts, since we're deep into historical speculation (which is a risky business): 1. Mail over gambeson obviously *was* effective for the kinds of situations it was designed to be used in, that is confused melees, preferably mounted against poorly armed peasant levies (if we're talking the High Medieval period), where it's hard to get a good shot in, not SCA type duels on foot
  3. Having done SCA fighting in mail and (thick) gambeson, I would have to disagree (and we only use rattan "swords"). A hard blow on a bony part of the body (joints, clavicle, hip bone, ribs) would probably break something, even if the mail wasn't penetrated.
  4. “Maille” is the historically correct term. Mail armour would perhaps be a useful modern equivalent, to separate it from stuff you get from the postman 😄 The word “chainmail” is a more recent invention. Some fun facts are to be found on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_mail
  5. My personal taste is for historical simulation, for sure. So let's say BRP's 5 pt "ring mail" corresponds to regular historical "maille" and it includes 2 pts of heavy padding, which can be worn with mail without penalties for layering. Take out the padding and you have 3 pt mail armour. I don't think the weight is right (if 1 ENC = 1 kg then 10 kg for a full suit minus coif is about half of what real mail weighs), but because of its extreme flexibilty and the way it hangs on the body it *could* be argued as being less encumbering than stiffer armour of similar weight. This would also partial
  6. BRP covers for this with regular (1pt) and heavy (2pts) padded/quilted armour.
  7. But we're talking about a fantasy world where ring mail does exist, not some given (presumably European) medieval period in our world. I 100% disagree that mail without padding would do more damage than it blocks, although most of its efficiency would be lost. It would still protect against cuts, and I have done a lot of fighting in mail in the SCA and found that having a kind of heavy curtain swinging about your body sometimes protects a bit against concussive impact (although again not much without a gambeson). If you're referring to rings being driven into the flesh, sure that's bad, b
  8. I agree 100%. However, like I said I'm trying to keep it as close as possible to the rulebook. One solution might be to say that 7pt mail includes the 2pt heavy quilt. In order to not make mail redundant vs ring mail (5 pts) you could say that mail is the only armour that allows heavy quilt without additional armour penalties. Which I think makes sense since it's the most flexible of armours. EDIT: I think this also seems historically accurate, the gambesons in the Maciejowski Bible under mail look pretty thick. I have the impression that padding under gothic plate tended to be thinner. 14th c
  9. On a related note, for roleplaying purposes, at what point could one consider an edged or piercing weapon having penetrated armour (as opposed to causing a bruise/concussive impact)? I’m thinking if the damage exceeds the armour value by 50%, the blade/point is through. EDIT: I guess it would have technical relevance in cases of diseased or poisoned attacks.
  10. I see. I use hit locations so that part didn’t compute for me. If I was to fiddle a little more with the system, I’d would have gambeson correspond to ”heavy clothing”, and let it be the only kind of armour you could wear as an extra layer without penalty. But my philosophy is to alter as little as possible, it’s such a slippery slope...
  11. I like it! What does the number in brackets signify?
  12. A little time to kill on my hands so throwing this out for reflection: I disagree with chainmail being just one step away from plate in terms of protection (7 vs 8 pts protection on an 8 pt scale) in BRP, I think lamellar (6 pts) being kind of semi plate armour should be in between, so I switch mail and lamellar in terms of protection, weight and price. Thoughts?
  13. Well you had better go on that trip, dig the books out and find the exact text you're referring to, because it sounds like a different game to the one I'm reading. Neither I nor anyone else in this thread have been able to identify anything close to the clarity of RQ3 regarding knockback (or really, knockdown) you describe. In fact, "all out" attack and defence are concepts that I've come across in RQ: Adventures in Glorantha, not in RQ3. Maybe that's the game you're remembering? I'm currently playing in a RQ:G campaign, and I agree it's great. I do have some quibbles with the way Passio
  14. What gives me pause is the wording on p. 47 in the Player's Book under Melee Activities: "If, while in hand-to-hand combat, an adventurer attempts to perform some major non-fighting action (stand up, climb a nearby wall, jump down a slope, mount a horse, etc.) then he cannot attack, parry, dodge, or cast a spell during the strike ranks needed to perform the action." This comes after the paragraph stating the 3 SR rule for changing intent. So standing up is grouped with non-fighting actions such as getting on a horse or climbing a wall, and contrasted with the 3 SR rule. Why would they need
×
×
  • Create New...