The Campaign Builder's Guild

I know very little about which weapons were good or bad against which armors. I need to know, as it'll be a little important in the game I'm writing. I either need to find a good resource for this or else get help from you guys on the CBG.

A little background on the system:

Weapon damage stats are x/y (armor types). X is the lower damage value, which weapons use against armor they don't penetrate. Y is the higher damage value, which they use against armor they do penetrate. (Armor types) lists the types of armor the weapon penetrates.

Armor stats are a/b. A is the lower DR value, used against weapons that penetrate it. B is the higher DR value, used against weapons that don't penetrate it.

So I need to know which weapons would penetrate which armors. I also need to know whether weapons should have high x / low y (penetration across the board at the expense of max damage), low x / high y (damage at the expense of penetration), or both values more or less average.

Standard slashing melee weapons include:
Swords (A short sword, a one handed sword, and a two handed sword)
Axes (A throwing axe, a one-handed axe, and a two handed axe)
Scythe/sickle

Standard piercing weapons include:
Dagger/Rapier (for both I'm thinking they'll only penetrate leather)
Spears (shortspear, longspear)
Picks
Morningstar (beats leather and chain, and I'm thinking high penetration)

Standard bludgeoning weapons include:
Maces
Hammers
Flails
Club/Staff

Standard projectiles include:
Guns (revolver, rifle, shotun, sniper, and gat... I'm thinking leather and chain)
Bows (I'm thinking they'll only beat leather)
Crossbows
Slings

Polearms include:
Glaive
Guisarme
Halberd
Ranseur
Trident

Miscellaneous other weapons include:
Gauntlets
Darts / Javelins (maybe)
Whip
Net

Oh, and armors are fairly standard fare:
light/heavy chain
light/heavy leather (includes hide, etc.)
light/heavy plate

Quite a good idea with two damage levels. Allows you some more variety than with DR since you can have weapons that bypass armor more easily and such.
I wouldn't say that daggers can only penetrate leather. Daggers were most often used in real combat for stabbing knights in the eye and such, since the high pressure from the dagger point broke through the metal (rondels i think those daggers were called...). Anyway, knifes are a completely different story and are obviously not very effective against full plate.
Generally, full plate was very effective against slashing weapons unless they got in between the plates (you should probably have maneuvers or attacks that allows the user to aim for holes in the armor and such).  
Blunt weapons were much more effective as they crushed his bone no matter what metal he wore since the shock just moved through the plate, but knights often wore padded armor underneath to prevent this. (so they had one vs. slashing and one vs. bludgeoning). I think the damage of arrows and bolts depends on the angle they hit with since the plate might deflect them, but a straight on hit would probably go through like the aforementioned dagger (can't say for sure though). Thus, ranged piercing weapons should probably have high armor penetration if they hit.
I can never remember whether chain was made against crossbows or the other way around, but i *think* that crossbows would pierce it as they would expand the ring and go through.
I seem to recall that the Flower of Combat supplement for Riddle of Steel had some useful stuff about this in a sidebar in their armor chapter...
Hope it helps (and that i remembered the facts correctly)

Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowQuite a good idea with two damage levels. Allows you some more variety than with DR since you can have weapons that bypass armor more easily and such.

I wouldn't say that daggers can only penetrate leather. Daggers were most often used in real combat for stabbing knights in the eye and such, since the high pressure from the dagger point broke through the metal (rondels i think those daggers were called...). Anyway, knifes are a completely different story and are obviously not very effective against full plate. [/quote]Generally, full plate was very effective against slashing weapons unless they got in between the plates (you should probably have maneuvers or attacks that allows the user to aim for holes in the armor and such).  
Blunt weapons were much more effective as they crushed his bone no matter what metal he wore since the shock just moved through the plate, but knights often wore padded armor underneath to prevent this. (so they had one vs. slashing and one vs. bludgeoning).[/quote] I think the damage of arrows and bolts depends on the angle they hit with since the plate might deflect them, but a straight on hit would probably go through like the aforementioned dagger (can't say for sure though). Thus, ranged piercing weapons should probably have high armor penetration if they hit.[/quote]
I seem to recall that the Flower of Combat supplement for Riddle of Steel had some useful stuff about this in a sidebar in their armor chapter...
Hope it helps (and that i remembered the facts correctly)
[/quote]
Thanks for the tips.

I think that chain (just like plate) would be little protection against blunt weapons unless padded armor was worn. Most armor was worn in layers with different qualities back then, a fact DnD and other games seem to scoot over (or maybe they just assume you are wearing padded underneath).

I have a list of weapons with 3 damage types (P, S, B), and a list of armor with DR vs those types.  Want it?

M.

@CC: So include the option of wearing light chain or leather underneath as a hauberk? Maybe just increase the lower DR value?

@Cheo: It might be useful. I'd like to see.

Quote from: cataclysmic crowI think the damage of arrows and bolts depends on the angle they hit with since the plate might deflect them, but a straight on hit would probably go through like the aforementioned dagger (can't say for sure though). Thus, ranged piercing weapons should probably have high armor penetration if they hit.

It would depend on the arrowhead more than anything. A broadhead arrow would go through cloth, might go through leather, but wouldn't go through anything else. A bodkin arrow would go through anything up to chain almost 100% of the time and on a direct hit would also go right through plate.

@Nomadic & co.
so what was the most common arrowhead? I can't speak on behalf of Beejazz, but this seems like a somewhat non-complex system so he might not want to complicate it with multiple types of arrowheads. Of course, up to him.

It would take a lucky hit for any kind of arrow to pierce through plate (less so than hitting a gap in the armor).

Anyway, the effectiveness of pretty much all types of projectile weapons depends a whole lot on the distance to the target. The weapon's effective range would typically be just a fraction of the maximum range, especially so VS armored targets.

In case of bows specifically, it also depends on the draw weight. Obviously arrows shot with a 70lb draw bow aren't going to be as likely to pierce armour as those shot with a 150lb draw bow.

As for melee weapons, I think you should consider giving them more than just one type of damage, especially in the case of swords. Just about any kind of sword can be used to thrust, some swords are just better at this than others. Axe-type weapons and some polearms can also pack quite a punch, so they could be treated as bludgeoning weapons when used against heavy armor.

Quote from: GhostmanIt would take a lucky hit for any kind of arrow to pierce through plate (less so than hitting a gap in the armor).

For most arrows yes but for a bodkin it would only take a close to mid range shot hitting directly.

@CC the most common arrows were broadheads as they were also effective hunting arrows and thus in common supply even outside of military stockpiles.

Quote from: NomadicFor most arrows yes but for a bodkin it would only take a close to mid range shot hitting directly.

Having followed conversations on the subject of bows vs armor by people better informed than myself (such as on Sword Forum International), I am inclined to disagree with your statement. I'll have to bow out of this debate though (pardon the pun!) before it gets any further, as I'm not the right person to try to argue the matter in any depth.

Some flawed data in this thread.

A bodkin arrow was formerly considered to be the armor piercer, but once we finally did analysis instead of speculation, we discovered we were wrong.  Of numerous bodkin heads tested, not any were hardened in a discernible way.  A source

What does this mean?

It means that a bodkin head, with its easy-to-manufacture design and common discovery, is a massed produced flight arrow for general use.  It wounds badly when it impacts flesh, but it is not an AP round.  At close range it might ding or put a small hole in plate, but the force of the arrow will damage the head fairly badly.  These are arrows you don't count on getting back.

M.

From my understanding, a longbow with a bodkin arrow could pierce plate at close range. Though this is only from Bernard Cornwell books and what my grandfather used to say. (He read up on the stuff, but not a viable authority.)



Also, according to the British Long Bow Society the maximum draw strength for a period bow was 110 lbs. Which did surprise me, as I believed 150 was accepted as the max (and I guess that nullifies my opinions and beliefs on the subject.)

I also remember reading that crossbows' bolts would just stick in plate, but longbows' arrows would go through.

Blunt weapons will still smash someone up regardless of armour, I'm pretty certain.

But the Arms and Armour Journal has done some tests that disagree. According to Sword Forum International forums, their tests were done with harder arrowheads than used when longbows were used, and a sheet of steel instead of a breastplate (whose curvature and ribbedness would perhaps deflect an arrow).

Quote from: CheomeshSome flawed data in this thread.

A bodkin arrow was formerly considered to be the armor piercer, but once we finally did analysis instead of speculation, we discovered we were wrong.  Of numerous bodkin heads tested, not any were hardened in a discernible way.  A source

What does this mean?

It means that a bodkin head, with its easy-to-manufacture design and common discovery, is a massed produced flight arrow for general use.  It wounds badly when it impacts flesh, but it is not an AP round.  At close range it might ding or put a small hole in plate, but the force of the arrow will damage the head fairly badly.  These are arrows you don't count on getting back.

M.

I don't recall saying that a bodkin was the equivalent of an armor piercing round. What I take issue with is the idea that a bodkin arrow was only capable of piercing armor if the shooter was very lucky. A solid shot from close range will pierce just fine. A solid shot from mid range also has an acceptable chance to get through. Long range, no you would have to be lucky. Armor helps reduce the chance of getting hurt (and can reduce the damage done if you are hurt) but it isn't a shield that arrows or anything else (except maybe blowup hammers :P) just bounces off of without effect.

[blockquote Atsisodhi]...crossbows' bolts would just stick in plate, but longbows' arrows would go through.[/blockquote]

I was under the impression that the opposite was true.
Recurves, longbows and other bows that required the
archer to have sufficient strength to pull the string
back.  This naturally limits the amount of poundage you
could place upon the arrow.  In contrast, a winch-powered
crossbow allows the archer to provide a greater amount of
force, and as such provide a greater force upon the projectile.

[blockquote Atsisodhi]...the Arms and Armour Journal has done some tests that disagree. According to Sword Forum International forums, their tests were done with harder arrowheads than used when longbows were used, and a sheet of steel instead of a breastplate (whose curvature and ribbedness would perhaps deflect an arrow).[/blockquote]

Considering the case-hardening techniques utilised for later-period
armouring techniques, any metal softer than a high-carbon steel alloy
is likely to be softer and more easily pierced.  This effect is further
exacerbated when combined with arrow heads that have been hardened
further than we have seen any evidence for.  

As such, if this test still fails to pierce steel plates, can we not
further extrapolate this to suggest that the arrow heads in question
could not pierce a breastplate, considering that was often harder,
and were also shaped in a way that also increased deflection?

Early guns on the other hand were much better.  They could project
lead shots with much more force (many, many times as much) and rather
than trying to pierce it with a sharp point, the shot only acted as
a medium for transfering the force to a small area.  I'm told that
realistically a lead shot wayed a similar amount too.

This extra force was particularly useful against opponents wearing
plate, in that its innate rigidity, thinness and high-carbon case-
hardened composition made it more susceptible to having large holes
punched through it.  Hence later developments in armouring used
softer, thicker steel that was designed to absorb and disperse the
force of the shot.