I don't understand where the whole contrarian "oh studded leather armor? Psh, GARBAGE!" came from. Isn't it obvious to everywhere that those studs aren't there for their own sake, that they merely cap off some fastening implement to keep plates in place?
Wasn't this always obvious? That was obvious to me even as a kid.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
myarmoury.com
twitter.com
>Wasn't this always obvious?
Not to the people who originally implemented studded leather. According to the 5e rules it's just a leather coat with studs on it.
People are usually complaining when the studded armor looks like this.
Veeky Forums is full of reddit as well, you know.
What I dont get is why, in FIFTH BLOODY EDITION, they still have a retarded armour table! now with not only studded leather but also RINGMAIL!
You want the plates to overlap, otherwise you end up with a tonne of gaps (see that shit the northerners wear in GoT). And when people talk about "studded armour" it's usually just fucking leather; that's the niche it fills in RPG either way.
Why the fuck is any sort of cloth armor STILL mechanically represented as +1 to AC "padded armor", barely better than being naked, and substantially worse than leather armor?
A proper gambeson could tank hits from ENGLISH LONGBOWS for fuck's sake, it was harder than leather and cheaper too. Gambeson was by far the most common light armor in Europe, even among professional soldiers.
It's been five fucking editions of this bullshit, I think the "medieval weapons and armor don't work that way" grognards are a larger and louder audience than the "Gygax and Arneson made no mistakes" grognards by now.
I love this and I don't care if it's wrong.
Because every system in every D&D game is a literal afterthought when compared to making a spell list?
I mean, spells take up like half the fucking book every time.
in 2e padded armor was basically just heavy clothing
subsequent editions were just like "padded armor had +1 in 2e, no reason to change that I guess"
>Wasn't this always obvious?
When the armor in question is explicitly described as being reinforced by just the studs themselves? Your childhood self had shit reading comprehension.
>A proper gambeson
That's not what's being represented with cloth armor. That +1 to AC cloth armor is basically thicker clothes.
>any sort of cloth armor
There are examples of better fabric armor, like the cord armor from Oriental Adventures that gives a comparable AC bonus to leather armor.
>could tank hits from ENGLISH LONGBOWS
You're using "tank" in a very odd way.
Veeky Forums was bitching about this before reddit even existed. Get out newfag.
>brigandine/coat of plates is studded leather arrmor
But I actually do post on reddit though?
Good, now stop posting here too and you're home.
In 2e leather and padded armour both give +2 AC.
But I bought a Veeky Forums pass?
You could wear it for the fashion, just don't expect it to save your life.
Notice at the end where the guy mentions that he's still receiving the force of the arrow even though the arrow didn't pierce through, resulting in not just simple bruising, but broken bones.
alright but put on a trip, so that we can filter you out. enjoy your stay here.
Nah, I like staying user
Hell of a lot better than a pierced heart or lung though. Probably good to represent this stuff with bonus AC to missiles.
It's aesthetic as fuck, and that's all I care about
>Hell of a lot better than a pierced heart or lung though.
Certainly, but we're not looking at someone shrugging off hits like BB's off plate. If you take a hit and you need to lie down for a while, or possibly even get committed to a hospital, I'm not going to qualify that as "tanking".
Are we talking about a 'coat of plates' or about brigandine?
Regardless, the whole 'studded armor' is nonsense, there was never studded armor, there is no studded armor, it isn't a thing. People who get their panties all rolled up about an imaginary piece of unreal armor are the real problem here, you autistic faggot.
Tfw ballistic nylon and then kevlar vests are a direct continuation of medieval Gambeson of tightly layering cloth until things stop pushing through.
Btw. Is swimming in a gambeson possible?
Why is that light armor when scale is medium or heavy armor?
Because leather is lighter than metal, duh.
Depends on what the gambeson is made out of I suppose, but sure.
If it’s conventional fabrics that soak up water easily though, it will get surprisingly heavy surprisingly quickly, like wearing an extra-thick sweater and then dunking it in water.
>Is swimming in a gambeson possible?
Breifly. Exhaustion due to waterlogged clothing is the #2 cause of drowning deaths, after panic.
Plausible answer: because scales overlap, increasing the amount of metal used to cover a given area.
Probable answer: because obviously metallic armor looks heavier than nonmetallic armor to someone looking at pictures in a book.
Doubtful. Back when I did lifeguard training, they made us do an entire class in jeans and a hoodie. Treading water longer than ten minutes made me want to die, let alone trying to drag someone while wearing all that shit
Should hide armor actually be significantly better than leather?
Not really. They’re both leather.
It would be way better for hiding.
Kinda depends on the hide maybe. I thought hide wasn’t treated and more patchwork
No
Because that's called brigandine
and often is statted seperately to studded leather armour.
Plus, calling Brigandine, Studded Leather armour would be like calling a gun a pipe with a handle. Technically, that may be what it looks like, but there is so much more under the surface that you're simplifying to the point of absurdity.
Because 5th edition was aimed at pulling back old players, specifically the pre-WotC crowd and the 3.finders.
It was reanimation of sacred cows from inception.
And the farther back in D&D history we go, the more the shitty scholarship is obvious. Mind you, it wasn't just that Gygax pulled shit out his ass, he also researched some of his material. Sadly, scholarship during the Victorian Era, when many of the reference materials came from, was shittier than American voter research.
Don't forget, that shit gives you disadvantage on stealth rolls.
Unlike the silent and sleek Chain Hauberk.
>plate armour was traditionally painted in bright colours, both to display the heraldry of your lord and to weatherproof it
>victorian museums and collectors scrubbed the paint off of whatever remaining sets they had, as they loved the idea of the "knight in shining armour"
You really can't blame people for being uneducated about medieval times these days, when we got it so much more wrong in the past.
Because that's not what leather armor looks like, it looks like this.
If you think that's "aesthetic", you have no idea what aesthetic is.
But blaming you for taking "some plate armour was painted" and chopping off the "some" to imply more or less all plate armour was painted is still ok, right?
Never mind the buff coats I guess.
It really depends on the period. "White" arms were all the rage at various points.
Sure, reddit shitheads are the only problem; without them the typical Veeky Forums riffraff would make nothing but quality threads. Fuck off back to your containment board polfag.
Alright, Plain, "studded leather" has it's fair share of issues. And the mighty gambeson is a pretty piece of kit indeed but...
Hear me out
Just hear me out
*STUDDED GAMBESON*
I sure hope you don't think that pic is aesthetic. That armor looks like it was made by a feverish six year old girl with down syndrome.
Jokes on you, Veeky Forums is my main board, I rarely visit /pol/, the whole Nazi shit turns me off. But if it triggers you, posting Trump memes is kinda worth it.
>not running your D&D campaign with supplemental "armor as DR" house rules
How about you just not start shit on any board you fucking moron.
He’s not the one who started shit.
>I don't understand colour theory
Less is more user
He is the one bitching about OP using reddit
Extrapolate.
Armor can provide both bonuses to AC and a form of Damage Resistance based on the type of armor they are. Meaning your Dex based character might have the same AC as a guy in Full Plate, but if they get hit, the Full Plate will take less damage in total.
Pretty much what said.
I've used it in most systems that feature AC ever since I read a blurb about it in the 3.5 DMG since it gives incentive to actually use armor instead of just stacking Dex. You do have to keep in mind the situations it can generate at low levels but even then seeing a heavy armor fighter be able to wade through a goblin horde is funny enough to let slide sometimes eventually they managed to trip him but by then the sorcerer had blasted most of the goblins unconscious.
Usually, I consider crits to bypass the armor granted DR when I use those rules. Saying that it hit a weak point in it.
That armor doesn't breaks the lineaments of color theory, its primary colors complemented against each other, a solid triangle for a striking effect and valid palette.
Armoring question.
Why are people able to debate that kinds of things? I would have to imagine there being quite a bit of text written, by generals and what not, describing exactly the level of effectiveness between different armor sets.
So seeing guys talk about why one is more effective than the other, using their opinion seems foolish.
>painting of a 3rd century man from the 15th/16th century
>taking that as a source
Some, undoubtedly, was left unpainted, but it would have to have had something done to it to stop it from rusting the second it rained. The majority of armour used in combat would have been painted at least, with nobles and lords having expensive blackening or engraving. Pic related has been blackened and blued, it's just difficult to tell, hence the assumption it's just raw polished steel.
that and brigadine, armour with plates studded on, was its own seperate option.
No, at most there are reasonably accurate effigies/paintings/murals and inventory listings of armor pieces using ye olde language. There might have been what you describe, but if so, it hasn't survived several hundred years and any number of wars and looting.
I always thought it was pic relevant for metal d&d loving edgelords and queers
I read that book when I was 14, I remember liking it. The guy with a blue star on his head is a tranny.
I think trump is a jackass but agree that Trump memes are always worth it.
>running D&D
I hate studding.
Rivets is one thing, rivets fill a practical purpose in the form of making sure two or more separate pieces of material stay still for as long as physically possible. Studs on the other hand are just there for appearance.
Blame whoever started complaining about chainmail bikinis and realism.
>realism
If I wanted realism, I would fucking go outside
Two minutes shot of Discovery Channel is no proof, user.
Not that I really doubt a well made gambeson could help you greatly against an arrow, though. Chopping through a gambeson is way harder than slicing it, and the former is closer to a bow shot.
>>painting of a 3rd century man from the 15th/16th century
>>taking that as a source
Fancy not knowing that the artistic convention for the mediaeval period and even some of the renaissance was to depict historical/legendary characters in contemporary outfits. That's why there are absolutely tonnes of paintings of Roman saints and angels and stuff in full plate.
And as the previous user said, 'white' armour i.e. just bare metal was all the rage at various places and times - you don't need to paint it to protect it from rust if you keep it well oiled and cleaned, and if you can afford that sort of armour you almost certainly have many servants to do that shit for you
What is the book?
>I hope you don't think something that is an individual inclination is actually your individual inclination
There are historical accounts and references to support it. A proper gambeson was serious armour and offered much great protection than the layman would think.
Things like crusaders looking like pincushions after battles with all the arrows still stuck in, but not through their padded armour.
Though that later case in particular may have involved arrows that had just penetrated the outer layer of mail before getting stuck in the gambeson.
>Though that later case in particular may have involved arrows that had just penetrated the outer layer of mail
>Baha'al-Din, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
>"...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks."
That's some nice art to have been ruined by Pepe
Guaranteed replies.
It's a "problem" that will never be fixed- a misconception becomes solidified, and nobody bothers to address it. I could make a customized, more accurate armor chart, and I know for a fact not a single player of mine would give a shit. Because the current armor table has a series of increasing quality gear with different characteristics and that's literally all that matters.
And DnDs place as the dreg of ttrpgs solidifies further
post it pls, I want it
That is Mike Loades, you philistine.
THE authority on arms and armour for medieval england
only realistic leather armour
Making a realistic armor system in D&D is simply not doable if you want to maintain balance. Against foes roughly your size you'd always want plate armor. Contrary to popular belief, plate armor is easy to maneuver in. Against some large and all huge+ creatures, you might as well not wear armor, the blunt force from any hit would kill you no matter what. A large or bigger creature could wield a bow with enough draw strength to pierce straight through a person wearing plate.
>LE POL LE POL
Don't forgetti Cour Bouilletii
>Two minutes shot of Discovery Channel is no proof, user.
Authentic recreation of gambeson 'no proof' hmmmm.
>thinks nerds who made a game about violence know anything about violence or the equipment used by the people that do it for a living
hahahah
I think that’s the first issue of the Thieve’s World Series- a pretty good anthology series, with some great authors contributing. Damn- gonna need to go find them again.
Historical gambesons came in a variety of thicknesses. Many would have been heavier and more restrictive than mail or plate. They weren't super-cheap either, although metal did generally cost more.
Also the division between cloth and leather is fairly false. Most soft armour had an outer layer of flexible leather over quilted fabric (probably to resist abrasion and provide water-proofing).
Most people dont realise there are plates on the inside.
But most of the time this applies to the people who designed and use studded armour too.
It's called brigandine
dude on the right is 22 years old. cigarettes, not even once.
when i first played IWD2 as a chid, i actually thought hide armour was good for hiding.
i wouldnt call that an armor question so much as a history question.
typically, assumed knowledge (ie. knowledge which is assumed to anyone who is interested in the field, in this case, experienced warriors) isn't included in a text. there are always exceptions, but then again, so much has been lost over the centuries/millenia
I thought the point of the gambeson was to defend against swords, slashing weapons couldn't pierce it and the hits would be padded against.
...
The point of the gambeson is that your bare is decidedly insufficient protection against most forms of weapons, so you add a bunch of layers of tough fibres on top of it to hopefully keep yourself from being mutilated. Now they do a bit better against some forms of attacks than others, but don't think too much about slash/pierce/blunt of the DnD plaque will start building up in your brain. Overall you're simply going to be a bit harder to harm, not immune to this and helpless against that.
...
I thought blueing was also a pretty common thing to do with armor.