Eighty was a bit of an exaggeration other than for the heaviest suits with added pieces of plate. Forty is more like it for a full hauberk. Still, all of that weight hangs on the shoulders. Any armor that is able to provide protection is going to be relatively heavy, though. From: tft-owner@brainiac.com [mailto:tft-owner@brainiac.com] On Behalf Of David Bofinger Eighty pounds, seriously? I thought full armour was usually about half that. Maybe a jousting suit. People say, "You can do gymnastics in armour," which is true. But the operative word is "can", not "can just as easily". Nobody says, "When I enter a gymnastics competition I don't mind doing it in armour." People say, "You can run in armour," but nobody says, "Yes, when I compete in the 200 metres I usually wear a byrnie." It seems to me that realistic armour would have a DX penalty and an MA penalty but neither should be crippling. Remember that the difference between a guy with DX 12 and one with DX 9, while noticeable, isn't a complete change in quality. It's not like one can run up walls or do the kung fu fly on wires thing, and the other can barely hobble. They're both capable of running and jumping, just one is a good deal better at it. When they're in a fight both may be dangerous people capable of doing all the moves you expect in a sword fight and the DX 9 guy can definitely tag his DX 12 opponent, at least occasionally. Well in TFT that's the difference between wearing a suit of chain and a T-shirt. It's probably a bit larger than realistic, but not insanely so. The worst penalties of armour seem to have been related to fatigue, and that's something most game systems don't like to touch. Plus, you know, drowning when your boat sinks and cooking inside your armour on a hot day. Maybe DX penalties represent typical or average conditions, and a GM should make them larger on hot days (or in tight passages?) and smaller on cold days. You know, that's simple enough it might be worth it. -- David On 19 October 2017 at 11:41, Tom Ellis <trellis66@verizon.net> wrote:
|