Semi-Historical Arms and Armor the Following Are Some Notes About the Weapons and Armor Tables in D&D 5Th Edition, As They P
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Semi-Historical Arms and Armor The following are some notes about the weapons and armor tables in D&D 5th edition, as they pertain to their relationship to modern understandings of historical arms and armor. In general, 5th edition is far more accurate to ancient and medieval sources regarding these topics than prior editions, but for the sake of balance and ease of play without the onerous restrictions of reality, there are still some expected incongruences. This article attempts to explain some particular facets about the use of arms and armor throughout our long, shared history, and to offer some suggestions (imbalanced as they may be) on how such items would have been used in particular times and places. A note on generalities: One of the best things 5th edition offers in these tables is the generalization of particular weapons and armor compared to prior editions. Is there a significant, functional difference between a half-sword, arming sword, backsword, wakizashi, tulwar, or any other various forms of predominately one-handed pokey and slashy things with 13 inch, sometimes 14 or 20 or even 30 inch blades? Well, actually yes, but that level of discrimination is often not noticeable in the granularity of the combat mechanics of most systems, and, more importantly, how modern readers often distinguish them is often anachronistic. For instance, almost all straight sword-like weapons, be it arming swords, half-swords, back swords, longswords or even great swords like claymores (but not Messers!) are referred to in ancient and medieval texts (MS I.33, Liberi, etc) as… swords. Just swords. Often when there are references to sword types by specific names (such as a bastard sword, which is often identified as a hand-and-half sword in modern reviews), it is not always clear what that name refers to and popular culture attempts to fill in the blanks. In modern archeology, arms and armor have been variously categorized by age, function, physical shape, or any number of other salient attributes. Most of it is fairly dry and boring to the uninitiated, so we’ll try to strike a balance Armor: General overview: Now and again the modern reader may ask to himself, “why would someone wear lamellar armor when lamellar is listed in this table right below and is mostly better in every single aspect?” Conversely, game designers sometimes try to ‘balance’ armor and give a disadvantaged one some aspect that is superior in some fashion. Both viewpoints skirt around the historical rationale: there are considerations when acquiring armor (is it legal to wear? Is it comfortable to wear day-to-day? Will it last me a long while? Does it make me look ridiculous in front of my peers?) completely aside from the armor’s protective function. You will also note that with the change in descriptions of the armor, the armor in each class may seem a bit ‘heavier’ than in the PHB, with examples of plate armor derivatives in medium armor, for example. This, however, should not be interpreted as to mean that soldiers historically wore quite substantial armor across all time periods; to the contrary, the vast majority of soldiers for much of history (especially prior to the Hundred Years War and in any location that is relatively warm) wore quite a ‘light’ assortment of armor. Statistics: Proficiency: if you wear armor without corresponding proficiency in that type, you suffer disadvantage on all ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls using strength or dexterity and cannot cast spells, as per the PHB. AC: add to a base of 10. In general, we will be splitting Armor defense between Armor Class and Damage Reduction, with the idea that (properly designed and made) armor both deflects blows and distributes the energy of a blow away from a striking point and around a larger area. Strength: equipping armor with a strength score decreases your movement speed per round by 10 feet unless your strength is equal to or greater than that rating, as per the PHB. Properties: varying armors have differentiating factors. DA is disadvantage. DR is damage reduction. Descriptions: Light Armor: Hide/Leather, specifically either Raw Hide or Cuir Boulli: Animal hides, either untanned (rawhide) or tanned (leather), would have likely been used as some form of armor and certainly for clothing, though very few historical examples survive as leather is biodegradable. However, it is unlikely to have been used alone as armor, without reinforcement from metal plates or mail, when those were available and permissible. Tanned, hardened leather is tougher than rawhide, but also more brittle. Cuir Boulli has the consistency similar to a hard, plastic shell. Buff Coats, protective leather clothing developed in the renaissance and early modern period, is of this type of armor. Soldier wearing Buff Coat (English Civil War 1642-1651) – John Pettie Padded Jack/Gambeson: A Gambeson is a quilted, padded jacket (sometimes with trousers) typically made either of cotton (in Egypt and Asia-Minor) or of linen (particularly in medieval Europe). A similar piece of clothing, called the arming doublet or aketon, was worn underneath plate armor and became a civilian fashion in Italy during the late medieval period. Heavy armor comes fitted with an aketon or other padded material. Padded armor of this type was common across the ancient and medieval world, as it was relatively easy to produce and could protect against blades (especially) and arrows. It is known by a variety of names: aketon (medieval French, possibly on loan from Arabic), arming coat, auqueton, gambeson, hacketon, haqueton, panzari (medieval Norse, on loan from Middle Low German), vapnterya, etc. Padded armor tailored to be worn under other armor was typically 3 lbs or lighter. Soldier on far left wearing red gambeson, fol. 10r of the Morgan Bible (ca. 1250, Northern France) Brigandine: A Brigandine is a cloth garment (usually plain-woven fabric or leather) lined with steel plates riveted to the inside of layers of the fabric. Compared to most other armors, it was developed fairly recently during the late 14th century during the transitional period from mail to plate armor in Europe, and as recently as the 15th and 16th centuries in Asia. It was commonly used by Men-at-Arms, and while not as protective as Plate, it was cheaper, easier to make and repair, and offered greater mobility. Note: the D&D idea of “studded leather” likely arises from the way Brigandine sometimes looks like from the inside; the steel plates between the cloth are sometimes riveted to rounded studs, though these would be on the inside of the armor and are not the protective substance of the armor. Note: Other armors that are more substantial than Padded but less so than metal armors (such as the famous Linothorax, possibly a linen laminate), would have roughly the same mechanical statistics as Brigandine. Brigandine – Wendelin Boeheim, 1890 Medium Armor: (aka: lighter or less developed metal armors) Scale Armor: The earliest forms of metal (that is, typically metal, but sometimes rawhide or leather) body armor is typically of this type; separate pieces of metal (usually bronze, but occasionally iron or tin) sheets, held together by leather thongs and attached to a cloth or leather backing. Surviving examples of these armors suggest that they often consist of chest protection with vambraces and greaves, but typically not more. Scale armor was predominant on ancient battlefields in Egypt and Western Asia as early as 2500 BC, and remained in use into “classical antiquity” because it is comparatively lighter and more flexible than more rigid armor of the time and “breathes” well, making it suitable for warmer climates. Scale armor, particularly in Europe, began to fall out of favor to Mail during late antiquity. More substantial metal barding for horses in the ancient world through the early middle ages typically was of this construction (It is attested to in Shi Jing and was often used for Sassanid-era cataphracts, though the riders were usually in mail). It was easier to manufacture than later period armors, and remained in use among cultures without access to high-quality steel-working centers up until the early modern period. Mycenaean Era armor was typically scale armor, as was Scythian, Ancient Vietnamese, Republic-era Roman Lorica Squamata and Lorica Plumata, Persian “Fish”-scale armor as recounted by Herodotus, and Japanese gyorin kozane. In other words, this is the type of armor that better equipped soldiers in the Ancient world would wear. Some forms of Muscle or Heroic Cuirass, body armor (typically of bronze) cast to fit the wearer’s torso and mimic an idealized physical form that was widespread in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, would be mechanically similar to Scale armor, even though they would typically be too cumbersome and costly for typical infantrymen. Although there is some indication it was used in combat (mostly by officers), this type of cuirass was likely reserved for formal events like military reviews or parades. Chinese scale armors were typically of a “fish-scale”-like pattern made of leather or iron strips during the Han, though they developed into the Mountain and Star Scale armors during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), which would be mechanically more similar to lamellar or even laminar armor. Footsoldier (presumably) in scale armor. Mail Shirt/Hauberk/Byrnie: A shirt made of small metal (usually iron or occasionally bronze) rings, linked together to form a mesh. Typically credited as a Celtic invention, mail armor has been found as early as the 4th century BC in Central Europe, and spread quickly throughout Europe, Africa and Asia. Though quite labor-intensive (30,000 rings would have gone into a lorica hamata, a task that would take up to 2 months even with continual slave labor), mail armor very flexible, reliable, strong (particularly against slashing weapons), and, with good maintenance, could be used for several decades.