Dealing With Armor

[Deleted]

Type	AC	AAC
None	9	10
Leather	7	12
Chain	5	14
Plate	3	16

Equipping a shield adds +1 to AC. If you like ascending armor class (AAC) values, instead? Those values are also listed. 

Looking at the armors for OD&D, we see a simply progression of protection from armor. No armor grants AC 9, adding a shield bumps you to AC 8. To go higher? You have to get different armor. This is a nice, clean, logical, and easy-to-grasp progression. One thing AD&D brought to the table was different sorts of armor, which basically had an armor for every armor class. And don't get me started about all the arguments over whether this armor or that armor was better/worse than represented ... or whether it even existed at all (arguments over "studded leather" armor come to mind, but there were others).

I'll let the history geeks argue over that. I find those discussions interesting but they don't ultimately change how I play the game.

I handle it broadly, based upon the above table. OD&D has light, medium, and heavy armors; alternate armor types grant protection as the existing armor types. Accurate? No, not really; but I've heard it argued the ratings by the book aren't very accurate, with leather armor (for example) being much better protection than the rules represent. Likewise for shields. Instead of revamping a system with a complicated series of flowcharts, sub-clauses, amendments, footnotes, etc.? Why not simply use what you already have that works "good enough" and won't bog down play or raise the rule bar so high no beginners will want to join the campaign?

I'd love to hear how the rest of you handle additional/alternate armor types in your campaign.

[Deleted]

Like you do. CHAINMAIL has three classes of foot troops, and three classes of horse troops.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Also, for historical interest, back in the late 70s I tried the ultra-detailed path and eventually gave up.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Feb 18, 2018 16:06:26 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Like you do. CHAINMAIL has three classes of foot troops, and three classes of horse troops.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Also, for historical interest, back in the late 70s I tried the ultra-detailed path and eventually gave up.

I agree Keep It Simple Stupid is the best advice. I've played in & ran Rolemaster which makes things unnecessarily complex & bogs stuff down. I'll keep the basic but rename them simply Light, Medium or Heavy armor, let the player choose one of the three & describe it as they wish. It goes for HPs too they are both abstractions, you do not need a complex system for either to make a fun game; complexity just bogs down combat wasting time that can be better used advancing the campaign.

[The Master]

This is one of the things I run BtB, since it is simple, easy to use and fast. Hard to improve on that, "realistic" and "historically accurate" are not a concern of mine in a game. Having a fast moving and fun good time is .

[mao]

Feb 19, 2018 0:14:28 GMT -5 The Master said:

This is one of the things I run BtB, since it is simple, easy to use and fast. Hard to improve on that, "realistic" and "historically accurate" are not a concern of mine in a game. Having a fast moving and fun good time is .

Have an Exault!!!! Just THIS.

[sixdemonbag]

I use the same table as in the OP. Everything else is window dressing.