MrF1ibble MrF1ibble

Archers, Wizards and Armour

▼

Archers, Wizards and Armour

from Elemental Forums

Apologies if anyone else has mentioned this but the ability of archers and wizards to use heavy armour types has me a bit perplexed.

Traditionally archers didn't use much in the way of armour due to the lack of flexibility this would cause.  Trying to draw back a bowstring and aim using full plate, when thinking about it, does seem somewhat impossible.   For much the same reason, traditional fantasy restricts armour use for wizards, i.e. the restriction in movement for spell casting.  However there are no restrictions on what type of armour archers can wear in this game, nor for spell users.  It somewhat struck me that my spell casting, arrow shooting sovereign clad in uber heavy plate was slightly absurd as were his hip shooting, plate clad groupies.

Some suggestions if I may. 

1 - Bow carrying troops should be restricted to leather amour at best (the mechanism for shields and 2h weapons comes to mind here).

2 - The mana use box greyed out if armour is worn at all by heroes (they do have spells after all). 

I would also go a bit further and restrict the type of weapons that spell casters can use to simple ones such as staves and daggers but I'm a bit of a purest when it comes to fantasy.

elemental
20,358 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

I personally don't mind armored spellcasters. So what if they they don't fit the stereotype-- maybe they use magic to get the armor and fit into it -- and pay for it  :)

I think the OP has a point about the archers however.  I grew up with archery and the string-arm needs to be bent about as far as it is possible to bend an elbow.  And be careful about armor on the bow arm snagging the string.  Don't know about crossbowmen, but in a really nitpicky, realistic world bowmen would not have plate armlets.  Fancy helmet might get in the way too.  Greaves & breastplate should be ok.

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

No more. Traditional usage of restrictions is Irritating. A mage even in DND can wear heavy armor and cast magic *If they have still spells* So infact your logic is abit simplistic and outdated even in new rules.

 

 

Plus. Platemail doesn't hinder movement if your strong...Look at Most Mages their weaker and older. A Sovereign is not a mage..he's a 'cleric' but not quite more like a 'strongsoul' but not even that Hes infact more of an Avatar and a God put together. Meaning his ability to cast magic in armor is infact not a problem...Magic comes easy if its in ones soul and blood and one has 'Divine' essence.

 

So Your argument against sovereigns wearing armor and spell casting is illogical. And Crossbows can be used while in platemail. Infact many knights between 1400 and 1600 used crossbows and later handcannons/muskets whilst still in platemail.

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Urban myth. Medieval knights were pretty good at warfare and they didn't make dumb mistakes like that. =P
End of quote

Guess you guys havne heard of the battle of agincourt  

http://www.aginc.net/battle/ops.html

The english bated the french cavalry to charge through mud with disastrous results fro the french.... The french then dismounted the knights and tried on foot and they all got stuck in the mud and were utterly destroyed.

I think a similar thing happened at the battle of hastings...

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Eh? I think you jumbled that context a little.

It was referring to knights being completely unable to get up after they had fallen down.

While military history is indeed full of dumb mistakes (like the charge of the light brigade), the mid to late medieval plate was the result of hundreds of years of refinement and not some random experiment.

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

 

Ya I was just trying to show that you are less mobile in full armor.  Also it showed how archers didn't wear much armor and near the end of the battle went through the mud using knives to finish off the knights.  However crossbowmen did where heavy armor since they only had to crank the crossbow then point to aim in which case the armor didn't interfere with aiming.   Plus crossbows were mostly used in garrisons and not on the field of battle until they were banned by the pope as being an unfair weapon of mass destruction since sieges were impossible to win if crossbows were used in the garrison.

Oh and people could get up in most plate armor but n t the ceremonial ones they wore in jousting contests.

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Well, when the bowmen went in with the knives the cavalry was routed already. And it was "cavalry on foot".
If that had been an equally armored infantry unit, that might still have been suicide.

And they surely did use bows instead of knives against any knights that would still put up a fight. =P

Translating that into tactical battle rules is not as straightforward as it sounds. Sure you can do Earth to Mud or something like that but modeling the effects on heavy / light cavalry, light / heavy infantry, siege weapons, magical creatures like giants or elementals... that doesn't work so well.
Just reducing movement speed doesn't even get close. There's the element of disorganisation. Losing formation. Becoming more vulnerable. Being completely stopped dead. Losing equipment. Horses with broken legs and/or cavalry being forced to advance on foot...

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Could a little rock, paper, scissors like combat bonuses like a Lucas arts game called, Gladius?  The game was pretty much a RPG/gladiator turn based combat game, really fun combat, little else.  But it had those heavy armor units were slow, and good against medium armored units, but weak against light, faster units, and those light units had trouble with medium armored units. 

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

Some kind of differenciation for troop type (and size) is definitely needed.

It's just that opinions differ wildly on how this should be done.  Link,  Link.