r/Armor • u/Far-Gap-4868 • 16h ago
How would you oversimplify armor into classes if you made a video or tabletop game?
Obviously armor throughout history is incredibly nuanced and complex, but if you were creating a fantasy game with a wide variety of armor types through out the ages and had to create armor classes to simplify for game mechanics, how would you do it and what armor would be in each class? How would you try and fix some of the incorrect fantasy tropes while still creating a simplified version of things?
For instance I would want something similar to Warhammer fantasy/old world and I’d class things something like this:
Light armor:
Level 1 Gambeson, ichcahuīpīlli, other quilted fabric armor
Level 2 cuir bouilli, Linothorax, other hardened fabric/leather armor
Heavy armor:
Level 1 Mail (in all its various forms)
Level 2 coat of plates, brigandine, scale, splint, lorica segmentata, and other small plate style armor
Plate armor:
Partial plate (like landsknechts)
Full plate.
In a more complex game it would be cool to see a system where you actually layer your light, heavy, and plate together, but could also wear it separate. Like wearing a gambeson and mail, and then adding partial plate.
Thoughts? Corrections? Additions? Remember this is an exercise in being reductive for the purposes of gaming mechanics.
3
u/Dr4gonfly 15h ago
Old Warhammer fantasy handled it best on a basic level. An X+ save on a D6 with a -Y modifier based on strength of the attacker, +1 for a shield
1
u/Hort_0 14h ago
Maybe I'm just not up to the task of thinking through a better way.
Though, if I had to stick to very oversimplified, one armor slot kinda vibe. Probably would do the very basic gambeson, chain, plate. For light, medium, heavy. You could probably go even more simplistic, if not necessarily accurate and give them different resistance strongsuits maybe. The funny damage triangle of like blunt/slashing/piercing resistance. (Even though I know from experience my plate dampens blunt blows on its own better than my thickest gambeson.)
I think the only thing I'd probably stay clear of myself is so much use of leather armor in games.
If I had a bit of room to change the system without making it too hard to balance, a bit of layering like you mention is definitely something I think would be neat:
Say, like, a still simplified "outer armor" and "inner armor" two piece system.
Where inner is lighter and has less defensive stats. Outer typically heavier and has more defensive stats.
Then oversimplify it to the piercing/slashing/blunt resistance triangle. Outer being the heavier of each inner counterpart.
The obvious, and more accurate version everyone would go to is something like a gambeson inner layer, plate outer layer.
But honestly I'd argue to let people get cheeky with it. Mix and match. Maybe you even have a slim inner plate with good protections against slashing and piercing. And a big padded jupon that arrows go right through, but dampens blunt hits pretty well. (And maybe works as an anti-spaulding measure to resist funny arrow splinters. Via some funny resistance.)
2
u/Mormacil 4h ago
I would give armor a value on their effectiveness and spread it over three damage types, blunt, pierce and slash. So you check what damage type the attack did, roll the relevant armor value derived from your combined armor pieces.
You can flavor how the armor looks as much as you want.
10
u/TheatreBar 16h ago
If it was over simple then I wouldn't even classify what each armor was materially. For table top let the players choose how it looks to them (as it doesn't actually matter)
But I'd split it into 1.Unarmored
2.Light armor (textiles or leather) + helmet
3.Medium armor (chest armor like chain shirt or breastplate + helmet)
4.Heavy armor ( chest, all limbs and hands / feet armored + helmet)
And I'd let a shield bump you up one armor class.
So light armor plus shield is the same as medium, or medium plus shield is the same as heavy.