[Runequest] Flexible and hard armor together.

Styopa styopa1 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 8 23:16:36 EST 2013

That's a great reference Peter - http://www.higgins.org/history-museum -
it's a bloody shame they're closing.  I wish I'd known it was there.  I may
be on a biz trip to the Springfield area by the end of April, and since
I'll have to drive from Boston to Springfield, I wonder if I can finagle my
schedule to block out a few hours.....hmmm.

For those similarly interested who might be in the Vienna (Austria) area a
must-see is the Kunsthistorisches Museum Hofjagd-und Ruestkammer in the
Neue Burg -
of some selected items at

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Peter Maranci <pmaranci at gmail.com> wrote:

> By an odd coincidence I was just at the truly amazing Higgins Armory in
> Worcester, Massachusetts this weekend. It's a museum of medieval armor and
> weapons (which tragically is going to close forever at the end of 2013).
> And this very question came up at a demonstration.
> Chainmail under plate was not practical due to weight considerations and
> bulk. Patches of chain were used at certain strategic locations in many
> suits of armor, where plate wasn't used for reasons such as mobility.
> I learned a lot there. For example, I didn't know that a full suit of
> combat plate could weigh as little as 30 pounds, and that a fully-armored
> knight once did a triple somersault in midair! The suits that took forever
> to put on and weighed a ridiculous amount were specifically for jousting -
> which was, of course, a very limited activity with strict rules.
> If you can possibly get to the Armory before they close, it's well worth
> seeing. My son and his friend LOVED the place; they're both eleven. My wife
> and I found it fascinating, too! Here's a link to a photosphere I took of
> the third and fourth floors:
> https://plus.google.com/101089108381539470202/posts/duCMmqjRZEt
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I spent a lot of time kludging house rules as to what could be layered,
>> and what couldn't, and finally ultimately agreed with how it's written (I'm
>> pretty sure) in the RQ6 rules: you simply can't.
>> Armor is actually a fairly complex system, that has to be flexible in
>> some places and inflexible in others for it to work.  I'm going to go with
>> the idea that armorers knew their business, and designed the armor for the
>> best level of protection possible while not inordinately hindering the
>> wearer at a given level of protection.
>> If someone INSISTS on wearing a 'heavy leather poncho' over their plate
>> armor or something, or trying to stuff a layer of chain/whatever under
>> plate armor, sure, give them another 1-2 points of protection but I'd
>> probably penalize physical activities - ie combat - a level of difficulty
>> per extra point of protection.  Sure, you can mummify yourself in bubble
>> wrap if you want, and you'll be safer...of course, you won't be able to
>> move, but you will on the simplest level resist blows better.
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Steve Perrin <steve.perrin at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>  You keep layering armor and you are going to look like the Michelin
>>> Man. I don't think I would give a plate and chain combination more than 1
>>> extra point of armor. I would also be watching fatigue penalties very
>>> closely.
>>> Actually, since I hate keeping track of that kind of stuff, I just would
>>> not allow it.
>>> Steve Perrin
>>> On 4/7/2013 10:01 PM, Asher Royce Yaffee wrote:
>>> Hi, All,
>>>    Cheapskate that I am (and given pay cuts and how much more my kids
>>> eat every passing year....), I still haven't bought RQ6 yet -- though I
>>> want to.  In the meantime, my beat up old RQ3 books still soldier on.
>>>  Hopefully the books'll survive one more summer of gaming with my kids.  :-)
>>>    Wait!  There's a point to this email.
>>>    The RQ3 rule that allows flexible armor under rigid armor.  It makes
>>> obvious sense for cases of cloth or leather under plate.  But was it
>>> intended to include chain mail under plate mail?
>>>    If so, then that's a lot of armor points.  So, I wanted to ask if the
>>> game designers originally intended rich characters to have 15 armor points
>>> (in addition to any magical protection).
>>>    Also, I am very interested in the opinions of people who have fought
>>> in armor.  What do you think makes the most sense?
>>>    Wisdom and experience and guidance are warmly welcome.
>>>     Sincerely,
>>> Asher
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Runequest mailing listRunequest at rpgreview.nethttp://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Runequest mailing list
>>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>>> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
> --
> Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
> Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
> The Diary of A Simple Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20130408/0498d4fc/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Runequest mailing list