Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[Beoric]

I generally would invert this and kick full-plate to the curb. "Full plate" is intended for jousting tournaments and maybe the battle-field, but not traveling or adventuring in dungeons. It's too bulk for long travel and your fighter would almost certainly not be wearing it and have it packed on a beast of burden. Hence the reason for just including plate mail in pre-UA D&D.

Yeah, no. Gothic plate included, but was not limited to tournament armor.

Part of the problem is that most of the armor types posited by Gygax likely never existed, at least not in the form he described. Studded leather never existed, and was likely a misunderstanding of the rivets on brigandine, which actually gave a lot more protection. Ring mail was likely a misinterpretation of artistic renditions of chain mail. "Chain mail" was actually called "mail". Splint "mail" was actually just used for limb armor. I don't know what banded armor was supposed to be, but my best guess is lame and/or a coat of plates.

"Plate mail" may have been any of a number of combined mail-and-plate armor, none of which were actually European. The picture in the 1e DM Adventure Log looks what Palladium described as "plate over mail", literally reinforcing plates worn over a mail hauberk and cuisses during a transitional period before armor-smithing was up to the task of making gothic plate. It is described in Wikipedia as

Single plates of metal armour were again used from the late 13th century on, to protect joints and shins, and these were worn over a mail hauberk. Gradually the number of plate components of medieval armour increased, protecting further areas of the body, and in barding those of a cavalryman's horse. Armourers developed skills in articulating the lames or individual plates for parts of the body that needed to be flexible, and in fitting armour to the individual wearer like a tailor.

and probably looked like the cuirass and brassarts of this image from the "splint armor" page linked above:

It would have been heavy and cumbersome, being a full suit of mail over a full gameson, all of which had various other plates (courass, grieves, vambraces, brasssarts, rondels) strapped overtop or wired in.

Late medieval plate like gothic plate was later that, and likely superior to, either type of armor that Gygax may have been referring to as "plate mail" (and is in fact what the paladin in hell was wearing). It also much easier to move in than the 6" movement rate that is attributed to platemail; see this video. [Someone need to explain to me the syntax of imbedding video.]

 

[EOTB]

What became the UA "field plate" is referenced in the DMG text as an optional armor although not included in the armor list

 

[squeen]

Yeah. No.

Still not buying that you would travel full-suited like that long distances (or go climbing down into tight spaces). Sorry.

 

[Beoric]

Still not buying that you would travel full-suited like that long distances (or go climbing down into tight spaces). Sorry.

No, you would take it off if you didn't expect to be in danger. But the padding underneath is actually padded armor, so you aren't completely unprotected. And let's face it, in a D&D wilderness you would probably deal with the discomfort rather than risk a fight without it - an experiment you can try with your players, who will tell you with their choices.

Even so, you would be more comfortable in field plate than in plate mail, so suggesting you would be happy to travel in plate mail but not in field plate makes no sense to me.

I'm pretty sure ancient armies marched in armor. And I doubt modern soldiers lose their kit, including their body armor, before they march.

 

[Two orcs]

If you could afford a suit of full plate you could afford multiple horses. Modern soldiers in bad climates definitely ditch their armor all the time, even when risking ambush patrolling places like Afghanistan or Iraq. But the wilderness in D&D is a lot more dangerous than those places.

D&D doesn't really simulate things like discomfort well, but I think it´s fine if PCs are monsters of will taking the "long route" to their goal be it travelling in armor, living on hard tack only or never skipping sentries because it feels safe.

 

[Beoric]

It would be relatively easy to rule that the time you could spend travelling would be reduced if you were in heavy armor. Although you already have ridiculous movement penalties, so maybe the tradeoff is already built in: 25%-50% reduction in speed vs. risk of encounter while lightly armored. Or using 1e overland rules, 33%-67% reduction in speed vs. risk of encounter while lightly armored.

Or you could use the rules in the Wilderness Survival Guide, which start applying ability and movement penalties based on ambient temperature. They look straightforward if a bit fiddley, although you would probably only have to make one or two calculations per armor type per journey, since the temperature ranges are quite broad. And since they stack with 1e overland rules, movement ends up being very slow, even given 1e's ridiculously high base overland movement rate of 30 miles/day; most heavily armored characters would end up travelling 7-8 miles on even a cool day, and 6-7 miles a day if it was remotely warm. (Or you could carry your armor instead, and travel a whole 10 miles/day.)

Also, horses will slow you down in mountains or wetlands, since you have to take detours to find routes to accommodate them, and you would probably need to lead them much of the time instead of riding them. A lot of hills are also pretty tough, as are forests with a lot of deadfall and/or undergrowth. Horses are plains animals and don't do well with steep slopes, deep mud, concealed uneven ground or lots of things to trip on.

 

[Two orcs]

Also, horses will slow you down in mountains or wetlands, since you have to take detours to find routes to accommodate them, and you would probably need to lead them much of the time instead of riding them. A lot of hills are also pretty tough, as are forests with a lot of deadfall and/or undergrowth. Horses are plains animals and don't do well with steep slopes, deep mud, concealed uneven ground or lots of things to trip on.

From what I've seen of professional knights riding in armor (either plate or mail) doesn't seem overly tiring - for the rider! I always figured the movement penalty in rough terrain was due to forced detours rather than every step being X% heavier, but it´s an interesting point that horses would be even more limited in viable routes - in that case certain terrain should reduce horses to pack animals and even exacerbate the movement penalty (or introduce a risk of losing the mount to a leg injury). If we want a really granular experience I´d say that traversing a swamp hex deals 1d6 damage to each horse - 0 or worse hit points means it breaks a leg! You can still do it, but after 18 miles of swamp the average horse is dead (and high hp horses become sought after! in ACKS this would tremendously upvalue the Animal Husbandry proficiency (Healing proficiency for animals) and I´d also let them look a horse in the mouth to determine their exact hp before buying).

This takes advantage of the predictability of hit points, you can introduce risk and resource management into wilderness travel - a shorter route might risk your mount. This could also be used for when you ride them too hard, go further at the cost of damage to your mount. A strong mount can be ridden much harder, but will need more time to recuperate (this might have strange interactions with Cure Light Wounds, clerics making parties a lot faster. On the other hand, you'll want one mount per party member so the CLW can´t cover them all so unless you are a very cleric heavy party it won´t break even).

The Fantastic blog Wandering Gamist has a long post on D&D logistics rooted in a book on Wild West settler (a good read in itself, it´s essentially an adventure manual with topics ranging from how to drive your horses, how to make a fortified camp, how to identify different Indians and when to be wary). The Wandering Gamist: ACKS: Simple(r) Logistics

 

[Osrnoob]

Jaques wrote one of those guides, its common said material now but at the time its really good advice

 

[Beoric]

There is a good article on this topic by Katharine Kerr in Dragon 94; "An Army Travels on its Stomache". See especially the section "Horse care: a matter of life and death". From that section:

What kind of care does stock require on the march? The most important thing is always having grain to eat. An army that tries to feed its stock on grass alone loses 05% of its horses and 03% of its mules on the fourth day of such treatment (this means 05% or 03% of the beginning total, not the steadily decreasing current number) and on every day thereafter. An animal marched with inadequate water will founder in 5 days.

Rest is almost as crucial. No fully loaded animal should be marched more than 8 hours per day at a walking pace if the animal is laboring under a pack-saddle and full load. (Well-fed cavalry horses can travel for 8 hours at a walk-trot-walk pace; they can never gallop for more than about twenty minutes straight without injury.) One day out of every 6, all animals must rest unloaded for a full day. What's more, since animals won't graze in the dark in unfamiliar territory, the army must wait each morning and camp early enough each night to allow the stock at least an hour of grazing, depending on how lush the available fodder is.

If a commander insists on a forced march, or if one is absolutely necessary, his stock will pay for it. A forced march is defined as moving more than 8 hours in a day at normal speed or moving 8 hours a day at faster than normal speed, that is, at faster than a walk-trot-walk for laden animals or gallop-trot-walk-gallop for cavalry. Well-fed stock can make a forced march of 2 days without harm, provided that they can rest for a full day afterward. If not, and especially if the forced march continues, the army will lose 10% of its horses and 05% of its mules on that third day, as it will also do on the fourth day. If a forced march continues without a day of rest past that point, the army will lose 20% (of the beginning total) of all stock every day the march continues. These penalties are cumulative. Stock fed only on grass or watered inadequately as well as being force-marched will founder at a doubled rate.

 

[The1True]

This is interesting, because my Irradiated Paradox playtest did some hex crawling this week. The guys have been eluding a gang of Bloodrock operatives overland and just as I wrapped up and went to bed for the night, I realized these dudes have been deliberately taking the rough route, making multiple climb checks through hilly terrain and using the druid's pass-without-trace over two days of travel AND THEY'VE GOT TWO BLOODY PACK HORSES!

That's my bad for not putting horses on the Roll20 map where I could see them, I guess. Lugging horses up and down cliffs with rope is not without precedent in exploration though...

 

[squeen]

That's my bad for not putting horses on the Roll20 map where I could see them, I guess. Lugging horses up and down cliffs with rope is not without precedent in exploration though...

And elephants!

 

[The1True]

good ol' Hannibal

 

[Beoric]

good ol' Hannibal

Of course, he lost nearly all of them on the trip, so they had no impact on the battle.

 

[squeen]

Of course, he lost nearly all of them on the trip, so they had no impact on the battle.

But you've got to admire a dreamer.

 

[Osrnoob]

XP FOR ELEPHANTS

 

[Two orcs]

XP FOR ELEPHANTS

An epic adventure. Cross a mountain range full of hostile tribes. XP for each surviving elephant.

 

[The1True]

An epic adventure. Cross a mountain range full of hostile tribes. XP for each surviving elephant.

Go on...

 

[The1True]

I mean, everyone hates escort missions. Mostly I think because they pop up in video games, making mission success largely dependent on infuriatingly stupid AI behaviour. But, even at the tabletop, they take away player agency, forcing PC's to move at the speed of the NPC and obstructing exploration/side treks as well as curbing some of the more excessive battle tactics preferred by many munchkins players.

That said; herding elephants: fun! It doesn't have to be carbon-copy Punic reenactment. Hell, it could be escorting a gift of elephants from a legendary monarch through jungle and dessert and over mountains to another mighty ruler (with maybe a surprise invasion at the end!). Throw in a couple of political factions bent on making the mission fail/succeed to their sinister specifications. A couple of meddling/murderous tribes who's land must be traversed. An exotic elephant disease that can only be cured by a side quest up a mountain or down a hole. Lay it all out like a Path Crawl with a robust Random Event generator....

 

[The1True]

Orrrr
Go all grimdark S&S and wrangle a herd of mastodon across a towering mountain range through a once-a-millennium blizzard for an obsessed barbarian warlord. Stir in tribal treachery, violently uncooperative locals (MFHP's: Miserable Fucking Hill People. Has history not taught us to just leave these people to marrying their cousins and fucking their goats?...) and uh, why not, a recently disturbed artifact out of time and space!

 

[Beoric]

That said; herding elephants: fun!

More fun: herding owlbears! Dock XPs for the number of villagers they eat along the way.