|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 25, 2014 20:57:45 GMT -6
On the one hand, I can see the attraction of having plate available at the beginning of the game, to give the poor 1st-level fighting-men and clerics a greater chance of surviving.
On the other hand, I think the price is crazy-low.
So how about this work-around:
Have TWO price-lists. The 1974 price list is to be used ONLY ONCE, when the PC "buys" his stuff for 30-180 gp before the PC enters play. This stuff isn't to be thought of as "Hey, look at the equipment I just bought at the store!" but rather as a material inheritance. After all, why is the PC becoming an adventurer right now (as opposed to last year or next year)? Because rich old Uncle Harold just died and left the PC all this expensive adventuring equipment.
The second price list would have much higher prices for stuff such as armor, swords, and horses (trying to better reflect "realistic" prices). This is the "real" price list that the PCs see whenever they go to actually buy something at any time during campaign play.
The above proposal A) still gives beginning PCs a good chance of having plate mail, and B) has more believable prices.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 25, 2014 22:47:21 GMT -6
I've always looked at it as "used" plate armor. The reason that armor and horses are so cheap is that there are battlefields just littered with the stuff. Any peasant with a shovel can go out and find the armor of some fallen knight.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 26, 2014 7:38:07 GMT -6
I think there are a couple of things factoring in to why Dave Arneson originally priced plate armor at 40 GP.
I think he probably was thinking of basically a breastplate, not a full knights suit. Note for example that plate is just double the cost of a large metal shield (20gp, FFC)
The other thing is army costs. Arneson gave the players the option of equipping the soldiers individually, and the D&D pricelists, though tweaked here and there, were taken directly from Arnesons army equipment price lists. 40 GP for armor + helmet, weapon and shield costs per soldier ain't cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jul 26, 2014 14:10:02 GMT -6
Just wondering ...
Could this rather low price just reflect the fact that, in the CHAINMAIL system, non-magical armor (avan plate!) has no incidence as soon as you fight on the Fantasy table?
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Aug 1, 2014 12:28:10 GMT -6
Good idea Geoffrey. A starting equipment list separate from a typical equipment list would make plenty of sense, the starting list could be keyed to be inherited and gifted equipment.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Aug 1, 2014 21:16:22 GMT -6
If someone were running an historical campaign and needed accurate prices for plate armor or simply interested in getting an idea of the real economics governing medieval plate armor, I highly recommend the article: Medieval Economics for RPGs by Philip McGregor. Apparently, iron was a major factor to consider. He talks about how it was in short supply over this time period: After a discussion of medieval wages, he talks about how much labor time it took to produce armor and what effect this had on its price: Geography was another important consideration: There was also a market for pre-owned armor: The section on armor ends with this note: BTW, a note at the top of the article says: "This was originally a two part article in NFB23 & 24, 1978/80. When I recently saw Phanarzul's article on Economics (NFB22)..." Does anybody know what "NFB" stands for, or where I could read a copy of the article he mentions by "Phanarzul" on Economics?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 1, 2014 21:37:03 GMT -6
Good idea Geoffrey. A starting equipment list separate from a typical equipment list would make plenty of sense, the starting list could be keyed to be inherited and gifted equipment. In that case, take a look at the medieval price list for actual prices of goods purchased from the Hundred Years War through the late Renaissance. The late prices are higher because of the rapid inflation caused by post-war/plague labor shortages and from spain's careless squandering of gold pumped in from the Americas, but because the materials for armor were also cheaper and their methods of manufacture more advanced it should about even out (somewhat). Here are some rough numbers: Armor | Price | Century | Leather? | 60p | 1100s | Mail | 1,200p | 1200s | Plate | 4,000p | 1300s | Plate | 2,000p | 1400s | Plate | 3,400p | 1600s | Shield | 400p | 1500s | Shield | 300p | 1600s | Helmet | 200p | 1300s | Helmet | 40p | 1500s | Helmet | 50p | 1500s |
Decorated armor is far more expensive. An engraved and guilt suit for a prince the cost 81,600p in the 1600s, 25x the price of the other 1600s plate armor. Englishmen were required to own weapons and armor, and these would be inherited so most costs associated with armor were for removing rust and replacing straps, or for resizing existing armor. It is also worth noting that longbows were far cheaper than crossbows during the hundred years war, but quarrels were a third the price of arrows. Longbows cost 15p and 1p/ arrow, while crossbows can cost 60p or 120p depending on their type of winding mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 2, 2014 12:34:17 GMT -6
Good idea Geoffrey. A starting equipment list separate from a typical equipment list would make plenty of sense, the starting list could be keyed to be inherited and gifted equipment. In that case, take a look at the medieval price list for actual prices of goods purchased from the Hundred Years War through the late Renaissance. The late prices are higher because of the rapid inflation caused by post-war/plague labor shortages and from spain's careless squandering of gold pumped in from the Americas, but because the materials for armor were also cheaper and their methods of manufacture more advanced it should about even out (somewhat). Here are some rough numbers: Armor | Price | Century | Leather? | 60p | 1100s | Mail | 1,200p | 1200s | Plate | 4,000p | 1300s | Plate | 2,000p | 1400s | Plate | 3,400p | 1600s | Shield | 400p | 1500s | Shield | 300p | 1600s | Helmet | 200p | 1300s | Helmet | 40p | 1500s | Helmet | 50p | 1500s |
Decorated armor is far more expensive. An engraved and guilt suit for a prince the cost 81,600p in the 1600s, 25x the price of the other 1600s plate armor. Englishmen were required to own weapons and armor, and these would be inherited so most costs associated with armor were for removing rust and replacing straps, or for resizing existing armor. It is also worth noting that longbows were far cheaper than crossbows during the hundred years war, but quarrels were a third the price of arrows. Longbows cost 15p and 1p/ arrow, while crossbows can cost 60p or 120p depending on their type of winding mechanism. Could prolly spend days playing around with the numbers, but here's a simple observation: By this table plate armor was 11.3 times more expensive than a shield in the 1600s. In OD&D a shield costs 10gp, so by this relationship from the table. plate should cost 113 gp.
|
|
|
Post by Hawklord on Aug 2, 2014 22:52:59 GMT -6
BTW, a note at the top of the article says: "This was originally a two part article in NFB23 & 24, 1978/80. When I recently saw Phanarzul's article on Economics (NFB22)..." Does anybody know what "NFB" stands for, or where I could read a copy of the article he mentions by "Phanarzul" on Economics?The article is from the News From Bree Tolkien-focused RPG fanzine. It looks like the file you linked to was originally copied from NFB's website here: www.newsfrombree.co.uk/m_econ.htm
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Aug 3, 2014 2:31:59 GMT -6
BTW, a note at the top of the article says: "This was originally a two part article in NFB23 & 24, 1978/80. When I recently saw Phanarzul's article on Economics (NFB22)..." Does anybody know what "NFB" stands for, or where I could read a copy of the article he mentions by "Phanarzul" on Economics?The article is from the News From Bree Tolkien-focused RPG fanzine. It looks like the file you linked to was originally copied from NFB's website here: www.newsfrombree.co.uk/m_econ.htmThanks for clearing that up! I stumbled on the Middle-earth PBM newsletter, also named News From Bree (35 issues from '98-'08), but that wasn't what I was looking for---glad you steered me to the right source. So the right News From Bree was a newsletter/RPG-fanzine from 1970 to 1988 by members of the Tolkien Society. It's unfortunate that all 29-issues haven't been digitized---that econ article was well done, and I'd like to see more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 21:49:03 GMT -6
So, this is a game where an average hit has a 1/2 to 1/3 chance of outright killing a character, and you're worried that first level characters other than magic-users can afford something which will make that 1/3 chance come up 30% less often than it would otherwise? Pretty much my feelings on the subject. If I could be arsed I'd link to some threads on this very board complaining about how vulnerable first level characters were just so I could have a dip in the irony pool.
|
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 68
|
Post by Elphilm on Aug 8, 2014 6:07:41 GMT -6
Well, I think it's simply a matter of people wanting there to be something meaningful for fighters to upgrade to. Once you go plate, all else is, uh... dead weight. Starting with mail or even leather and picking up plate armor only after you've amassed enough wealth for it is just neat; character vulnerability is really a separate issue. The former is about world simulation, the latter a game construct.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 8, 2014 16:49:27 GMT -6
I wouldn't necessarily call plate an upgrade over mail except on a battlefield. Consider that the typical first level dungeon inhabitants -goblins, kobolds, and skeletons- have a movement rate of 6". A man in chain-mail can easily outrun them. Orcs, hobgoblins, ghouls, etc - all have a movement of 9" meaning they can easily overtake a fleeing man in plate. Is a 10% bonus worth not having the option to run away?
The problem for me is economic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 19:25:54 GMT -6
After 42 years of playing, yes, it is absolutely worth a 10% bonus to be in plate. Especially if you're playing smart and have your front rank with plate, shield, and hand axe or mace, and your second rank with spears or polearms.
It's not a matter of "what is my guy wearing," it's a matter of "how is the unit designed to perform?"
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 9, 2014 14:57:30 GMT -6
to steal a rule from another game, you can have armor provide protection until the first time the armor is "breeched" aka you take damage, at which point it provides no protection until you repair it aka pay the cost of a new set of armor. so the cost in the book is the repair cost, not the "buy".
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 2, 2014 13:20:44 GMT -6
After 42 years of playing, yes, it is absolutely worth a 10% bonus to be in plate. Especially if you're playing smart and have your front rank with plate, shield, and hand axe or mace, and your second rank with spears or polearms. It's not a matter of "what is my guy wearing," it's a matter of "how is the unit designed to perform?" On the battlefield maybe, but in the dungeon you essentially half the number of wandering monster checks the party takes is everyone has a 12" movement rate. Moving two 12" moves per turn instead of two 6" moves per turn isn't a bad option.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 2, 2014 13:45:35 GMT -6
Or having to run away at 24" isn't bad either.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Dec 2, 2014 14:53:09 GMT -6
At 120' x 2 in ten minutes, you're moving at .27 miles/hour. It isn't clear to me how armor and/or encumbrance could make you go much slower than that. In other words it always seemed reasonable to me that encumbrance would slow down fleeing or combat movement but not mapping or exploration movement. I know this goes against the explicit text of OD&D but still. Is there anything wrong with my interpretation (other than that it means I'm really playing Dungeons & Beavers), or rather, what are the downsides to it?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Dec 2, 2014 16:34:20 GMT -6
24 squares is a decent exploration speed. Before a rest groups can cover 120 squares in one hour, 1000 squares total (counting travel time back to the enterance to camp) in a day of exploration.
Realism is less an issue than game play. D&D rules were probably conceived with this sort of play in mind and so the movement penalty to plate wielders makes creates a choice for players.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 2, 2014 21:40:08 GMT -6
At 120' x 2 in ten minutes, you're moving at .27 miles/hour. It isn't clear to me how armor and/or encumbrance could make you go much slower than that. In other words it always seemed reasonable to me that encumbrance would slow down fleeing or combat movement but not mapping or exploration movement. I know this goes against the explicit text of OD&D but still. Is there anything wrong with my interpretation (other than that it means I'm really playing Dungeons & Beavers), or rather, what are the downsides to it? I admit, it is a very slow rate of movement. But, as redbaron pointed out, you are halving the wandering monster checks by giving a party in plate the movement rate of someone in light armor. If you are using the encumbrance rules, the rate of speed could be dropped even further to 3" if over loaded and wearing plate. There's nothing you can outrun on the Monster Tables at that rate except a Grey Ooze. By ignoring movement rates, you are also altering the length of the turn and consequently altering the possible duration of certain spells, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 4, 2014 11:47:46 GMT -6
I suppose that, if using movement rates for an "outrun the monster" scenario, I wouldn't be using the ten minutes long "exploration turn" , even if doubling movement rates. The one-minute "combat turn" (a.k.a. "round") is more suited to the "fast and furious" race. As Oaks said " it always seemed reasonable to me that encumbrance would slow down fleeing or combat movement but not mapping or exploration movement."In other words, use the movement rates "as written" for combat and escape, but a more steady 2x12" /turn for exploration seems reasonable to me. As for wandering monsters checks , you still can rule that heavy armor is clonky and noisy , and doubles the risk for wandering monsters.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 4, 2014 15:58:37 GMT -6
I suppose that, if using movement rates for an "outrun the monster" scenario, I wouldn't be using the ten minutes long "exploration turn" , even if doubling movement rates. The one-minute "combat turn" (a.k.a. "round") is more suited to the "fast and furious" race. As Oaks said " it always seemed reasonable to me that encumbrance would slow down fleeing or combat movement but not mapping or exploration movement."In other words, use the movement rates "as written" for combat and escape, but a more steady 2x12" /turn for exploration seems reasonable to me. As for wandering monsters checks , you still can rule that heavy armor is clonky and noisy , and doubles the risk for wandering monsters. I guess you also house rule (ignore) the section that states, "searching a ten foot section of wall for secret passages will require a full turn". This is essentially a movement rate of 1" per turn! I'm certainly not going to tell you how to run your game, but the matter of time is irrelevant (whether 1 minute or 10 minutes) in this case. Your point does beg the question of why you are using a 10 minute turn at all though? What I was trying to convey was that you're distorting the turn by ignoring movement rates. You have two moves to the turn. Those rates of movement establish how far you can travel in a turn. Most things in the game are measured in turns. If you double your movement rate, guess what, you are altering all game effects that might be dependent on the turn.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 4, 2014 16:40:26 GMT -6
Searching a wall section is not moving anymore : it is standing there prodding, pushing , tapping, und so weiter.
Of course, if it possible to envision the turn as a totally "abstact" unit for game resolution (like speaking of inches instead of feet or meters or coins instead of pounds or kilograms), without consideration for an actual time measurement. Lightly armored characters move faster than heavily armored ones. One turn is defined by two moves (or one move plus one action -like searching a wall section). Monster checks come every two turns. A torch lasts 6 turns. All this is fair and square.
But the ten minutes time actually comes from the original booklets. And frankly, like Oakspalding, I have trouble reconciling the "official" move rates (6", 9", 12") with a ten minutes turn: if someone moves at a rate of 6 meters in a minute , even the heaviest armored footman is going to catch on him.
So, in either case , you have to ditch one of the "official" mentions: you can keep the move rates but abandon the ten-minutes mention , you can keep the ten minutes turn but adopt a faster pace (maybe adopting a 1" = 10 yards scale).
Otherwise it isn' Dungeons & Dragons , but Snarls & Snails
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Dec 4, 2014 20:24:42 GMT -6
I think there are a number of issues here. For example, one could question whether the standard OD&D movement rates--per ten minute turn, per 1 minute turn, per 10 second turn or whatever--are "realistic". But my point a few posts above was simply to argue that armor and/or encumbrance would reduce running speed by much more than it would reduce careful exploration speed. Indeed, it isn't clear it would reduce it at all. Now, it's true that reducing or eliminating varying movement rates for exploration would have other effects on the game. But I'm not convinced those effects are negative. Indeed, I think they're positive. It's simpler, for one thing. I'm all for maximizing interesting and meaningful choices (in some sense that's what OD&D is about), but I don't think the choice of whether or not to wear armor based on, say, wandering monster considerations is a meaningful one. That's because I don't think any player in the history of the universe has ever decided that question in the negative . If you are a Fighting-Man and you can afford plate armor, you wear it, period. And I think that makes sense. In OD&D, Fighting-Men aren't inherently that much better at fighting or defending than members of the other classes, especially at lower levels, though members of other classes have other advantages that Fighting-Men don't have. Being able to wear armor is one of the biggest--perhaps THE biggest--advantage that Fighting-Men get. Logically, imposing a penalty--you get quadruple the number of wandering monsters!--on wearing armor that is large enough such that choosing to avoid the penalty would actually be thinkable would of course partly negate that advantage. But why would that be a net positive in game play terms?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 5, 2014 19:21:19 GMT -6
But the ten minutes time actually comes from the original booklets. And frankly, like Oakspalding, I have trouble reconciling the "official" move rates (6", 9", 12") with a ten minutes turn: if someone moves at a rate of 6 meters in a minute , even the heaviest armored footman is going to catch on him. So, in either case , you have to ditch one of the "official" mentions: you can keep the move rates but abandon the ten-minutes mention , you can keep the ten minutes turn but adopt a faster pace (maybe adopting a 1" = 10 yards scale). Otherwise it isn' Dungeons & Dragons , but Snarls & Snails It is questionable if there is any value in a discussion where there isn't even the common ground of agreement on the prescribed rules as written. This is in pursuit of perceived "realism"? The difference between a 6" move and a 12" move during a 10 minute turn is exactly 12 feet/minute. For some reason this feels more "realistic" to you in regards to the exploration turn. How so? But more to the point, Oakes isn't talking about ditching "official" movement rates or time scales. He's not even talking about altering them. He's talking about ignoring them altogether by giving everyone the same movement rate of 12". Thus also ignoring any game mechanics attached to the turn. Of course there is no down side to this because they are being undermined. What's the downside of moving 3 spaces instead of one in a game of Candy Land? This appeals to some it seems. I suspect it is because they likely do not really use movement rates, encumbrance, or even a standard turn sequence. Instead they prefer a much looser and woolly game play. Which makes me wonder why there is any concern for "realism" at all? Here's some real facts about the effects of wearing plate- linkBottom line of the study is that it is exhausting because it requires more expended energy to move. Historically, the trade off was for better protection in combat over mobility.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 5, 2014 19:49:07 GMT -6
Cool link.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 6, 2014 5:54:54 GMT -6
The article you linked to gives a walking speed of 1,4 to 1,7 meters/second. That makes 1,020 meters/turn (3,360 feet).
The body of text does not say (or I missed it) how long was the treadmill test. let us assume it was 6 minutes (the 6 min walk test is a routine test in physiology and respiratory médicine). Ley us also assume that the armored man did actually walk only six minutes in his turn, because of armored-induced exhaustion. That is 612 meters (2,000 feet).
The norm for an average-built unencumbered 38 years old man is around 975 meters. If we assume that he does indeed walk ten minutes in the turn, since he dos not suffer from "armor fatigue", that makes 1,625 meters (5,330 feet).
SO, there is an actual difference between the armored and the unarmored man, and the 6 to 12 ratio is pretty close to actual numbers (612 vs 1625) BUT this différence is relevant only with a steady and faster pace (2,000 feet instead of 120; 5,330 feet instead of 240).
If you dramatically reduce the movement rate , and justify it by the necessity of carefully walking in an unlit area, cartography time, etc., the difference between the armored and the unarmored man disapears because encumberance is not the main determinator of the progression rate anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 6, 2015 22:23:52 GMT -6
Porphyre wrote:
Is this essentially what you are driving at? Fleeing/charging: 18" (unarmored/1 minute combat turn, "round"); 24" (unarmored/10 minute turn of exploration)?
One comment made on the subject roughly reads as follows: Dropping movement rates: use raw distance to measure time. A torch burns out after you have moved 720 feet. You roll for a random encounter every 120 feet. You heal 1 hit point for every 17280 feet you move. The key point is that "exploration" rate is not actually ‘movement’ rate; rather, it is the speed of progress made by a party when accepting a certain level of risk. Characters are free to walk briskly or run full-tilt down dungeon halls, and I will adjust random encounter and hazard probabilities accordingly.
I'm not sure what I think about the reversal of distance for time, but it is an interesting juxtaposition.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 7, 2015 9:07:08 GMT -6
Maybe my comments come across as impudent and lacking tact in this thread? If so, then I apologize.
The kernel of the acorn in my argument is that movement rates are a mechanic for the game. Yet, the tracking of time is simply an abstract for the turn. So, instead of distorting the movement rates one would be better off ignoring the 10 minute turn and, instead do all accounting at a shorter time span when exploring.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 7, 2015 9:39:54 GMT -6
Derv, I agree, movement rates are a mechanic of the game, it is hard to imagine the game without them, though I am often rather unsatisfied with their interpretation. Rates of movement in combat, especially those of charge and fleeing actions (though Porphyre has pointed out walking speeds seem poorly defined) seem in need of redress. The movement rates 'appear' to work for wilderness exploration in that they account for rest periods in relation to encumbrance. The steady walking speeds Porphyre cites are roughly a 3 to 1 (erring high instead of low), 612 m. to 1625 m.,difference between unarmored and armored; the unarmored man walking roughly a mile in ten minutes. Conversely, Dungeon exploration is limited by the necessity of carefully walking in an unlit area and cartography. All of this seems to follow. As I have stated above and in a previous thread concerning the rate of fire for missile and hurled weapons, in which I argue that fire rate should conform to the Chainmail melee 'round' not 'turn', I also make the argument that charge and fleeing rates should be readdressed in conjunction. When an unencumbered man (in many cases an adolescent) can sprint 100 yds in 10-13 seconds (so roughly 2 melee rds in Chnml.) or that same can run 440 yds (albeit fatigued at the close) in under a minute then it becomes necessary to consider movement rates as written. That said, I think Oakespalding and Porphyre make a good point about encumbrance.
|
|