PDA

View Full Version : RPG Rant: Weapon Weights



Tetsubo 57
2010-06-05, 11:36 PM
I rant about something that has bugged me for 30+ years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNUbjenhs8Y

Folytopo
2010-06-05, 11:53 PM
Yeah, Accountants don't often spend all day swinging hammers or chop down trees. Good points, I have seen this argument before and you were very articulate, and easily accessible.

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 12:01 AM
Yeah, Accountants don't often spend all day swinging hammers or chop down trees. Good points, I have seen this argument before and you were very articulate, and easily accessible.

Thanks. I've had thirty years to think about it. :)

Grumman
2010-06-06, 12:03 AM
I rant about something that has bugged me for 30+ years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNUbjenhs8Y
I think I've told you this before, but if you can't be bothered to post something here instead of just linking to your Youtube video, you shouldn't expect us to be bothered watching it.

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 12:10 AM
I think I've told you this before, but if you can't be bothered to post something here instead of just linking to your Youtube video, you shouldn't expect us to be bothered watching it.

I make videos because I find if far easier to communicate in that manner. If you don't want to watch, I understand. Feel free to ignore my posts.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 12:11 AM
Honestly, I had never noticed this before. Probably because most of the time when I'm using a sword it's a weighted rattan one.

On a related note, as a hobbyist blacksmith and the owner of a chainmail shirt, it's always irritated me how lightweight their listings for armor is. For example, the PHB Chain Shirt weighs 25 lbs, which is only about half the proper weight.

Reinboom
2010-06-06, 12:19 AM
I think a major part of the weight issues is that with many new RPGs the designers don't think to do research for such things but instead trust that the RPG they retrieved it from first did the research correctly.

This information is insignificant to many people. Instead, the mechanics and style of the game system itself appeals more to their liking and thus they research and do more work on that portion.

Of course, rants like this are great - if they can get attention - because it gives the issue more light.

Personally, in my design, I've grown to not specify weight but instead use encumbrance specifically. It simplifies the system down and it makes much more sense with armor. Worn armor feels lighter and is much easier to work in than the weight of just carrying it would have you believe, after all.

On the rant itself, you're quite well spoken and I very much appreciate your weaving of references into your speech. Also you're cute. I'll have to look up any other videos you've done.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 12:24 AM
Personally, in my design, I've grown to not specify weight but instead use encumbrance specifically. It simplifies the system down and it makes much more sense with armor. Worn armor feels lighter and is much easier to work in than the weight of just carrying it would have you believe, after all.

Keep in mind that you aren't always wearing armor, either; can you imagine wearing full plate for a whole day, while hiking over rough terrain? Enjoy your stroke. The actual weight matters then.

And I'm well aware that worn armor is not as much of a burden as carried armor, but in that case why not have a listing for both weight and encumbrance?

On the weapon end of the equation, there's really not a noticible difference between the weight of a sword on your belt and a sword in your hand. (Other than say, holding it out at arms length for an extended period of time. But thats mostly just because your center of balance is off.)

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 12:24 AM
I think a major part of the weight issues is that with many new RPGs the designers don't think to do research for such things but instead trust that the RPG they retrieved it from first did the research correctly.

This information is insignificant to many people. Instead, the mechanics and style of the game system itself appeals more to their liking and thus they research and do more work on that portion.

Of course, rants like this are great - if they can get attention - because it gives the issue more light.

Personally, in my design, I've grown to not specify weight but instead use encumbrance specifically. It simplifies the system down and it makes much more sense with armor. Worn armor feels lighter and is much easier to work in than the weight of just carrying it would have you believe, after all.

On the rant itself, you're quite well spoken and I very much appreciate your weaving of references into your speech. Also you're cute. I'll have to look up any other videos you've done.

Thank you on both accounts. :) I do rpg related videos regularly. I review the new things I read and occasionally older games.

Reinboom
2010-06-06, 12:33 AM
And I'm well aware that worn armor is not as much of a burden as carried armor, but in that case why not have a listing for both weight and encumbrance?

Because how you carry it matters as well. Weight also tends to be misleading.

I do "Carried/Worn" encumbrance on armors, personally. Other things can lean to decreasing carried encumbrance. And armors exhaust over time.


Of course, the other problem here is that a game system must flow. This is a big reason to not use multiple values (though, a passing mention of the weight range in the description may be useful). There's also the problem that, like many of the game designers that tetsubo has complained about, people have their own decided thoughts about weight and what it should be - whether wrong or not.


Thank you on both accounts. :) I do rpg related videos regularly. I review the new things I read and occasionally older games.

:smallsmile:

Hague
2010-06-06, 12:44 AM
Usually weight isn't even a significant factor but when you do use it, it's really to limit things like rope and excessive alchemical gear and the like. (DnD 3.5) If the weights were appropriate, it would make a wider variety of weapons available to weaker characters (not that weaker chars will use weapons often...) Really, if you use realistic encumbrance rules, water ends up being your heaviest piece of equipment, followed by rope, and then inevitably all the gold you carry back with you. Of course, once the bag of holding is in play, well, it's not such a big deal. But with weapon weights as high as they are, a person with average strength can't wield a two-handed sword and have a regular equipment layout without being at least moderately encumbered.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 12:51 AM
once the bag of holding is in play, well, it's not such a big deal.

It's bad policy to assume that any given item is going to be available. Since items are handed out by DM Fiat, you really shouldn't plan anything around the idea that item X will be available when you need it.

(Sorry, a pet peeve of mine when listening to people's character creation plans.)


But with weapon weights as high as they are, a person with average strength can't wield a two-handed sword and have a regular equipment layout without being at least moderately encumbered.

Pff. I've made enough NPC sheets to know that a person with average strength can't even carry a city guard's equipment without at least moderate encumberance. Moderate encumberance is practically the norm.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-06, 01:06 AM
It's bad policy to assume that any given item is going to be available. Since items are handed out by DM Fiat, you really shouldn't plan anything around the idea that item X will be available when you need it.

(Sorry, a pet peeve of mine when listening to people's character creation plans.)

Pff. I've made enough NPC sheets to know that a person with average strength can't even carry a city guard's equipment without at least moderate encumberance. Moderate encumberance is practically the norm.

Thanks to 3.5's WBL and item availability based on settlement size, affording a bag of holding at the appropriate level is practically RAW. The DM Fiat would come in when characters are forced to trek through an unpopulated world in which they never find treasure. The DMG pretty much spells out that characters should be able to acquire items appropriate to their level, so it's reasonable for a character created in a RAW world to include item acquisition as part of his build.

Back on the topic: Moderate encumbrance should be the norm for heavily-armed and armored individuals. I'm afraid I don't have a link, but there was a rather eloquent post awhile back comparing D&D encumbrance with what real-life armed forces deal with. The general conclusion was that although specific item weights may be out of whack, the overall effect of encumbrance was fairly accurate within the abstracted d20 system in comparison to real-world analogues.

I'm a fan of tracking overall weight. It means I can put in huge treasure hoards and know the characters will only be able to carry off a WBL-appropriate amount (at lower levels).

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 01:16 AM
Thanks to 3.5's WBL and item availability based on settlement size, affording a bag of holding at the appropriate level is practically RAW. The DM Fiat would come in when characters are forced to trek through an unpopulated world in which they never find treasure. The DMG pretty much spells out that characters should be able to acquire items appropriate to their level, so it's reasonable for a character created in a RAW world to include item acquisition as part of his build.

An unpopulated world with no treasure is one thing. It's an entirely different matter to assume that everything in the DMG can be purchased over the counter. It's entirely allowed within the rules for the DM to simply say "no, they don't have a Bag of Holding."

(On the other hand, it's entirely allowed within the rule for the DM to whatever the hell he wants. Rule 0 is RAW.)

Xuc Xac
2010-06-06, 01:44 AM
A two-handed sword is called a Zweihänder (all nouns are capitalized in German) or you can anglicize it as zweihaender if you can't type "ä". It's pronounced "zvai-hen-der" not "zwee-lan-der".

"Parlance" is a way of speaking. "Common parlance" is using normal everyday language. For example, "a zweihaender is called a 'two-handed sword' in common parlance".

"Mêlée" is not "mee-lee". It's "may-lay".

sofawall
2010-06-06, 01:50 AM
It's pronounced "zvai-hen-der" not "zwee-lan-der".

Tsvai-hehn-dehr, but close.

dr.cello
2010-06-06, 03:26 AM
I always figured the weights were more concerned with balancing with a character's carrying capacity than anything else. Allowing people to wear armor without being unable to do anything, but keeping them from carrying an entire arsenal of weapons.

Admittedly the 'weapons are ridiculously heavy' has always bothered me, but I'm not too worried about armor being light (because I don't like my players or characters to be unable to move).

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 04:00 AM
On a related note, as a hobbyist blacksmith and the owner of a chainmail shirt, it's always irritated me how lightweight their listings for armor is. For example, the PHB Chain Shirt weighs 25 lbs, which is only about half the proper weight.

Excuse me, what? Mail shirt weighing 50 pounds? :smallconfused:

Mail shirt reconstructed from the remains of Roman soldiers ones (around 50 AD) usually weigh about 20 pounds, while made of small rings of about 5mm of internal diameter, all riveted.
And they're made for modern guys, who are usually bigger than Roman legionnaires were.

Shademan
2010-06-06, 04:04 AM
and chainmail is always heaviest before you put it on.

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 04:05 AM
Excuse me, what? Mail shirt weighing 50 pounds? :smallconfused:

Mail shirt reconstructed from the remains of Roman soldiers ones (around 50 AD) usually weigh about 20 pounds, while made of small rings of about 5mm of internal diameter, all riveted.
And they're made for modern guys, who are usually bigger than Roman legionnaires were.

Well, there is a difference between a mail shirt and a full hauberk. Plus the gambison worn beneath...

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 04:08 AM
Well, there is a difference between a mail shirt and a full hauberk. Plus the gambison worn beneath...

So? I quoted post about shirt only, so I talked about shirt.

Mail covering whole body from hands to feet usually weighted around 40 pounds to best of our knowledge, but mail finds are of course really scarce. And it was individual thing.

JaronK
2010-06-06, 04:11 AM
Still, a lot of people overestimate weights of armor and weapons. These guys marched in the stuff... it wasn't that heavy. A good two handed sword should weigh about 5-6 pounds. Just because lame replicas are 12 pounds doesn't make that actually true for what battle swords were.

Meanwhile, ornate armor designed for parades was heavy... but armor used for soldiers in the field was light and useful. If it's got pretty drawings all over it and weighs 100 pounds, it probably wasn't used in war (except maybe on horseback).

JaronK

Shademan
2010-06-06, 04:33 AM
armour in general tend to annoy me. padded gambesons are so underated and leather is so overrated.
and come on... do a armour decrease your speed and dexterity that much? sure it will tire you quicker but...

tiercel
2010-06-06, 06:36 AM
Well.. it's a game system. And -- just to address armor alone -- one where pretty much every character that wears armor at all tends to wind up wearing a mithral chain shirt, or full plate, once ~4th level or so is reached. Other armor types are mostly just flavor text at that point.

I mean seriously, unless there's a campaign restriction of some kind, why would anyone bother with the expense of making a magical set of scale mail? For that much money, you might as well enchant a "real" set of armor (mechanically speaking).

Greenish
2010-06-06, 07:31 AM
It's not just RPGs. The ARMA has a couple (http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) of essays (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html) on the topic.

The Rose Dragon
2010-06-06, 07:44 AM
I think the best game in this regard is Weapons of the Gods, which has the lightest weapons weighing 50 pounds. Even those that are not actual weapons of the gods. You might be a (relative) weakling unable to lift 200 pounds over your head, but your sword will weigh 500 pounds and you will swing it around perfectly because that's just how Weapons of the Gods rolls.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-06, 09:18 AM
An unpopulated world with no treasure is one thing. It's an entirely different matter to assume that everything in the DMG can be purchased over the counter. It's entirely allowed within the rules for the DM to simply say "no, they don't have a Bag of Holding."
All that fiat is going to start feeling a little oppressive and, well, downright unfun if everything I ever try to obtain is out of stock every single freakin’ place I look and if there is no wizard in the whole wide world that would even consider taking a commission for it.

Godskook
2010-06-06, 09:25 AM
I'm not sure I understand the point.

In the video, you claim "Never more than 6 lbs" and the heaviest sword in 3.5 weights 8lbs.

Doesn't seem 'too' far off.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-06-06, 09:40 AM
Do the weights in the PHB etc. include scabbards or other accessories? Not sure how much a scabbard weights...

Matthew
2010-06-06, 09:47 AM
There is a long ongoing thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124683&page=57) in its fifth (or sixth?) iteration devoted to this sort of iscussion. I seem to recall it was created to avoid the worst of real world versus fantasy arms and armour debate. As it goes, D20/3.5 revised all its weapon weights to much more reasonable numbers.

Also, quite wrong on the encumbrance/weight score. The first edition of AD&D is definitely all about encumbrance, and actively hostile to providing cut and dried weights. That said, the numbers are clearly derived from outdated sources.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-06, 09:49 AM
I'm not sure I understand the point.

In the video, you claim "Never more than 6 lbs" and the heaviest sword in 3.5 weights 8lbs.

Doesn't seem 'too' far off.

Agreed, Falchion and Greatsword are 8 lb. And those are the biggest swords in Core (beside 2 Bladed sword).
2 Bladed sword is 10 because the game is assuming 2 5 lb swords = 10 lb.

I'm curious what source books list more than 8 that the OP is referring to.

Matthew
2010-06-06, 09:51 AM
Agreed, Falchion and Greatsword are 8 lb. And those are the biggest swords in Core (beside 2 Bladed sword).
2 Bladed sword is 10 because the game is assuming 2 5 lb swords = 10 lb.

I'm curious what source books list more than 8 that the OP is referring to.

He is almost certainly thinking of 3.0 and second edition, as they use the same figures for weapon weight (two-handed sword = 15 lbs, which had an encumbrance of 250 coins in first edition).

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 10:14 AM
This encumbrance idea sounds good, with such simple system as 3.5, everything with actual, physical weights is bound to collapse and not make too much sense sooner or later.

So completely abstract "burden" system may be interesting.

Shademan
2010-06-06, 10:52 AM
This encumbrance idea sounds good, with such simple system as 3.5, everything with actual, physical weights is bound to collapse and not make too much sense sooner or later.

So completely abstract "burden" system may be interesting.

and it would be like: "rat-flail. burden rating 10, weight 8lb" etc?
sounds .... reasonable o:

Renegade Paladin
2010-06-06, 11:45 AM
Heh. In a completely unrelated note, just last week I ran across some guy on a Warcraft III modding forum who just offhand casually mentioned that the highland claymore in his sword collection weighs 49 pounds. The ensuing thrashing was quite amusing, though of course he wouldn't back off his claim; he went so far as to say the ARMA essays were lies. :smallamused: I got so exasperated that I calculated the volume of a 50 pound sword using the density of mild steel and determined that, assuming a ludicrous (and non-tapering!) blade width for the volume figure (4 inches wide by a quarter inch thick to get one square inch for easy math) it would have to be fourteen feet long. :smalltongue:

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 11:51 AM
Heh. In a completely unrelated note, just last week I ran across some guy on a Warcraft III modding forum who just offhand casually mentioned that the highland claymore in his sword collection weighs 49 pounds. The ensuing thrashing was quite amusing, though of course he wouldn't back off his claim; he went so far as to say the ARMA essays were lies. :smallamused:

The transcript of that conversation would be amusing. :)

Renegade Paladin
2010-06-06, 12:07 PM
The transcript of that conversation would be amusing. :)
Yes, it would. Unfortunately, the mods made us take it to the board's chat, and I don't have a log. :(

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 12:15 PM
Heh. In a completely unrelated note, just last week I ran across some guy on a Warcraft III modding forum who just offhand casually mentioned that the highland claymore in his sword collection weighs 49 pounds. The ensuing thrashing was quite amusing, though of course he wouldn't back off his claim; he went so far as to say the ARMA essays were lies. :smallamused: I got so exasperated that I calculated the volume of a 50 pound sword using the density of mild steel and determined that, assuming a ludicrous (and non-tapering!) blade width for the volume figure (4 inches wide by a quarter inch thick to get one square inch for easy math) it would have to be fourteen feet long. :smalltongue:

Maybe he was talking about the landmine.


blehehehe

Starbuck_II
2010-06-06, 12:47 PM
My brother thinks it is because the weapons weight are based on iron eight instead of steel (iron purities add weight).

I'm not sure if that is correct, but it would correlate if true.

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 12:52 PM
My brother thinks it is because the weapons weight are based on iron eight instead of steel (iron purities add weight).

I'm not sure if that is correct, but it would correlate if true.

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html

Wrought iron weighs 485 pounds per cubic foot.

Rolled steel weights 495 pounds per cubic foot.

In a hand held weapon the difference between the two would be insignificant. Additionally while forging a sword from even iron, you end up case hardening the outside layer whether you want to or not.

Knaight
2010-06-06, 12:59 PM
Remind me why we aren't using the metric system for this?

Riffington
2010-06-06, 01:02 PM
Remind me why we aren't using the metric system for this?

Because Napoleon was an artillerist, not a swordsman.

Quietus
2010-06-06, 01:48 PM
All that fiat is going to start feeling a little oppressive and, well, downright unfun if everything I ever try to obtain is out of stock every single freakin’ place I look and if there is no wizard in the whole wide world that would even consider taking a commission for it.

General rule my world goes by is that you can get anything that would register "Faint" on Detect Magic pretty easily (+1 weapons, I'd even count +2 stat items in this; I'm pretty easygoing, so your "basic" stuff), while "Moderate" generally requires you hiring out a ... magewright? Someone willing to make the item for you. "Strong" requires you find the item, have a party member make it, or may - on occasion - be given out from particularly powerful NPCs as gifts for quests.

This is in the main city of the campaign world - and to be fair, the highest level NPC wizard there is around 13th level.

Tetsubo 57
2010-06-06, 03:26 PM
Remind me why we aren't using the metric system for this?

Because the US is very stubborn. As for why *I* am not using the metric system... I just don't think in it. I can make the simple conversions in my head but I always think in Imperial.

randomhero00
2010-06-06, 03:56 PM
Weapon weights have always bothered me as well. I often wonder what they were thinking when they were imagining swinging around such long, heavy objects. Also irks me how long its been wrong for. Not sure why its so hard to do some research.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 04:24 PM
Excuse me, what? Mail shirt weighing 50 pounds? :smallconfused:

Mail shirt reconstructed from the remains of Roman soldiers ones (around 50 AD) usually weigh about 20 pounds, while made of small rings of about 5mm of internal diameter, all riveted.
And they're made for modern guys, who are usually bigger than Roman legionnaires were.

*shrug* Whatever sources you're quoting, doesn't hold up much to actually weighing a chainmail shirt. I've weighed mine, and that's how much it is. And no, it's not a full halberk. Just the shirt.

And yes, it DOES feel lighter to wear it than to carry it. But that doesn't change the numbers involved.

Matthew
2010-06-06, 04:28 PM
Weapon weights have always bothered me as well. I often wonder what they were thinking when they were imagining swinging around such long, heavy objects. Also irks me how long its been wrong for. Not sure why its so hard to do some research.

Well, they did do research, it is just that the state of the art moved on and nobody in D&D research and development noticed until 2003. :smallbiggrin:



*shrug* Whatever sources you're quoting, doesn't hold up much to actually weighing a chainmail shirt. I've weighed mine, and that's how much it is. And no, it's not a full halberk. Just the shirt.

And yes, it DOES feel lighter to wear it than to carry it. But that doesn't change the numbers involved.

Is it made of lead? Seriously, though, the weight of mail armour will depend on various factors, number of rings, size of rings and so on. 50 lbs is surprising, as most experts on the subject, who of course also own reconstructed mail armour and have weighed it, usually come up with figures of about half that. For example, see this book (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_VSww8kQY0EC&printsec=frontcover&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false) from page 30 [edit, aw damn missing the important page 31! Still, some good references in the footnotes].

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 04:31 PM
Is it made of lead? Seriously, though, the weight of mail armour will depend on various factors, number of rings, size of rings and so on. 50 lbs is surprising, as most experts on the subject, who of course also own reconstructed mail armour and have weighed it, usually come up with figures of about half that.

Well, it's a pretty sturdily built shirt. I think it might be double layered. Thick rings, too. That could alter the weight of it. (I don't actually have it on hand at the moment, (different house) so I can't re-examine it closer to be sure.)

Pretty sure it's just straight-up steel, though.

Now that I think about it, I also used to own a chain coif that was proportionately alot lighter. It had a lighter-colored metal for it's rings, so the material might have something to do with it.

Matthew
2010-06-06, 04:35 PM
Well, it's a pretty sturdily built shirt. I think it might be double layered. Thick rings, too. That could alter the weight of it. (I don't actually have it on hand at the moment, (different house) so I can't re-examine it closer to be sure.)

Pretty sure it's just straight-up steel, though.

Now that I think about it, I also used to own a chain coif that was proportionately a lot lighter. It had a lighter-colored metal for it's rings, so the material might have something to do with it.

Sounds possible, then, especially if double layered.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 04:38 PM
*shrug* Whatever sources you're quoting, doesn't hold up much to actually weighing a chainmail shirt. I've weighed mine, and that's how much it is. And no, it's not a full halberk. Just the shirt.

And yes, it DOES feel lighter to wear it than to carry it. But that doesn't change the numbers involved.

I'm sorry, but what your mail weights doesn't have anything to do with real weights.

Reenactors and other people wear some really weird stuff, like not very full, but 70 pound butted "mail", but it doesn't mean anything.

First example (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=8944) I could find, guy talks about actual archeological reports, one mail "7.5kg", one "a bit lighter".

I can find a lot more of that in the Net, though I need some time.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 04:46 PM
I'm not in mood to seek those mails now, so more non direct example.

Gothic armor from circa 1470 (http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/eisenkleider/frueh/kat042.htm)

For around 180 cm tall guy.

Just under 50 pounds for whole stuff, even though some probably is missing.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 04:48 PM
I'm sorry, but what your mail weights doesn't have anything to do with real weights.

So, what, my mail is imaginary then?


Just under 50 pounds for whole stuff, even though some probably is missing.

Plate tends to be proportionately (in terms of surface area covered) lighter than mail.

Boci
2010-06-06, 04:49 PM
So, what, my mail is imaginary then?

Or it does not remeble what soldiers would have actually worn.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 04:49 PM
So, what, my mail is imaginary then?

No, your mail quite certainly has nothing to do with any historical find. Material, ring shape, construction and everything. People make tonnes of such stuff. From fence wire or construction elements, many possibilities.

I haven't even ever seen it, obviously, so I can't really talk, but weight suggests it. :smallconfused:



Plate tends to be proportionately (in terms of surface area covered) lighter than mail.

In fact, opposite seems to be true.

Reconstructions of roman segmentatas tend to be heavier than roman mails, while mails cover more and are double layered on the shoulders.

Anyway, even if your claim was true, (it can be, cause there are many configurations of thickness, et cetera) it doesn't explain such difference.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 04:53 PM
No, your mail quite probably has nothing to do with historical mail. Material, ring shape, construction and everything.

I haven't even ever seen it, obviously, but weight suggest it. :smallconfused:

It might be because my chainmail is designed to avert injury at the expense of say, marching capability. Since I don't have to spend several full days marching to the battlefield, I don't need to worry about exhaustion from wearing it too long.

On the other hand, my shirt is probably also much better protection than historical stuff.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 04:55 PM
Plate tends to be proportionately (in terms of surface area covered) lighter than mail.

In fact, opposite seems to be true.

Reconstructions of roman segmentatas (1mm thick) tend to be heavier than roman mails, while mails cover more and are double layered on the shoulders.

Anyway, even if your claim was true, (it can be, cause there are many configurations of thickness, et cetera) it doesn't explain such difference in weight.


On the other hand, my shirt is probably also much better protection than historical stuff.

Again, I haven't seen it, but if it's similar to normal, riveted, medieval mail, but simply twice as massive (thicker rings? more of them?) this statement is probably very true.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 04:57 PM
It might be because my chainmail is designed to avert injury at the expense of say, marching capability. Since I don't have to spend several full days marching to the battlefield, I don't need to worry about exhaustion from wearing it too long.

On the other hand, my shirt is probably also much better protection than historical stuff.

Or maybe it's just not made efficiently? I obviously can't see the armor you have, but why can't you just acknowledge the fact that maybe your chain mail was not made by somebody who lived in an era where light and highly protective mail would be significantly more valuable than equally protective, but heavier mail?

Boci
2010-06-06, 04:58 PM
On the other hand, my shirt is probably also much better protection than historical stuff.

Possible, but one the other hand:

1. How much would it cost to equiped an entire army with it, compared to a lighter version?
2. Have you tried marching 8 hours straight in it?

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 04:59 PM
Or maybe it's just not made efficiently? I obviously can't see the armor you have, but why can't you just acknowledge the fact that maybe your chain mail was not made by somebody who lived in an era where light and highly protective mail would be significantly more valuable than equally protective, but heavier mail?

Because my armor is not made for decorative prettiness, and is, in fact, made under the consideration of how best to protect the wearer. I use it for swordfighting.


1. How much would it cost to equiped an entire army with it, compared to a lighter version?

Probably considerably more. Again, this being a modern shirt, it's probably designed with the individual wearer's safety in mind more than its practical cost. (Which is what I would assume an adventurer would prefer anyway.)


2. Have you tried marching 8 hours straight in it?

I've WORN it for 8 straight hours, but the longest I've ever marched in it is about an hour.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 05:05 PM
Because my armor is not made for decorative prettiness, and is, in fact, made under the consideration of how best to protect the wearer. I use it for swordfighting.

And that proves? I'm not saying your armor doesn't work, I'm just saying there's a very real chance that, in a time where armor was actually used for something besides recreation, they were capable of making chain mail as protective as yours with half the weight.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 05:09 PM
And that proves? I'm not saying your armor doesn't work, I'm just saying there's a very real chance that, in a time where armor was actually used for something besides recreation, they were capable of making chain mail as protective as yours with half the weight.

Considering the very real chance of breaking bones doing what I do, I think that's something the maker would have put under consideration.

I'm not arguing that medieval chainmail was inefficient. I'm saying that my chainmail is. It's protective, sure, but in the same way full plate is. You wouldn't want to use full plate for outfitting infantry, because it's heavy, cumbersome, and quite honestly for the lord outfitting his troops, not worth the money.

My chainmail is the same way. It's designed for one-on-one fights for a few minutes at a time, not day long battles after several hours of forced march.

Boci
2010-06-06, 05:11 PM
And that proves? I'm not saying your armor doesn't work, I'm just saying there's a very real chance that, in a time where armor was actually used for something besides recreation, they were capable of making chain mail as protective as yours with half the weight.

I think its more to do with cost and portability, but Psycho raises a very valid point: its useless to compare D&D armour to real life armour used by soldiers since adventurers will quickly have many fold more disposable income than a state will spend to equiped their army, and the PH is for adventurers.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 05:13 PM
If we must talk about this, it's generally just mail, guys, "chain mail" is neologism that generally appeared in 19th century, to be later popularized by RPG and stuff.

Not that it's huge deal, but just for the mention.

Anyway, problem with making such mail, beside weight, would be actually joining such massive rings together... If just made with twice amount of rings, it could affect flexibility and general usefulness.

Still, one probably could make fully functional 50 pound shirt, but obviously people were making ones that weighted at most 25.

And I heard about butted mail that can weight close to 80 pounds, doesn't hold up very well, but simply heavy and stiff rings protect from blunt steel and general "reenact" blunt trauma.

So appropriate "mail" for appropriate use - modern recreation in this case, not actual combat.


You wouldn't want to use full plate for outfitting infantry, because it's heavy, cumbersome, and quite honestly for the lord outfitting his troops, not worth the money.

And "state" equiping their soldiers were very, very rare in medieval, and not in such form. It's really quite modern invention.

And actual castle guard and similar troops actually did wear plate.

In the times when mail wasn't cheaper than plate at all mainly.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 05:13 PM
Considering the very real chance of breaking bones doing what I do, I think that's something the maker would have put under consideration.

I'm not arguing that medieval chainmail was inefficient. I'm saying that my chainmail is. It's protective, sure, but in the same way full plate is. You wouldn't want to use full plate for outfitting infantry, because it's heavy, cumbersome, and quite honestly for the lord outfitting his troops, not worth the money.

My chainmail is the same way. It's designed for one-on-one fights for a few minutes at a time, not day long battles after several hours of forced march.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of inefficient you're giving there, so I have no clue why you are arguing with me when my entire point was that your armor was probably less efficient than armor from times when it was commonly used.

Boci
2010-06-06, 05:14 PM
That's pretty much the textbook definition of inefficient you're giving there, so I have no clue why you are arguing with me when my entire point was that your armor was probably less efficient than armor from times when it was commonly used.

D&D is about adventurers, not soldiers in an army. Also sometimes the two roles can merge, that is camaign specific.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 05:15 PM
D&D is about adventurers, not soldiers in an army. Also sometimes the two roles can merge, that is camaign specific.

Could you point out what this had to do with my post? :smallconfused:

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 05:16 PM
That's pretty much the textbook definition of inefficient you're giving there, so I have no clue why you are arguing with me when my entire point was that your armor was probably less efficient than armor from times when it was commonly used.

I'm saying it's more efficient in terms of "protects the wearer from harm" and less efficient in "everything else."

Let me put it this way:

If I were outfitting medieval footsoldiers for battle, I would use medieval chainmail.

If I were outfitting a knight for a one-on-one duel, I would use modern chainmail. (Assuming I had to choose between the two. Otherwise I'd use fullplate here.)

Boci
2010-06-06, 05:18 PM
Could you point out what this had to do with my post? :smallconfused:

Psycho's armour will probaly more likely resemble the armour worn by adventurers than that worn by a Mediaeval/Renaissance soldier.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 05:22 PM
Psycho's armour will probaly more likely resemble the armour worn by adventurers than that worn by a Mediaeval/Renaissance soldier.

Actually, if by "adventurers" you mean guys that are spelunking, and doing general outdoor stuff, heavier armor is not good choice.

If you're in army, that has some at least moderately organized camps, carts, horses and stuff, you can carry heavy armor to use when battle comes.

When you're in the wild with 4 other guys, you generally can't carry heavy stuff around if you had to fight for your life with bearowls, jaberwocky's and tax collectors.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 05:24 PM
Actually, if by "adventurers" you mean guys that are spelunking, and doing general outdoor stuff, heavier armor is not good choice.

If you're in army, that has some at least moderately organized camps, carts, horses and stuff, you can carry heavy armor to use when battle comes.

When you're in the wild with 4 other guys, you generally can't carry heavy stuff around if you had to fight for your life with bearowls, jaberwocky's and tax collectors.

Well, I think it's a well established fact that adventurers are completely insane. Besides, Armor Check Penalties already reflect that.

Boci
2010-06-06, 05:24 PM
Actually, if by "adventurers" you mean guys that are spelunking, and doing general outdoor stuff, heavier armor is not good choice.

If you're in army, that has some at least moderately organized camps, carts, horses and stuff, you can carry heavy armor to use when battle comes.

When you're in the wild with 4 other guys, you generally can't carry heavy stuff around if you had to fight for your life with bearowls, jaberwocky's and tax collectors.

In addition to more funds, adventurers have higher skill modifiers and/or higher strength than the average soldier though.


Well, I think it's a well established fact that adventurers are completely insane.

There is gthat too yes.

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 05:28 PM
Let me put it this way:

If I were outfitting medieval footsoldiers for battle, I would use medieval chainmail.

If I were outfitting a knight for a one-on-one duel, I would use modern chainmail. (Assuming I had to choose between the two. Otherwise I'd use fullplate here.)

Well, such theories are always possible to make, but knights were making duels and jousting, and none mail like your "modern one" was found.

There are some mentions of "double" or "lance proof" mails, but those are scarce, and rare mail finds show "normal" fragments.

So "normal" (dang) mail was obviously preferred mail like product for all occasions.


Well, I think it's a well established fact that adventurers are completely insane. Besides, Armor Check Penalties already reflect that.

Also, general D&D "adventures" are connected with reality and common sense
as Earth with quazars by gravity - somehow, but not very.

So making assumptions what they should be doing going to hunt liches or whatever is rather hard. :smallwink:

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 05:30 PM
Well, such theories are always possible to make, but knights were making duels and jousting, and none mail like your "modern one" was found.

There are some mentions of "double" or "lance proof" mails, but those are scarce, and rare mail finds show "normal" fragments.

So "normal" (dang) mail was obviously preferred mail like product for all occasions.

I'm not theorizing that they did use it, I'm saying that in such a situation (and mail was the only option), I would use it.


Also, general D&D "adventures" are connected with reality and common sense as Earth with quazars by gravity - somehow, but not very.

So making assumptions what they should be doing going to hunt liches or whatever is rather hard. :smallwink:

Making this entire discussion completely pointless but very entertaining. :smalltongue:

Spiryt
2010-06-06, 06:13 PM
And in topic, just to keep it alive and ridiculously nitpicky, they actually managed to underweight at least one weapon, in the sea of too fat ones - if we stick to the historical definitions - by insignificant margin for 3.5 standards, but still. :smalltongue:

The rapier, that's it.

Knaight
2010-06-06, 08:20 PM
And in topic, just to keep it alive and ridiculously nitpicky, they actually managed to underweight at least one weapon, in the sea of too fat ones - if we stick to the historical definitions - by insignificant margin for 3.5 standards, but still. :smalltongue:

The rapier, that's it.

Well, assuming we aren't looking at pseudo weights for encumbrance. Rapiers are hilt balanced to the point where they feel light, as the grip involved is easy for far heavier loads than 3-4 pounds.

Worira
2010-06-06, 08:54 PM
They're also held nearly horizontal, making them feel heavier.

Spiryt
2010-06-07, 02:25 AM
Well, assuming we aren't looking at pseudo weights for encumbrance. Rapiers are hilt balanced to the point where they feel light, as the grip involved is easy for far heavier loads than 3-4 pounds.

Well, in comparison to what?

Looking at some antique rapiers examples I could find in the Internet - here (http://www.musketeer.org/Garrick/Blade_spec_article.html) point of balance generally is from about 9 cm to 12 cm from hilt - a bit closer than "stereotypical" knightly sword, but not necessarily.

Here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19689&highlight=antique) two ones - with PoB of about 11.5 cm and 16.5cm.

So aside from the fact that PoB is hardly only thing that decides if weapons "feel light" (what do you mean by that, anyway?), it doesn't seem that rapiers were particularly hilt balanced.

Shademan
2010-06-07, 03:37 AM
In fact, opposite seems to be true.

Reconstructions of roman segmentatas (1mm thick) tend to be heavier than roman mails, while mails cover more and are double layered on the shoulders.



there's a difference between standarized segmentatas and custom fitted platemail.

Spiryt
2010-06-07, 03:54 AM
there's a difference between standarized segmentatas and custom fitted platemail.

Could be, but there were no such thing as standardized segmentata. Standardization occurs in brief period towards the end of empire, when segmentatas are generally out of use.

Also, if we're considering something like that, then lorica hamata would be much easier to standardize, because mail does not need to be so adjusted to the exact dimensions of the wearer.

Finally modern reconstructions are pretty much well adjusted for the wearers.

Courtesy of Kakaj (http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=45632&view=findpost&p=436354) with hamata and segmentata made for his size, with the pictures.

Hamata is all riveted, 6mm diameter (dunno if internal or overall) = 9kg
Segmentata 1mm thick = 10kg

The rest on the pictures.

Ave, or whatever.

Umael
2010-06-07, 06:12 AM
Question (mostly directed at the OP, but if someone else can answer it, great): In the rant, the "heaviest" functional sword was given as the tweihander, at 7 lbs.

I recall somewhere being told that the Egyptian executioner's sword (so not a combat blade) was supposed to be 30 lbs. The executioner was supposed to hold it out, above the prisoner's neck. When the pharoah gave the word, the executioner then cut off the prisoner's head. If the pharoah didn't like the prisoner, the pharoah made the prisoner sweat it out for a while longer.

My question is - does this story seem accurate?

Shademan
2010-06-07, 06:21 AM
plate, not chain.

anyhow. 30? sounds a bit much... I could believe 20 but that would be a rather large/heavy blade. handle must have been really long or maybe the executioner didnt as much hold the blade over the prisoners neck as he stood ready next to the prisoner, who might have been bllindfolded.

edit: to be fair, if I was the pharao...yes. I would totally say "Make me a 30lbs sword for killing prisoners! and make it really kewl! I wanna see it decorated with crocodiles and ostriches! oh, wait! Crocostriches!"

Xuc Xac
2010-06-07, 10:01 AM
If we must talk about this, it's generally just mail, guys, "chain mail" is neologism that generally appeared in 19th century, to be later popularized by RPG and stuff.


It's called "chain mail" now for a reason. At the time it was used, it was the only "mail" around. But now we have other, much more common, things that are called "mail". "Chain mail" would have been redundant in the middle ages, but it isn't redundant today. Today the word "mail" refers to "letters and packages", "the postal service", "electronic messages transmitted over the internet", and even "a newspaper published in Great Britain". Chain mail comes up much less often so it needs to be distinguished from the others.

valadil
2010-06-07, 10:13 AM
Here's an argument in favor of inflated weapon weights: if you're playing with strict encumbrance penalties, bigger weights are more interesting. I mean, if the difference between a longsword and a greatsword is only half a pound, why bother having the difference? But if there's 5-10 pounds of difference, balancing your gear can become an interesting game problem. It's not one I usually care to play out, but some people are into that kind of thing.*

If it still bothers you, think about encumbrance in units other than pounds. I know the PHB measures encumbrance by weight. Instead pretend those pounds are really just Unwieldiness Points (UP). They are an abstraction that factors in weight and size. You have a number of those to spend on your gear. If you go over you're penalized. Even though you might be able to carry the weight of a half dozen claymores, they're difficult to hold and that's why they have more UP than other items of similar weight.

-- addendum --

* I would however like to see a game where the weight of your weapon matters more. It doesn't matter if a broadsword weighs twice as much as a dagger when it's in your pack. But in your hand there's a whole world of difference. Something tells me that this level of detail is better left to computer games.

valadil
2010-06-07, 10:15 AM
It's called "chain mail" now for a reason.... Today the word "mail" refers to "letters and packages", "the postal service", "electronic messages transmitted over the internet", and even "a newspaper published in Great Britain".

Chain mail. Not to be confused with chain letters?

Matthew
2010-06-07, 10:28 AM
It's called "chain mail" now for a reason. At the time it was used, it was the only "mail" around. But now we have other, much more common, things that are called "mail". "Chain mail" would have been redundant in the middle ages, but it isn't redundant today. Today the word "mail" refers to "letters and packages", "the postal service", "electronic messages transmitted over the internet", and even "a newspaper published in Great Britain". Chain mail comes up much less often so it needs to be distinguished from the others.

In fact "chain mail" is the popular terminology, but it is no longer the academic or technical usage (previously it was thought that the Bayeux Tapestry depicted many different forms of "mail", and a system was developed for describing it back in the nineteenth century). Basically, Spiryt is correct, but "chain mail" is a very normal thing to say, though "chain mail armour" has a hilarious meaning, translating loosely to "chain armour armour". There are many words in English that have double meanings, there is no need to rename armour on that basis and there never has been ("bow", in fact, has a triple meaning, and yet we have no problem).



Question (mostly directed at the OP, but if someone else can answer it, great): In the rant, the "heaviest" functional sword was given as the tweihander, at 7 lbs.

I recall somewhere being told that the Egyptian executioner's sword (so not a combat blade) was supposed to be 30 lbs. The executioner was supposed to hold it out, above the prisoner's neck. When the pharoah gave the word, the executioner then cut off the prisoner's head. If the pharoah didn't like the prisoner, the pharoah made the prisoner sweat it out for a while longer.

My question is - does this story seem accurate?

It is possible, as the biggest display or ceremonial two-handed swords could (I am given to understand) weigh 25 lbs, but it may well be the victim of a inaccurate scholastic estimate or simple exaggeration (sizes and weights are sometimes transmitted to us in less than literal form as part of a style of writing). Better off asking this question in the Real Weapons and Armour thread, however, as people who might know are more likely to be found there and might not otherwise read this question.

hamishspence
2010-06-07, 10:55 AM
Maybe 40lb "chainmail" in D&D, is knee length hauberk, + mail trousers?

Whereas 25 lb "chain shirt" in D&D, is just hauberk?

The art in the PHB seems to suggest this.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-07, 11:33 AM
Isn't it obvious that Chain shirt is only the shirt?!

Demonix
2010-06-07, 11:39 AM
Maybe 40lb "chainmail" in D&D, is knee length hauberk, + mail trousers?

Whereas 25 lb "chain shirt" in D&D, is just hauberk?

The art in the PHB seems to suggest this.

This thread is a little confusing, people here are saying there are full suits of mail that have been found that weigh 20-25 lbs (and by full suit, we are talking mail from knees to neck with full sleeves), when, if you take the same volume of modern materials, such a suit would be in the 50-60 range?

I made a titanium chain vest from 16ga 1/4" rings, and it weighs about 32 lbs. It covers from neck to mid thigh (belted) and has no sleeves. An equivalent steel vest would probably be 40 lbs.

To account for these weight discrepencies, consider the following:

1) modern humans are generally larger/better nourished than their historical counterparts

2) modern manufacturing techniques allow for better standardization between pieces/rings; the gauge will be consistent throughout the suit with little variation, and this would not be the case with hand-drawn wire

3) Modern alloys may be heavier...I think stainless steel is heavier than mild steel, not too sure off the top of my head.

And to whoever said that modern mail is not as good as historical mail, I will have to respectfully disagree. Making chain armor is a very simple process; if you have the materials, the time, and the patience, you can make a functional suit of armor. With practice and experimentation, you can make an even more elegant piece (4/1-6/1 combos, chain/scale hybrid pieces, etc.)

Xuc Xac
2010-06-07, 12:05 PM
1) modern humans are generally larger/better nourished than their historical counterparts


That's only true for particular periods of history. For example, people today are bigger than people in the Victorian era. That isn't because people are getting bigger. It's because people got smaller in the horribly unhealthy conditions of the industrial revolution. A knight in the middle ages would have looked like a professional athlete today. Peasants might have been a bit smaller but they weren't the ones wearing expensive armor either.

valadil
2010-06-07, 12:10 PM
That's only true for particular periods of history. For example, people today are bigger than people in the Victorian era. That isn't because people are getting bigger. It's because people got smaller in the horribly unhealthy conditions of the industrial revolution. A knight in the middle ages would have looked like a professional athlete today. Peasants might have been a bit smaller but they weren't the ones wearing expensive armor either.

I've heard very mixed things about the validity of this. It's gotten to the point where I assume people used to be a little shorter and I don't trust anything that gets too specific about it.

Xuc Xac
2010-06-07, 12:31 PM
I've heard very mixed things about the validity of this. It's gotten to the point where I assume people used to be a little shorter and I don't trust anything that gets too specific about it.

When it comes to anything related to the Middle Ages, you can really only trust modern research that is based on primary sources. In this case, modern archaeologists who have looked at actual medieval corpses and armor that was used in real battles. Older research, especially from the late 19th and early 20th century (and later research that just parroted it), was based on a lot of erroneous assumptions.

For one example, let's say there was a noble in the Middle Ages named Lord Fancypants. He's a knight and likes to kick butt. He has a sword that he uses in most of his battles after his lance breaks (and it always breaks, which is why he has so many spares). His sword weighs about 3 pounds and it has a lot of nicks that have been ground out repeatedly. It works well, but it's not too pretty. For pretty swords, Lord Fancypants has a 6-foot long sword that weighs 50 pounds and is decorated with lots of rhinestones and bling. It hangs on the wall in his house to impress visitors and announce to one and all that Lord Fancypants is a sword guy. It gets dusted and polished on a regular basis by the housekeeping staff. Hundreds of years later, a museum curator gets his hands on the Fancypants estate. He has limited space in the museum and needs to entice visitors to come so he puts the fancy wall decoration on display and sticks the real but non-charismatic sword into storage. The sword has a little plaque that says "Sword of Lord Fancypants, Middle Ages, 72 inches, 50 pounds". Visitors see that and think "wow, that's really huge and heavy... and it's not even sharp". A lot of scholars just assumed people in the past were morons who beat each other with vaguely sword-shaped clubs.

The same thing happens with armor. Most of the best preserved pieces were extra heavy, fancy suits made for parades instead of combat. A lot of them were made for young teenagers too, such as princes and other sons of nobility that paraded around in armor but didn't fight in it. Past scholars would look at these things and say "Look at how tiny the Duke of Warrenrodhamshirechester was! People used to small and primitive back in those brutish days." Few of them did in depth research to find out that the "Duke" was 14 when he wore that suit.

Knaight
2010-06-07, 12:33 PM
So aside from the fact that PoB is hardly only thing that decides if weapons "feel light" (what do you mean by that, anyway?), it doesn't seem that rapiers were particularly hilt balanced.

It wasn't actually on the hilt, but it was much closer than with many weapons. As for feeling light, consider the forces involved. There is the actual weight of the weapon pulling, with heavier stuff being harder to grip and pulling on the shoulder as well. But by the time those are actually going to be at all significant, whatever is being held is well beyond weapon weights. 15 kg (33ish pounds) minimum, and no functional weapon is that heavy, ignoring stuff like artillery. I would be surprised if parade weapons were ever made that heavy. So we can ignore that force.

Another significant force is the torsional force, using your hand as a lever, and this has a lot to do with how it is balanced. Something like a mace is going to have far more torsional force than a sword that weighs the same amount, built to taper, that isn't longer. Similarly, a mace with a much longer haft is going to feel far heavier even if the haft is slightly thinner. Rapiers don't have all that much torsional force, so they feel fairly light.

The last force we are concerned with is momentum, which is roughly equivalent to torsional force for anything held at one end, and greater for anything held closer to the midpoint. A one handed spear with a weighted butt may not have a lot of torsional force, but if you swing it it will have significant momentum. Again, rapiers don't have all that much of this, relative to other weapons.

As only the first of these actually concerns absolute weight, and rapiers are well under the point where it starts to be at all relevant, and on the second two they have less force than many weapons. So they feel light.

Matthew
2010-06-07, 12:56 PM
This thread is a little confusing, people here are saying there are full suits of mail that have been found that weigh 20-25 lbs (and by full suit, we are talking mail from knees to neck with full sleeves), when, if you take the same volume of modern materials, such a suit would be in the 50-60 range?

I made a titanium chain vest from 16ga 1/4" rings, and it weighs about 32 lbs. It covers from neck to mid thigh (belted) and has no sleeves. An equivalent steel vest would probably be 40 lbs.

To account for these weight discrepancies, consider the following:

Because so little medieval mail has survived it has been a subject of considerable contention and some very specialised research in recent years. The size and number of rings seems to be a major factor, with 20-25,000 rings being thought normal for a hauberk (probably short sleeved). I have handled at least one modern reproduction of a short sleeved waist length mail shirt (not the best, mind) and my perception was it was no more than 20 lbs. However, I have read about at least one estimate for full on long sleeved mail hauberk and leggings that ran to 50-60 lbs.



Maybe 40lb "chainmail" in D&D, is knee length hauberk, + mail trousers?

Whereas 25 lb "chain shirt" in D&D, is just hauberk?

The art in the PHB seems to suggest this.



Isn't it obvious that Chain shirt is only the shirt?!

Quite so. The point of contention in this thread was that somebody piped up to say that they had a 50 lb mail shirt and that it was representative of the weight of medieval armour. The evidence, such as it is, suggests that this is not the case, but certainly full kit must be running up towards that, and if you are effectively wearing two mail shirts, then 50 lbs is not unreasonable either.



I've heard very mixed things about the validity of this. It's gotten to the point where I assume people used to be a little shorter and I don't trust anything that gets too specific about it.

On average, people were smaller in the ancient and medieval world than they are in the modern, but not as small as they were during the industrial revolution. A considerable amount depends on nutrition, so it is also possible that warrior types were bigger than average citizens (which coincidently is my impression of modern soldiers as well, having seen a number of individuals "bulk up" through training). For height to be affected, I am given to understand that nutrition would be a factor before adulthood, which might be more likely for people in a hereditary warrior caste.

Fhaolan
2010-06-07, 01:00 PM
And to whoever said that modern mail is not as good as historical mail, I will have to respectfully disagree. Making chain armor is a very simple process; if you have the materials, the time, and the patience, you can make a functional suit of armor. With practice and experimentation, you can make an even more elegant piece (4/1-6/1 combos, chain/scale hybrid pieces, etc.)

True, but most 'modern' maille hauberks/shirts are constructed poorly compared to historical shirts. Mainly because doing it right isn't quite as simple as you would think.

The thing that nearly all modern maille shirts are missing is that historical shirts have additional tempering and heat treatment *after* being assembled, making them much tougher. Because of this, you can start with softer metal wire which allows for faster assembly and makes riveted mail much easier to do. However, very few modern shirts have this done to them. As such the rings tend to separate much easier than they should, reducing their effectiveness.

Full shirts of doubled maille like Psycho's hauberk is mentioned several times in documents, but I've not run across any physical historical versions. I have seen some however that have doubled maille reinforcement patches over the kidneys and somesuch, but not the entire shirt. It appears that to dissapate blows that can break bones and the like, heavier padding is typically used rather than doubling up the maille. This is something that a lot of reenactors miss, as they tend to throw the maille (or even various types of plate) over a normal shirt rather than a quilted jack. And they pay the price with bruises.

Spiryt
2010-06-07, 01:07 PM
Most modern "maille" are made with some wire and pliers. Butted

They lack most obvious thing - solid enslosing of the rings, hot work to make them either solid rings, or rings closed with wedges.

AFAIK 90% of medieval mail was alternating rows of solid/riveted rings. Some were all riveted.

Certainly, if anyone cared and had any business in it, so he could put money in the matter, he could make super modern mail, rings developed with advanced metallurgy to be very resistant, shut completely closed with some nano level welding, absorb strikes optimally.

But no one actually cares.

Instead, butted stuff made from stainless steel is in 99% of cases terrible as a mail, and can be good only for decorative purposes - mentioned 6 : 1 waves, 8 : 2, confetti... :smallwink:

Fhaolan
2010-06-07, 01:40 PM
AFAIK 90% of medieval mail was alternating rows of solid/riveted rings. Some were all riveted.


This varies a lot more than is supposed. When you wander outside of Europe, butted mail becomes more common. Japanese mail, for example, is primarily butted or have a large amount of overlapping like keychain rings. And a lot of mail from all regions have butted mail patches. Probably repair jobs.

Spiryt
2010-06-07, 01:45 PM
This varies a lot more than is supposed. When you wander outside of Europe, butted mail becomes more common. Japanese mail, for example, is primarily butted. And a lot of mail from all regions have butted mail patches. Probably repair jobs.

Of course I forgotten "European". :smallyuk:

But still, Middle East was very similar, as well as other designs.

Japanese was only significant exception, though I heard some stories about Sudanese butted rings in XIXth century, and other interesting peculiarities.

90 % actually refereed to the percent of riveted/solid mails in comparison to some other designs.

I wonder if someone actually tried to make all solid mail.

Now it would be time consuming. Job for dwarves, I would say. :smallwink:

Fhaolan
2010-06-07, 01:58 PM
I wonder if someone actually tried to make all solid mail.

Now it would be time consuming. Job for dwarves, I would say. :smallwink:

It would depend on what you would be willing to accept as 'solid'. I'm vaguely aware of at least one period hauberk apparantly having brazed rings rather than riveted. Shark mail is welded, but I'm not sure when they started doing that. :smallsmile:

Spiryt
2010-06-07, 02:03 PM
It would depend on what you would be willing to accept as 'solid'. I'm vaguely aware of at least one period hauberk apparantly having brazed rings rather than riveted. Shark mail is welded, but I'm not sure when they started doing that. :smallsmile:

I mean like shut down on the anvil by making solid forged ring after connecting it to other.

That would be hell of a work, I imagine, and modern welding is just cheating :smallwink:

And that's interesting, I wonder how strong brazing would fare.

JaronK
2010-06-07, 02:14 PM
Isn't it obvious that Chain shirt is only the shirt?!

Actually, it's not. You can add the "thistledown padding" upgrade to a chain shirt to reduce its arcane spell failure, which means you're replacing the padding that comes with the shirt with new padding. Clearly the Chain Shirt at least includes padding. Also, in the picture in the PHB, the chain shirt has an added helmet and some sort of shoulder plating.

Now consider that the Breastplate says it comes with a helmet, left arm guards, thigh guards, and greaves.

When D&D says "Chain Shirt" they mean you're wearing armor where the primary protection is a Chain Shirt. You're wearing a bunch of other armor too. I'll buy that it's pretty heavy when you include the helmet, shoulder plate, and padding.

JaronK

Fhaolan
2010-06-07, 02:38 PM
And that's interesting, I wonder how strong brazing would fare.

With my experience with metalwork, I would say better than butted, but not as good as the rivets.

Mind you, reproduction butted mail usually uses a much thicker and harder wire than reproduction riveted. I've seen riveted mail tear out just as often as butted, but I think that's mainly because the makers of riveted tend to use soft wire (in order to do the flattening and riveting), and skip the heat-treat and temper step after assembly thinking that simply riveting it is enough. It isn't.

It's the same issue as repro plate. Most repro plate is from rolled steel, and modern armour makers usually just cut and form those plates. Very few go through the effort of tempering. To compensate, the plates have to be made thicker to have something vaguely like the same strength. So, the armour ends up half again if not twice as heavy as it should.

Spiryt
2010-06-07, 02:44 PM
They also do much more "bad" things, from inconsistent wedge holes, to very bad choice of material (some not really suitable steels)..

Esentially to make something "maille like" that's cheap and easy in modern economy, not essentially historical or working.

Actual quality maille is terribly expensive unfortunately, and hard to get.

Anyway, 60 pound butted mail from hardware nuts can be indeed quite hard to tear, and quite many people are exploring such "reenacting" ideas. :smallwink:


It's the same issue as repro plate. Most repro plate is from rolled steel, and modern armour makers usually just cut and form those plates. Very few go through the effort of tempering. To compensate, the plates have to be made thicker to have something vaguely like the same strength. So, the armour ends up half again if not twice as heavy as it should.

And all of it is not so much problem, people want to look somehow historical
and beat themselves with blunt swords a bit, and it's all great.

The problem starts when someone takes bent sheet of rolled steel from modern factory and wants to "test it" against arrow or whatever. :smalleek: