Samurai Great Armor

[BootStrapTommy]

Making NPCs. Samurai NPCs. Japanese armor was historically mostly lamellar. So how would I stat out traditional Japanese armor in 5e? Scale? Half plate? Splint? Something else?

Discuss.

[Ziegander]

I would call it Splint myself.

[BootStrapTommy]

Lamellar is conceptionally similar to scale, hence scales as a possibility (for lighter or maybe ashigaru).

Many Japanese lamellar armors have cuirasses that bare a striking resemblance with European splint, hence splint.

Meanwhile many later Japanese armors feature full metal cuirasses, with light armored limbs, conceptionally half plate.

That's why I'm torn.

[Louro]

Samurai's armor were actually breastplates with greaves, gauntlets and those light things to protect hips. Assume armored clothing to fill gaps.

I would go for
750 gp (coloured) - AC 16 - 30 lb - No disadvantage

Edit: if there are plates around let's assume those samurais also have the technology to forge them.

[Naanomi]

Eh, thematically it is supposed to be good 'rich-person' armor that still affords some mobility; I'd probably go with Half-Plate

[Hawkstar]

Lamellar is conceptionally similar to scale, hence scales as a possibility (for lighter or maybe ashigaru).

Many Japanese lamellar armors have cuirasses that bare a striking resemblance with European splint, hence splint.

Meanwhile many later Japanese armors feature full metal cuirasses, with light armored limbs, conceptionally half plate.

That's why I'm torn. You just answered your own question. It comes in scale, splint, and half-plate varieties.

What sort of armor did Western professional soldiers wear? :smalltongue:

[TheOOB]

Realistically I'd stat it as scale. Feudal Japan has access to really terrible iron and they wouldn't be able to make anything that could contend with western armor.

If you're not taking that into account, I could see half plate. I haven't seen any real Japanese armor I'd count as full plate.

[Sigreid]

I think it would be reasonable to have samurai versions of pretty much any of the armors. Just ask yourself, what are you looking for? Armor that is historically accurate? There are a couple that could easily fit the bill. Armor that has the style and flavor? That could be any of the armors with rigid pieces that could be shaped appropriately. And, unless you are dooming your samurai to a region that can't get hold of high quality ore in large quantities there is no reason to limit them.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Realistically I'd stat it as scale. Feudal Japan has access to really terrible iron and they wouldn't be able to make anything that could contend with western armor.

If you're not taking that into account, I could see half plate. I haven't seen any real Japanese armor I'd count as full plate.

I thought the Japanese imported wootz steel from Sri Lanka? Grated, the quantity would be limited, but isn't that the whole reason katanas have become so legendary?

[Louro]

I thought the Japanese imported wootz steel from Sri Lanka? Grated, the quantity would be limited, but isn't that the whole reason katanas have become so legendary?

No. Hollywood is the reason behind that.

[Logosloki]

I would go with Splint (compromise between game and reality) or Plate (it wouldn't be the first time D&D has given something better stats for the sake of game).

If you want to make any ranged samurai and want them a bit squishier then give them scale.

The Veteran is a CR 3 from Appendix B in the MM with Splint and the Knight is a CR 3 with plate if you are looking for a place to start for your samurai.

If you are planning for a lower encounter then I would go with Scale (tougher than guard), breastplate (doesn't have a penalty to stealth so better for ambush scenarios) or Half (takes more punishment).

[SharkForce]

I thought the Japanese imported wootz steel from Sri Lanka? Grated, the quantity would be limited, but isn't that the whole reason katanas have become so legendary?

my understanding is that the reason katanas need to go through as much as they do when they're made is that the steel they had available to them was so awful that if you didn't do all that stuff you'd end up with a *really* crappy sword.

and yeah, kung fu movies are mostly why we think katanas are amazing. well, that and the fact that the swords had a lot of mystical stuff attributed to them in the first place, which likely contributed a great deal.

[Naanomi]

Plus it isn't hard to promote your rich-guy sword as super-amazing when everyone else has weapons made of garbage grade untreated pig-iron

Still they were archers first for a reason

[1Forge]

Use them in order of AC. most soldiers have scale the next class have splint and lords have half plate

[PoeticDwarf]

I'd say half-plate, it is expensive and I'm sure you can add some dex.

[PoeticDwarf]

Use them in order of AC. most soldiers have scale the next class have splint and lords have half plate

But why? Splint is maby cheaper than half-plate but AC with half-plate is max 17 and with splint just 17. It would be more logical if it was lords splint and the class under it half-plate, wouldn't it?

[Shining Wrath]

Lamellar is like splint. But maybe you want to wave your magic DM wand and say that because it was the top of the line in Japan, it's more carefully crafted or something and is a little better than PHB splint - weighs less, protects more.

Japanese Splint is +1 compared to PHB splint, weighs 5 pounds less.

[TheOOB]

I thought the Japanese imported wootz steel from Sri Lanka? Grated, the quantity would be limited, but isn't that the whole reason katanas have become so legendary?

Most good iron in Japan came from Volcanic ash, and any really good steal they managed to get usually went into swords. Katana get their reputation because they were made pretty much without exception by master smiths, as they were the only ones who could take crappy steal and make an effective sword out of them. Most Japanese soldiers used Yari, which use very little metal, and doesn't matter as much if the metal/craftsmanship is poor.

Since metal was better and less valuable in the west, you see lower quality swords in the west, but a sword made by a western or middle eastern master smith would easily break a katana in half, and cleave through Samurai armor.

Metal, especially good metal, was so rare in Japan that they reserved it for master smiths that made weapons so valuable they were passed down for generations, they didn't have enough good steel to spare for suits of armor, so the vast majority of Samurai armor was crap compared to it's western equivalent(also hundreds of years of isolationism didn't help them advance their metallurgy).

[Louro]

Most of what you said is right but... there is absolutely no way for ANY sword to cut through other sword or plate armor.
Even rapiers could resist countless strikes and tempered plates are impenetrable by slashing weapons.

Edit: and by impenetrable I mean not even a scratch
Sources: schollagladiatora and Lindybeige (both at YouTube)

[Louro]

Found this video, 4 minutes of straightforward demonstration.
Http://youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

Need STR to wear it? Not sure, maybe, or maybe CON
It doesn't hinder your movement. Correct.
Disadvantage on stealth. Wrong! Your stealth capability is the same of an orchestra playing the Ride of the Valkiries.

[Mr.Moron]

If they're NPCs just give them whatever armor stats they need and if the PCs want to muck about it with it, treat it as Chainmail.

EDIT: Because it's middle of the road starter armor, that won't really shake up the boat much.

[BootStrapTommy]

I thought the Japanese imported wootz steel from Sri Lanka? Grated, the quantity would be limited, but isn't that the whole reason katanas have become so legendary? As SharkForce and TheOOB said, katanas are renown for their superior forging technique, not metal. The forging techniques were in part informed by the fact that outside the odd meteoritic iron, the Japanese had little quality steel.



and yeah, kung fu movies are mostly why we think katanas are amazing. well, that and the fact that the swords had a lot of mystical stuff attributed to them in the first place, which likely contributed a great deal. If you get what you know about katanas from Kung Fu movies, maybe you wanna reevaluate. You know, since Kung Fu is Chinese...

I love two things about this video. First "kahtahnah". Secondly, the katana solidly beats the longsword. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo)

From the perspectives of metallurgy and physics, katanas do actually have a lot going for them.


I'd say half-plate, it is expensive and I'm sure you can add some dex. Leaning this way. Half plate's description is basically "breastplate with light limb armor" which pretty solidly describes Edo period Japanese armors.

Plus it makes the armor variable by Dex mod. AC 15-17, as opposed to solid 17 like splint. And really captures the flavor of Japanese armoring being a poor attempt at plate...

[TheOOB]

From the perspectives of metallurgy and physics, katanas do actually have a lot going for them.

Yes and no. It's important to note that the techniques used in Katana were available outside japan, Damascus steel used very similar techniques for example. Also note that the curve of the katana was considered to a point undesirable, it's a by product of fusing the harder blade steel with the softer core steel, and exceptional sword smiths were known to make straighter swords(you also see Katana getting more straight as time went on). If Japanese smiths could make straight double bladed swords that were durable, they probably would. There was a reason most western powers stole nordic sword design(who in turn stole from the romans who in turn stole from everyone).

[Louro]

BootStrap, that video is pure crap.

In Europe the steel was better as it was the forge technology, which allowed an even better steel quality as it was "cleaned" of impurities. The craftsmanship was very similar, using the same procedures (fold the metal zillions of times). Although Europe didn't need the "2 different metals" trick to overcome the steel quality problem, this craft procedure was indeed used too. Using even up to 4 different "wires" of the same metal to fold a single blade.

The katana is slighty better at cutting while European sword is better at thrusting. And this was OK, in Japan you didn't have to deal with armor outside the was scenario so cutting was a powerful tool while in Europe you could find mail (chain mail) everywhere and thus trusting was preferred.

Sorry, but I kinda like this stuff.
If you want to learn more about medieval armor and weapons I recommend 2 YouTube channels: Schollagladiatora (fencing master) and Lindybeige (eh... freaky, wise, funny, intelligent and beige)

[BootStrapTommy]

Also note that the curve of the katana was considered to a point undesirable, it's a by product of fusing the harder blade steel with the softer core steel, and exceptional sword smiths were known to make straighter swords(you also see Katana getting more straight as time went on). If Japanese smiths could make straight double bladed swords that were durable, they probably would. There was a reason most western powers stole nordic sword design(who in turn stole from the romans who in turn stole from everyone).
This is patently wrong.

Ever notice the historical dominance of curved swords? The belief that straight blades are superior is pure Eurocentricism. Just because the Vikings and Romans prefered them doesn't make that so. The euphemism "a double-edged sword" exists for a reason.

Look at a box cutter or an exacto knife. Look at the blade of a battle axe. A curve or angle in a blade is actually a physical property which helps a blade cut better. Fancy physics involving the center of percussion. This curve is a feature which is as beneficial to the blades ability to cut as it might be detrimental to its ability to stab. But it is not an inferior design.

Secondly, "tachi", the straighter Japanese swords, actually predate katanas.



The katana is slighty better at cutting while European sword is better at thrusting. And this was OK, in Japan you didn't have to deal with armor outside the was scenario so cutting was a powerful tool while in Europe you could find mail (chain mail) everywhere and thus trusting was preferred.

Sorry, but I kinda like this stuff.
If you want to learn more about medieval armor and weapons I recommend 2 YouTube channels: Schollagladiatora (fencing master) and Lindybeige (eh... freaky, wise, funny, intelligent and beige) I'm a bladesmith. So it interests me too. I will totally check them out!

Also I caution that first assertion. You assume a higher prevalence of armor on the battlefield than what was historically present. Only rich people could historically afford metal armor. And nonmetal armors, even European ones, are still vulnerable to cutting.

[Louro]

Indeed, I agree with you but as far as I know armor (of almost any kind) is generally more effective against slashing weapons than against piercing, thus the prevalence of thrusting ones in Europe. In Japan the use of armor was very restricted due to the class society (only certain ppl allowed to wear it).
Edit: Not in the battlefield. On war scenario swords were barely used (pikes, spears, glaives...). I meant that armor was sort of common on Europe on a daily basis routine, and pretty uncommon on Japan.

Also, most fencers seems to prefer thrusting weapons over slash (more effective?). It is also worth to note HUGE fencing differences between European and Japanese style. Portuguese rapier sailors defeating katana samurais due to this.

[Louro]

I feel like we are going too much off topic, although is a subject some of us enjoy. Sorry for that.

Blade Smith? You mean you craft swords and stuff? Sounds awesome!
The schollagladiatora guy is not only a fencing teacher, he has been studying medieval history for a lot of years and he knows what is he talking about. He uses to name medieval documents as source... Very instructive.

Lindy beige is more like a... Funny, elegant and skilled Englishmen. He brings up a lot of interesting theory and hipothesys about how things could be. He has even crafted some armors by himself.

[Beleriphon]

Yeah, on the note of katana vs European swords. A katana is essentially a big two handed sabre, so very similar to cavalry swords which work best against unarmed opponents since the shape does allow a much better slash and pull motion much like one finds chef's knife. European swords at the height of middle ages where cut-and-thrust swords in that they were designed to slash lightly/unarmoured opponents and punch holes in dudes through gaps in armour with equal measure.

On the topic of armour, yes armour was vastly more prevelant in medieval Europe than in medieval Japan. The main reason was metal was much more common, of better quality, and it wasn't illegal for many people that weren't nobility to own at least some armour.

Also note that Weyland the Smith is at least as famous among European smiths as Musashi is for the Japanese. I mean the guy did forge Joyeuse, Cortana, Durandal and Almace. He was probably a real person as well, although we have essentially no information about him as a real person. At any rate on the of the methods that was supposedly pioneered by Weyland was taking a billet of steel, twisting it into a spiral and then hammering it flat. Repeat as necessary. This created a layered metal while also adding a great deal of spring, allowing for light strong blades.

As an aside on katanas they're actually really, really thick and heavy for a sword compared to European varieties.

[BootStrapTommy]

Blade Smith? You mean you craft swords and stuff? Sounds awesome! I mostly make knives. Swords can be time consuming, and I'm more of a hobbyist than a professional.


Also, most fencers seems to prefer thrusting weapons over slash (more effective?). It is also worth to note HUGE fencing differences between European and Japanese style. Portuguese rapier sailors defeating katana samurais due to this. Of course they do. Every martial art thinks it's the best. A pesilat would have you believe they're an even better fencer than both (especially better than the Portuguese).

It's because a curved sword is harder to thrust well. The physics are wonky and you can twist the blade easier. However, parrying a solid stab from a curved sword is more difficult. It doesn't ever quit go where you think it does...

I've got scars, man. Physical scars.



Also note that Weyland the Smith is at least as famous among European smiths as Masamune is for the Japanese. I mean the guy did forge Joyeuse, Cortana, Durandal and Almace. He was probably a real person as well, although we have essentially no information about him as a real person. At any rate on the of the methods that was supposedly pioneered by Weyland was taking a billet of steel, twisting it into a spiral and then hammering it flat. Repeat as necessary. This created a layered metal while also adding a great deal of spring, allowing for light strong blades.

As an aside on katanas they're actually really, really thick and heavy for a sword compared to European varieties.
A correction

My experience tells me that last part is incorrect. Largely because steal is a dense alloy and proper longswords are much longer than katanas.

Check out Ulfberhts. Whether it was a famous Smith, Guild, or just a trademark, they represent Viking double-edged swords at their best! And definitely one of the pinacles of European steel swords!


I feel like we are going too much off topic, although is a subject some of us enjoy. Sorry for that.
Then let's talk armor!


Not in the battlefield. On war scenario swords were barely used (pikes, spears, glaives...). I meant that armor was sort of common on Europe on a daily basis routine, and pretty uncommon on Japan. The polearm will always be the real king of the ancient battlefield.

At Lindisfarne the Vikings were no better protected than their victims. Our visions of European warfare are often clouded by our fantasies of knights and crusaders and informed by our studies of the graves of dead rich white guys. And the fact that PCs are usually loaded. The truth is that armor was expensive, and a shield was always far easier to manufacture. Most soldiers would be lucky to field Leather (the video illustrates how well that'd do) or Padded (which I honestly think in this case would perform more admirably) armors through most of the medieval period.

When we talk about armored medieval Europeans, we really are talking about the same kind of rich upper class as the samurai.



On the topic of armour, yes armour was vastly more prevelant in medieval Europe than in medieval Japan. The main reason was metal was much more common, of better quality, and it wasn't illegal for many people that weren't nobility to own at least some armour. Small correction. Swords were illegal. Not armor. Ashigaru could own their own armor. I'm not convinced general armor was much less prevalent in Japan than Europe, though quality metal armors definitely was.

[Hawkstar]

The truth is that armor was expensive, and a shield was always far easier to manufacture. Most soldiers would be lucky to field Leather (the video illustrates how well that'd do) or Padded (which I honestly think in this case would perform more admirably) armors through most of the medieval period.

I was under the impression that metal hauberks and helms and suits that 5e calls 'half plate' were actually common for infantry and professional soldiers on the battlefield once armor plate became a thing, because it made that much difference in survivability on the battlefield. Only irregulars and militia wore nonmetal armor on western battlefields. Full plate and comparable armors (such as full maille preceding it), though, were more restricted.

Only after the proliferation of guns made training stupidly huge amounts of deadly soldiers dirt-cheap and easy did heavily armoring professional soldiers fall away.

[Sigreid]

This is patently wrong.

Ever notice the historical dominance of curved swords? The belief that straight blades are superior is pure Eurocentricism. Just because the Vikings and Romans prefered them doesn't make that so. The euphemism "a double-edged sword" exists for a reason.



I actually believe, without having tried to substantiate it, that the difference primarily originates from the shield wall. A straight pointy sword works better for a quick jab around, under or over a shield in a shield wall. A couple centuries of roman domination and that's just the way swords are made. Cultures that didn't have extensive contact with shield walls would likely naturally develop weapons more adapted to swinging arcs, since it's a natural motion for humans and your buddy's shield isn't there in the way.

[Sigreid]

I was under the impression that metal hauberks and helms and suits that 5e calls 'half plate' were actually common for infantry and professional soldiers on the battlefield once armor plate became a thing, because it made that much difference in survivability on the battlefield. Only irregulars and militia wore nonmetal armor on western battlefields. Full plate and comparable armors (such as full maille preceding it), though, were more restricted.

Only after the proliferation of guns made training stupidly huge amounts of deadly soldiers dirt-cheap and easy did heavily armoring professional soldiers fall away.

I remember reading somewhere (not sure where) that chain armor was initially created by viking raiders out of what was essentially the blacksmith's scrap metal bits and pieces and it became popular and got refined over time because it is surprisingly effective, even against crushing blows (though not as effective as plate armor, of course).

[Temperjoke]

Another reason stabbing swords were popular is because of chain mail. Chain mail protects against slashes, but stabbing weapons can penetrate the chain mail. Evidence: From the show Deadliest Warrior, Season 1, Episode 2, Samurai vs. Viking https://youtu.be/S2vePybQ4ck?t=8m18s


Anyways, back on topic, I think splint armor would work for samurai-style armor, based on it's description

[BootStrapTommy]

I was under the impression that metal hauberks and helms and suits that 5e calls 'half plate' were actually common for infantry and professional soldiers on the battlefield once armor plate became a thing, because it made that much difference in survivability on the battlefield. Only irregulars and militia wore nonmetal armor on western battlefields. Full plate and comparable armors (such as full maille preceding it), though, were more restricted.
The Crusades effectively spawned a class of mercenary warriors in Europe. The Plague increased the value of a human life to the point that those mercenaries saw a significant increase in pay, setting the stage for the first Post-Roman professional armies. Yes, they got paid enough to afford armor.

My dismissal of this is simple: there were 900 years of the Middle Ages before that happens. For most of it, that wasn't the case.

Also at the same time in Japan, the mercenary class of the ashigaru, who could also afford armor, also rises. So functionally armor increases in commonality in both Japan and Europe at roughly the same time (circa 1300 or so). Different armors, of course, but armor nonetheless.


I actually believe, without having tried to substantiate it, that the difference primarily originates from the shield wall. A straight pointy sword works better for a quick jab around, under or over a shield in a shield wall. I can get behind that. Europe's two great cultural forces were the Romans and the Vikings. Both loved their shield walls. The Romans for the discipline, the Vikings because shields were cheaper than armor!

[Louro]

I think is worth to note that fighting style evolved in Europe while it didn't change too much in Japan. The evidence for this is the katana, a weapon that stuck with the original design. Meanwhile in Europe you could find a huge vast amount of different designs to deal with different situations.

On the slashing VS piercing subject, the rapier is at the top of the chart. It was designed just to duel against low armored opponents, and it proved to be really effective. No other one-handed weapon can match its nimbleness. Against heavy armored targets piercing is preferable although you need a solid blade to do the half swording thing.

As a side note: Rapier was the weapon of choice for the Portuguese youngsters, who later defeated samurais in single combat. Maybe a better weapon, but also a more effective combat style that samurais weren't used to.

[Louro]

Remember we are talking about swords, not war.
During battles swords were a secondary weapon (aside cavalry sabres and two-handed pike-break formations).

For your daily basis routine you won't to carry a polearm around, so the sword is the weapon of choice. You will be facing no armor or gambesons, leather, mail...
While in Japan it would be really uncommon to face an armored guy. Not even samurais were wearing armor during a normal day.

[BootStrapTommy]

As a side note: Rapier was the weapon of choice for the Portuguese youngsters, who later defeated samurais in single combat. Maybe a better weapon, but also a more effective combat style that samurais weren't used to. To call into question the validity of the anecdote, I will bring back up the Malaysian pesilats, who delivered many a stunning defeat to those selfsame Portuguese rapier-wielders while armed only with daggers... also despite those same Portugueses' possession of firearms and metal armors...

Which really calls the assumption that story makes about weapon quality into question...


Remember we are talking about swords, not war.
During battles swords were a secondary weapon (aside cavalry sabres and two-handed pike-break formations). Something we often forget when speaking of samurai is that they were primarily archers.

[Louro]

Can't find those pensilats you mention.
There are several.documents about young sailors defeating samurais using rapier or rapier + rodela.
On mobile now so I can't do a proper search
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nossa_Senhora_da_Gra%C3%A7a_incident

Samurais were archers indeed, they were trained on almost every weapon available I guess. Piercing polearms and bows were the best weapons for war. No doubt there. Unless you are facing full plate guys, in which case bows become useless.

[BootStrapTommy]

Pesilat. Meaning a practitioner of Malay silat, a martial art.

Can't actually find exactly what you are referring to in the wiki. If you're simply referring to the incident as a whole, there was a lot more going on there than just katanas versus rapiers...

[Sigreid]

I think it's fair to say that D&D is not designed to be up to the task of dealing with the interaction of different cultural fighting styles correctly, so I'm going back to the suggestion of just use whatever armor gets you to the AC you need and style it the way you want. There is no reason at all that full plate can't be shaped in a samurai style if that's what you need.

[Louro]

Here you have some:
“In fact there are some records in our national historic archive of more than a dozen encounters of Portuguese soldiers and samurais. These encounters are very well described and detailed. All ended with the same result except one. The samurai was killed in some or wounded (but killing themselves afterwards in shame) the only register of a killed Portuguese soldier was because he had such an amount of sake in his blood that he couldn’t stand straight. The Samurai that killed him was killed in the next day in a sword duel with a Portuguese sailor in top condition…”
www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/07/european-vs-japanese-swordsmen-historical-encounters-in-the-16th-19th-centuries/

It was basically parry + counter, for which katanas were not optimized for. Although there are also numerous reports of samurais severing members with the unsheathe move, at unexpected reach.