Archived topics from the different rule forums.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:57 pm
I never liked the cross a joint thing, I look at CJ's armor and think he should get full legs because it covers the thigh all the way around and the calf area all the way around. If he had long pauldrons I would say he should get full arms too because then he'd have most of his arms covered as well, all without spanning the kees or the elbows.
From the description, you can have a chain shirt that covers your hips but not your legs, goes to the elbow, and greaves and get full coverage medium armor points. That just doesn't seem right at all.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:57 pm
it doesnt go over the shoulder it is just resting there like a wife beater.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:59 pm
Right which is why I said if he added pauldrons he should get full coverage medium.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:11 pm
That's the exact armor I was in for six months of last year, and I was told by many players and some GM's that it was full medium. I can always wear the chainmail shirt under it, so I get hip coverage and shoulder coverage, but that adds 20 pounds and is a bear in the summer.
I only suggested the bracers/legs thing because I don't think I have ever seen more than half a dozen examples of 'full' arms or legs. It's either bracers only, or torso armor that really just overhangs the shoulder, rather than following it over the joint. Never any elbow coverage unless with chainmail. Offhand I don't know of any
medum legs with articulated joints in the game, unless I'm forgetting someone.
I guess I just never saw medium armor being either chainmail, or a set of leather 'platemail', ecpecially when envisioning Rogues wearing medium armor..
Last edited by Marcus
on Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:22 pm
That is why we are discussing it because frankly each gm, if you ahve not noticed, as a different oppinion and we need to get a whole lot more consistent.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:21 pm
Mainly I was putting the original idea out there as a possible way to get people wearing modern stand-ins for armor (or those without money) to move a little towards real armor without heavy investments. I know my GF was put off by how much she would have to pay/build for anything in the medium armor category that would be considered "full" (torso notwithstanding).
It also makes ruling such things easier, I would think. There's no 60 or 75 coverage argument, or half-coverage wondering, if the guy or gal has thick leather bracers or shoulder armor, they have medium leather arms. If they have solid steel bracers or pauldrons, they have heavy arms. You wouldn't need an FAQ.
Like I said. I wasn't meaning to start any arguments or prove anything, I just finally said something out loud that I had been pondering for awhile and wondered about others' opinions.
Last edited by Marcus
on Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:37 pm
Oh I am not frusted by you. Aaron frustrates me.
Plus I have arguments on the GM forum on the very same subject.
I really just want to eat bacon
Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:49 pm
I designed Donovan's armor to comply with the coverage rules, so I'll post pics of it here.
The first is an overall pic. It shows the arm coverage best, and you can see how the pauldrons clearly cover the shoulder joint. Add in the bracers and you have full coverage arms.
The second is a close up of the leg armor in it's original configuration. I made the leg armor to cover the calf and foot, but later found the foot pieces awkward and discarded them. The top of the armor actually extends onto the thigh, and there's a circular knee plate that's usually only visible when the joint is bent.
I couldn't find a picture of myself with the joint bent to show the coverage, but then I looked at the picture of Donovan that Art drew after he referenced my armor for accuracy. Sure enough, it is not only a good representation of the armor, it shows the leg pieces with the joint plates extended. Here it is for reference.
For the record, Donovan had full real medium armor.
Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:52 pm
I would call that full medium armor
Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:04 pm
a good example of articulated knees, I can't believe I forgot about your armor as Donovan. Thanks Taki!
Here's what I was planning on wearing as Daine. He's a Rogue, and I had assumed this to be a set of full med. legs and arms (due to the shoulder and hip coverage from the shirt), and a heavy chest (but it could also be medium to some people because of the great chainmail debate). The shoulder is purely ornamental, and the bandanna will be replaced by the med helm with chainmail top and neck I wore as Durgan. Would this be true in most people's eyes?
Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:52 pm
Chris, what can I say, I bring the best out you!
And I thought it was my sworn duty to fustrate you. If you say Black, I must say white.
Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:03 am
I know chris has said my armor would be full plate, but am curious, and wanted to make sure I had it correctly...
Heavy full Arms, cause of the shoulders covered and the arms(bracers)
and Full heavy legs with the thigh guards and greaves...
Am i correct in that thought?
Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:12 pm
I’ve always assumed a joint need not be covered to ‘cross’ it. For instance, if you have calves and thighs covered, the armor ‘crosses’ the knee joint without actually covering it – gaining full leg coverage.
My own opinion on the pictured characters:
Full coverage on everything but the arms.
Forearms covered, no upper arm coverage – half arm coverage
This one’s very hard to judge. There’s hardly anything at all on the thighs and upper arms. It’s technically full coverage, but I’d be inclined to round it to two locations of full coverage, one of half.
Again, technically it’s full coverage, but I’d be inclined to say the legs are half covered as he’s unprotected from waist to knee.
IMHO the armor coverage rule really should be something like “limbs must have coverage both above and below the knee/elbow to be considered full coverage. Actual coverage determined by GMs on case-by-case basis.” For instance, a metal bracelet would probably be ignored as lower arm coverage. Likewise, leather gauntlets tend to be ignored as coverage.
Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:49 pm
I can agree with the arms...those have always been my problems, but the legs?
I dunno if its just the pic, but the thigh guards go down to mid thigh, and the greaves come up to the knee...dunno...
I didnt have the armor latched, so that coulda been why it looked shorter than it is...dunno
Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:57 pm
I agree my arms should be covered better when wearing my leather chestplate and bracers. Everything from my elbow to shoulder is completely exposed.
Although, that poses a question. When as Durgan I wore my brown greatcoat, did that give me full arms and legs, because it was long sleeve and past the knee? Travis let me count it as fake medium arms and legs at my first couple of events, until I was able to make real armor replacements. Could I still do that?
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.