I just bought FantasyCraft, and I really wanted to like it, but...

[ArmoredSaint]

...I feel like I wasted my money just now.

I have some serious criticisms.  

1) Armour seems woefully underpowered.  It seems like every other weapon is rocking AP ratings that reduce the armour's damage negation ability to a nearly worthless amount.  Every archer with Bow Basics has no less than 6AP!  What's the point of even wearing armour when it will seldom do you much good?  

2)Why is scale armour represented as having greater total resistance to edged weapons than even  plate armour? This makes little sense to me.  What is known from Medieval and Renaissance combat manuals seems to indicate that the advent of full plate armour rendered the wearer of such substantial protection nearly immune to cuts, necessitating a change in the development of the sword into a more acutely-pointed instrument rather than one focused on cutting.

3) Katana fanboy-ism.  There is no good reason that this weapon should be represented as being able to ignore that much armour (unless the armour happens to be FantasyCraft scale!)

So, essentially, FantasyCraft wants me to believe that if my enemies are all carrying katana, then I'd better be wearing scale armour instead of good-quality steel plate, and even then, all I can expect is a measly three points of damage being negated?  In FantasyCraft, it looks like my odds of survival are better being chopped by a hatchet while stark naked than they are being attacked by a katana while wearing scale  armour.    

And God forbid I expect even my articulated plate to save my life against even the most ordinary bow wielded by an archer with basic training?  It's a wonder that our martial ancestors managed to survive a single battle in their careers!  

Do I have this right?  Have I misunderstood something?  I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may have.  As I mentioned in the post's title, I just bought this book--I've literally only had it for a few hours as I type this.  Please, please somebody tell me that I've grossly misinterpreted some crucial rule here and it isn't really as bad as I fear it is.  

The book is well laid-out (though it could have benefited from some more editing and spell/grammar-checking), the game presents some neat ideas that I enjoy, and I so wanted to like this game, but if the above are true, they are deal-breakers for me ( I love to see medieval-esque combat represented with a reasonable degree of accuracy, especially where armour is concerned), and I will feel deeply dissatisfied and will have wasted my money.  

Edited to add:  Shuriken pierce all armour?  So, no matter what, no form of physical armour will protect me from being poisoned by a shuriken?  I could be wearing the best-quality plate armour, and if some random ninja wants me poisoned, it automatically happens because shuriken are magical armour-piercers?  Wow.  Just...wow...   To say that I am dismayed doesn't adequately cover it.  Between this and the lightsaber katana, what's up with the over-the-top Asia-hoplophilia?  

[Mister Andersen]

Basic training is just the bow proficiency, which is all the average NPC bowman is going to rock up to a fight with unless your GC is out to make life difficult for you. Feats and fortes and weapon upgrades are generally the preserve of elite minions and special characters. So a bunch of mooks so armed will have an AP capacity anywhere from 2 (short bows w/ standard arrows) to 7 (heavy crossbows w/standard bolts).

But the whole point of sharp pointy things being propelled with great force is that they are by their very nature armour piercing. It's why armour became decreasingly popular once that level of weapon tech was reached, because the pro/con balance became skewed.

Don't forget however that your Defence bonus is increasing as you level up, and there a variety of options for increasing your effective damage resistance -- armour fittings, class abilities and so on.

[ArmoredSaint]

But the whole point of sharp pointy things being propelled with great force is that they are by their very nature armour piercing. It's why armour became decreasingly popular once that level of weapon tech was reached, because the pro/con balance became skewed.

While you are indeed correct about pointy things driven with great force being generally better at piercing armour, you miss the mark (heh!   ) on the notion that armour went into decline after the longbow and heavy crossbow hit the battlefield.  It was emphatically not so.  Even the much-hyped English victory at Agincourt occurred only in 1415--plate armour had yet to reach its zenith.  This  funerary effigy depicts what a typical heavily-armoured warrior of the knightly class would have worn circa 1415:

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/static/monuments/medium/john_hamperotis_s440_r6462.jpg

Compare this with a later armour from c.1460-1470:
http://www.historicenterprises.com/journal/05/images/b2.jpg

Armour grew heavier, not lighter, following the English longbow victories.  Why?  Because it kept the arrows out, that's why.  Armour worked.

I have compiled a collection of historical accounts from a few primary sources detailing the effectiveness of advanced plate armour versus projectiles shot from the longbow.  I now submit it here:

(click to show/hide)

Remember that at Agincourt the French armoured men-at-arms did in fact reach the English line, and were defeated in hand-to-hand combat, not by archery. The high casualty figures for the men-at-arms are probably the result of Henry ordering all prisoners to be slaughtered after they were captured and bound.

Also, remember that Agincourt is the last of the great English longbow victories. It did not prove as effective against advancing armour technology. Plate armour won the conflict with the longbow. Sure, there was a back-and-forth, and at times the longbow even had the upper hand at a few points in the 14th century, but ultimately plate armour prevailed. It took the advent of effective firearms to drive armour from the battlefield. William Turner, writing hudreds of years later in the late 17th century argues that longbow use should be revived because, "...arrows would do more mischief than formerly they did: since neither men nor horses are so well armed now to resist them, as in former ages they used to be." Essentially, he believed that a force of longbowmen would be effective in battle since they can shoot more quickly than musketeers, but also because soldiers would be vulnerable to the arrows precisely because they no longer made a practice of wearing armour into battle. He acknowledges that armour defeated arrows and drove the longbow from its once-exalted position on the battlefield. A century later, none other than Benjamin Franklin would echo his words.

The longbow won at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt simply because the English got to pick the battlefield and made the French fight on their terms, which included placing their longbowmen behind substantial field fortifications. What conclusion should we draw from the results of other battles in which English archers were ridden down by the very heavy cavalry whose bane they supposedly were? In the batle of Patay, that's just what happened. Where was the longbow's armour-piercing power then?

I submit the following passage from Dr. Michael Lacy's paper on the Effectiveness of Medieval Knightly Armour. This portion deals with the battle of Flodden (1513) wherein the Scots fielded a force clad in the latest plate infantry armours mass-produced on the Continent:

"...the longbow, so decisive in the wars of the last century, was defeated by the heavy German armour of the Scottish front ranks; a contemporary accounts describe them as "most assuredly harnesed" in armour, and that they "abode the most dangerous shot of arrows, which sore them annoyed but yet except it hit them in some bare place, did them no hurt." Bishop Ruthal, writing 10 days after the battle remarked "they were so well cased in armour that the arrows did them no harm, and were such large and stout men that one would not fall when four or five bills struck them."

That's right, contemporary English chroniclers reveal that the longbow did not pierce armour. Other accounts from Poitiers and Brouwershaven (1426) tell similar stories, to say nothing of reports of battles from the English dynastic struggle known as the Wars of the Roses in which both sides turned the longbow on each other, in which it is specially pointed out that Lords Clifford and Dacre were not vulnerable to arrows until they had lifted their visors to drink or shout or breathe.

More near the time of Agincourt, here is a passage from the biography of Don Pero Niño, a Spanish privateer, who raided the English coast a couple of years before Agincourt:

"...they (the Spanish) were so near them (the English) that they could easily tell the fair men from the dark...the standard and he who bore it were likewise riddled with arrows, and the standard bearer had as many round his body as a bull in the ring, but he was shielded by his good armour"

For what it's worth, that standard bearer was none other than the author of this account himself, Gutierre Diaz de Gamez. It is noteworthy that his plate armour enabled him to survive a close-range arrow onslaught and live to write this passage years later.

The longbow was not the "king of the battlefield," the magical nuclear armour-piercer that its fanboys want you to believe. It was only effective under certain controlled circumstances, and even then was mostly an anti-cavalry weapon. Don't buy the hype. Don't misunderstand me--the English were awesome during the early part of the Hundred Years War, but it was because of their strategic expertise, and canny use of combined arms tactics, not because they possessed some magical, battle-winning wonder weapon.

 This is from a letter written by one Jehan Baugey, and dated 16 September 1475:

"That Monday after supper the English (mercenary longbowmen) quarreled over a wench and wanted to kill each other. As soon as the duke (of Burgundy) heard of this, he went to them with a few people to appease them but they, not recognizing the duke, as they claimed, shot two or three times directly at him with their bows. (The arrows went) very near his head and it was extraordinarily lucky that he was not killed, for he had no armour on at all."

The Burgundians had been hiring English longbowmen as mercenaries for decades at this point, and would have been intimately familiar with the power of the longbow. Yet they still expected that plate armour would have saved a man if he were struck by one of those arrows. What conclusion should we draw from this?

Here is a passage from Vaughan's Philip the Good that deals with the battle of Brouwershaven:

"...they (The English) returned fire with their deadly long-bows and drove the Dutch back in disorder. However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily-armed knights, who now arrived on the scene. The chronicler points out that Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet."

Here, not only do we again have the expectation that a helmet would have saved one man, but a direct statement that the arrows from those longbows made no impression on the (presumably plate-clad) knights.  Elsewhere, the same source states that a rain of heavy crossbow bolts "did about as much harm (to the English side's own plate-armoured knights) as a shower of rotten apples."

So there you are: evidence from several primary sources attesting to the ineffectiveness of longbows against steel plate armour. I can't seem to find any sources stating that arrows killed men through plate armour.

Even the recent book by Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow--surely the authoritative work on the subject, in its obligatory armour vs. arrows chapter pretty much admits that good-quality plate would keep a man from being killed by arrows, and lists a few more accounts that reinforce that position that I have not noted above.

If the above primary source accounts do not sway you, I can produce more.

And I've still yet to find a single source describing a man in full plate killed by an arrow through his breastplate...

And this doesn't even begin to consider the attempts to make armour proof against early firearms witnessed in the 16th century and later.  

So, no--it is not true that longbows and crossbows drove steel plate armour from the field.  Armour just got better.  

An earlier work of Robert Hardy's on the subject gives the average thickness for a c.1400-ish breastplate at about 2mm.  The more recent The Knight and the Blast Furnace by Dr. Alan Williams, a work on the topic of medieval martial metallurgy, seems to agree with this, and this figure seems to jive with measurements of actual surviving pieces.  Later breastplates, though, feature thicknesses through the center of the breastplate of 4mm or even greater.  

See here for an examination, including figures for thickness, of a selection of surviving breastplates from later periods in the collection of Mr. Wade Allen:

http://www.allenantiques.com/Breastplate%20Thickness%20Study.html

I'd certainly say that plate armour's performance record warrants better representation in the game than a measly 1 DR for articulated plate with heavy fittings--the game's best armour versus a guy with Bow Basics and a standard longbow and arrow!

[Mister Andersen]

Out of curiosity, what's the best DR you can get through non magical armour in D&D?

[ArmoredSaint]

Out of curiosity, what's the best DR you can get through non magical armour in D&D?

Which edition?  

Off the top of my head...

In 1E AD&D, as detailed in Unearthed Arcana, full plate armour afforded its wearer what effectively translates to 2 DR per die of damage rolled.  So, if I were wearing this armour when struck with a broadsword that did 2d4 damage in that game, I would get to ignore 4 damage.

In 3.5E, adamantine armour is technically non-magical, and, IIRC, provides 3 DR for a suit of heavy armour made from it.

In 4E, the recent Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium presents splint mail that offers DR 3, but only against the first blow taken in an encounter.

[Dragoon-Darkfire]

I'm gonna just go out on a limb here and say that if the crux of your argument is mostly in regards to how armour isn't handled in a 100% realistic fashion then maybe the problems lay more with you than the actual game.

That's not necessarily there to say that the writers of this game needed to pay more attention to historical accuracy and how shit's suppose to work but really? The way I see it is arrows and shurikens and such do so little damage in comparison to melee weapons that having AP for them just... sort of makes sense. Melee weapons overcome DR with raw damage, arrows and smaller weapons sneak in between cracks. Or at least they try to. It's more of a balancing thing than a real historical measure, since FC isn't GURPS and it can't just assign each individual trait an amount of points they're worth they need some nice work arounds and handwaves of "This is fantasy. Don't worry about it".

Keep in mind, a lot of your arguments don't make much sense to me because I'M READING MY FANTASY CRAFT BOOK RIGHT HERE and all it says is Katannas have Cavalry and Keen 4 as their qualities and keen has nothing to do with armour piercing... also shurikens don't have AP either, at least as part of their natural weapon descriptions. Maybe this is just a first printing thing? Either way I'm not really one to let a small inconsistency with history stop me from having fun in a game about fantasy tales so meh.

[ArmoredSaint]

The copy I have says that katana have AP 4 and that shuriken do stress damage, which ignores armour.

[Dragoon-Darkfire]

The copy I have says that katana have AP 4 and that shuriken do stress damage, which ignores armour.

Yea than you probably have a first printing of the book, because I distinctly remember this argument from other places online. I'm looking at my book right here and Katanna's have Keen 4 (which basically means they do more nasty shit on critical hit tables) and shurikens do lethal damage.

[Illithar]

You may want to grab the First Printing Errata, it does show that the Katana loses AP 4 and gains keen 4 and the shurikens damage was changed to lethal. Which matches the second printing.

This is among numerous other changes.

http://www.crafty-games.com/downloads

[Mister Andersen]

I agree that plate not having additional resistance against edged attacks doesn't make a lot of sense. But still, by your own comparison you're getting better DR out of the box that any recent version of D&D.

And you're also overlooking the difference in how D&D and FC handle armour. D&D uses it to increase your Defence, which is reasonable given that the value in their system is largely static, but once that number is breeched you'e taking everything your opponent dishes out. FC increases your Defence as you level, so armour is generally a lot more about absorbing damage once you're hit.

And remember that range is also a factor; for every range increment, that AP bonus of theirs still needs to roll 2 more on the die to hit you.

If you're going to go clanking in the heavy armour, that pretty much means you're likely playing a Soldier or Lancer. In either case, that probably means the Armour feat chain is going to be important to you.

A lancer gets one step of the chain for free at levels 2, 11 and 19; they can purchase it sooner if they want, but they gotta use their bonus feat due to career level slots to do it. A soldier can get them a lot more easily by using their odd-level class ability in addition to their standard slots; with the Fighter specialty they can have the entire chain at 1st level.

Let's look at the benefits.

Armour Basics: Makes armour lighter
Armour Mastery: DR +1, immune to coup de grace
Armour Supremacy: DR +1 (total +2), sneak attack immunity.

I agree that seems a little anaemic for the investment; lose access to your armour and that's 3 feats of dead weight. Straight out doubling the benefit of both the 2nd and 3rd tiers would seem a fair alteration given they're all non-permanent benefits.

But even if the benefits of the chain remain as written, if we continue this build to 3rd level, using your class and level based feat slots to pick up Shield Basics and Mastery means you get access to the ability to ignore the AP quality of enemy attacks equal to your melee feats -- and as the Fighter counts as having 2 extra of those, as long as you've got even a buckler shield equipped, that mook bowman's AP advantage over you is a thing of the past.

[ArmoredSaint]

Okay, awesome.

I didn't know about the errata.  Thanks much, gentlemen.

I read on...

[Krensky]

Mr A analysis also leaves out the Soldier's DR class ability, which stacks with his armor, so it's even better.

[Sletchman]

Mr A nailed it - we had a Soldier in our group modelled on a classical "Knight" archtype and he could flat out ignore archers (and most mid-range melee threats).  As in total immunity to them short of a Called Shot at -10 to hit (a trick only specialists would actually have, unless your GM hates you) - and on the somewhat rare actual hit at that he could use Shield Block.  Combined with Taunt it was kinda hilarious.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Although in the end FantasyCraft is not trying to emulate real world armor and weapons.

Still it probably wouldn't be that hard to adjust the numbers until they worked right.
EDIT: You could even get someone on these boards to do it for you if you don't feel like it.

[TheTSKoala]

Oh man.. we JUST had this argument at our table with a new player.  (D&D convert.)  Because of the ingenious (possibly insane.. no sane men / women can possibly track all of that is FantasyCraft in their head.. but yet.. they did...) and amazingly deep way FantasyCraft plugs in with itself, you can't really take stats by themselves.  As Sletchman pointed out in his group.. Soldier + Ability + Armor + LOLs = Archers suck.  My player was concerned that he'd 'break' our group with an armor toting Wizard.. ..he didn't.  (He actually almost died last night.. lol)

I'll be honest.. I thought the same to.  Until my group dragged me into a game of FantasyCraft. (I'm not normally a fantasy gamer.  Modern or Sci-Fi for this Koala).. but FantasyCraft just has so many options... it's like a drug for my brain.

My suggestion?  Has out a character or two.  Play a game as a trial.  Get a feel for how it all blends.  It took me three sessions.. then I busted out Mohai the Kung Fu Tree and haven't looked back since!