Sprinting in Full Plate Armor?

[Riotnrrd]

You betcha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo ... ge#t=2095s

[t-ice]

I reject your reality and insert a fireball from thin air.

[I-KP]

I've worn plated armour and dashed around okay - for about 3 minutes then all but collapsed from heat exhaustion. If you’re wearing a padded arming jack underneath, which you should be doing unless you’re keen on being flayed alive, then you have to choose your sprints vary carefully lest you sweat your life out. Not pleasant.

[Castano]

Historically full plate armor was for horseback use. A dismounted knight was generally a dead knight. Maybe if we made the armor out of aluminum or titanium (e.g. mithral).

[rorax]

Running in armor does not strike me as the one of the most unrealistic things in D&D, there are far more fallacious things than that...

For example, strength increasing your chances to hit...

[t-ice]

Historically full plate armor was for horseback use.

I am under the impression this is more due to economics of it than useability of plate armor in dismounted combat: A warhorse was cheaper than plate armor, and probably increased the fighting potential of the combatant more than the armor, so unmounted plate-clad warriors would make little sense. (Though in wikipedia there are several mentions of historical events where men-at-arms fought dismounted.) In melee combat the warrior in plate probably would have the upper hand against weaker armored opponents, but no matter what you wear you can't win melee 1 against 10. And arming 10 serfs with pitchforks/spears/morningstars was cheap as dirt compared to one armor. (Contrast to DnD 1 lvl10 fighter against 10 lvl1s...)
The modern soldier carries far more weight to battle than a plate armor. Plus the plate armor load is likely pretty ideally distributed.

there are far more fallacious things than that...
For example, strength increasing your chances to hit...

I'd still stay Fireball wins.

[I-KP]

Historically full plate armor was for horseback use.

...and arming 10 serfs with pitchforks/spears/morningstars was cheap as dirt compared to one armor. (Contrast to DnD 1 lvl10 fighter against 10 lvl1s...)

Crossbows brought about the end of heavy field plate use; the common man suddenly had the power to kill a noble at range with the flick of a finger – unheard of. It took one day to teach a peasant to use a crossbow as opposed to a month with farming tools, a year to fight adequately with mauls and maces, and all of a young adult’s life to use a Longbow effectively. …Or you could just grind statics for a week and let rip with Heat Metal.

Plate armour was not created specifically for mounted battle, unless you’re thinking of Tournament armour which was so heavy that a man could barely stand upright in it for long, much less run. I’ve seen (but not worn, sadly) such stuff; it is 10mm thick around the chest barrel. Took three guys to arm up a man in that stuff, and they needed a winch to lift him up onto his horse. Crazy. Obviously designed only for Tournament Jousting and was of no use whatsoever on the battlefield (largely because when the rider was dismounted he couldn’t get up without help – oh, and he couldn’t see a fookin’ thing aside from through a tiny forward-facing slit/hole in the visor of the equally ridiculously heavy helm).

The modern soldier carries far more weight to battle than a plate armor. Plus the plate armor load is likely pretty ideally distributed.

A well fitted suit feels like a second skin and in most cases it's very easy to forget that it's even there. There’s no restriction of movement (unless you’re a contortionist) and as long as you don’t run around like a loon, and you keep drinking water constantly, you’re good for a whole day.

[Zelknolf]

Erm... wut?

Crossbows were developed before plate amor. They're 5th century technology-- and even when the steel crossbow showed up to make the weapon better, plate armor continued in routine use for another four centuries. Full plate was still rare as all getout, of course, and people started to doubt whether it was worth it by the time we get to the early modern period, but it's just plain silly to call crossbows (and not, say, improvements to firing mechanisms and larger-caliber bullets) responsible.

[I-KP]

Actually crossbow technology goes back as far as 1000BC, China.

By the 16th century in Europe plate armour offered almost no protection against the increasingly common steel crossbow, which is the weapon I was referring to. Even so, long before that time the end was in sight in the shape of the Genoese infantryman’s heavy crossbow which had a 1000lb pull (via separate pulley/crank) and not far off 500 yard range - nothing was safe from those monsters. The French made great use of these weapons during the Hundred Years War much to the shock of English Kings; no longer did the steel skin ensure the safety of the nobles and the risk of death up to 100 yards distant from a mere mercenary became frighteningly high.

It is not merely coincidence that the prevalence of easy to use (from a training point of view) crossbows saw the rapid decline of full plate usage throughout the 17th century, with the final nail being hammered in by the large scale introduction of muskets thereafter. (Some development remained in retaining the breastplate to protect against long range crossbow and musket fire, particularly by the Portuguese, but by that point the full plate armour suit was arguably already done away with.) The cuirass element of the suit saw renewed use against mortar and fragmentation weaponry commonly seen during the Napoleonic wars, and a very heavy variant even saw use by the Russians during the second world war in and around Stalingrad.

With the advent of effective crossbows, and very shortly thereafter the arrival of the musket, full plate armour was to be consigned to history and advancements in infantry doctrine would take over instead. So yes, the crossbow more than any other weapon type did have a major hand in seeing away with standard use of full plate armour.

[SwordSaintMusashi]

Actually crossbow technology goes back as far as 1000BC, China.

By the 16th century in Europe plate armour offered almost no protection against the increasingly common steel crossbow, which is the weapon I was referring to. Even so, long before that time the end was in sight in the shape of the Genoese infantryman’s heavy crossbow which had a 1000lb pull (via separate pulley/crank) and not far off 500 yard range - nothing was safe from those monsters. The French made great use of these weapons during the Hundred Years War much to the shock of English Kings; no longer did the steel skin ensure the safety of the nobles and the risk of death up to 100 yards distant from a mere mercenary became frighteningly high.

It is not merely coincidence that the prevalence of easy to use (from a training point of view) crossbows saw the rapid decline of full plate usage throughout the 17th century, with the final nail being hammered in by the large scale introduction of muskets thereafter. (Some development remained in retaining the breastplate to protect against long range crossbow and musket fire, particularly by the Portuguese, but by that point the full plate armour suit was arguably already done away with.) The cuirass element of the suit saw renewed use against mortar and fragmentation weaponry commonly seen during the Napoleonic wars, and a very heavy variant even saw use by the Russians during the second world war in and around Stalingrad.

Armour has always played catch-up to weapon technology, not the other way round, and with the advent of effective crossbows, and very shortly thereafter the arrival of the musket, full plate armour was to be consigned to history and advancements in infantry doctrine would take over instead. So yes, the crossbow more than any other weapon type did have a major hand in seeing away with standard use of full plate armour.

[I-KP]

Damnit. You ninja'd me before I could get my edit in. Never mind, small point anyway (pun intended).

[Zelknolf]

Do you have sources for this?

It seems to portray a narrative of history that is opposite the actual discovered artifacts.

Namely all of those 16th century full plate harnesses and all of those 14th century steel crossbows, and then that 17th century reduction in armor and that 17th century invention of the flintlock.

[I-KP]

No because I made it all up.

[dergon darkhelm]

I jsut spent ten minutes trying to find that clip from Reno 911 where Boozehammer of Galen (Patton Oswalt) calls 911 from the Renaisannce fair to report an anachronism (someone sing a 15th century crossbow while dressed in 14th century garb)...........but I can't find it online anywhere.

[I-KP]

I jsut spent ten minutes trying to find that clip from Reno 911 where Boozehammer of Galen (Patton Oswalt) calls 911 from the Renaisannce fair to report an anachronism (someone sing a 15th century crossbow while dressed in 14th century garb)...........but I can't find it online anywhere.

They don't make them like they used to.