I am wondering if there are any advantages of a pure warrior in light armor with say a 2 handed weapon as opposed to maxing out strength (stamina) and being able to dance around the battlefield with ultimate protrction?


The only time I can see light armor being of use is if the warrior is using speed, stealth or magic mixed in with the fighting style. In this case the character would have had to concentrate body training (attribute points) on agility or magicka so therefore would not have the strength move around freely with the heavier armors. To compensate the lower armor rating, they would naturally make up for the loss via other means like archery, alchemy, speed or magic which they would be able to if they placed body training on agility or magicka over stamina (strength).


Thoughts?

Are we talking about real armour, or the RPG dynamic? Because in reality, there is absolutely no reason not to wear heavy armour. Enough leather to offer any reasonable protection is going to weigh just as much as a suit of plate, and offer only a fraction of the survivability. Even if you go full on cloth armour (quilted gambeson and leggings) you're still looking at barely below the lower-end of plate weight, and very little protection.

If you're talking the standard RPG dynamic, however... Light Armour typically finds its niche in scouts and skirmish warriors, those who avoid pitched battle and large confrontations.

I don't care much about game mechanics. My characters wear whatever is appropriate to the roleplaying I am doing in a particular game. If a particular character feels more comfortable in Light Armor, they wear Light. If they feel more comfortable around Heavy Armor, they wear Heavy Armor.

Actually not true. There are many drawbacks to heavy armour in real life.


For one, many knights died while crossing rivers on their horses and their horses being shot with arrows (a common tactic in wars), causing knights to fall into water and not being able to get up, literally drowning in as little as 1 to 2 feet deep of water.


Also in the heat of battle, being knocked down onto the ground in full heavy armour could take up to a few minutes to get back up depending on the armour and how fatigued you are, in that time you got somebody smashing your head in with a mace or stabbing you through the arm pit.


Not to mention the loss of sight from helmets and visors, which has obvious drawbacks.


Then there's battling in cold weather with ice and snow. Heavy armoured people have their armours frost up, harder to hold your weapons when you can't feel your hands, then the slippery ice and snow gives you huge chances of slipping and falling, which in a battlefield with heavy armour is basically a guaranteed death.


There's a reason a bunch of fur wearing Vikings were able to get as far as they did fighting one of the biggest empires in the world full of horse riding heavily armoured knights with better technology.


There are so many drawbacks to heavy armour that some armies even started to cut down on it's use because their unarmored or lightly chain mailed archers were more effective in close combat.


Heavy armour is good when you have perfect flat terrain, nice weather, and the war is just straight up two armies fighting brute force style with no guerrilla warfare.


Guerrilla warfare basically renders heavy armour almost useless. Heavy armoured guys can't fight a bunch of guys in heavy bush running and ambushing them when they have limited movement and limited sight, and if they fall have a hard time getting back up.

They didn't actually though. The Vikings ended before the use of what we would generally consider 'heavy' armour began. The latest style they confronted were Lamellar armours, which most games classify as Medium.

There are drawbacks to heavier armour, yes. But the advantages of one type of armour over others are dependant on a huge number of factors beyond just how 'heavy' it is. Maille, for instance, is almost impervious to cutting weapons, and excelled in a world where small slashing and thrusting swords were the norm. As heavier weapons and particularly axes became more common (particularly into the middle medieval period) Maille became increasingly unreliable in battle because its lack of rigidity meant it had no way to compensate for heavy impacts. It was in this military climate that Lamellar and eventually Plate armours began to become the norm (for those who could afford them anyway).

Meanwhile, in Asia, leather armours remained popular into the 13th and 14th centuries, because of their access to heavier hides than in Europe. It was easier to make respectable armour out of Elephant than it was out of Cattle.

But none of these even address the issue that the 'Light' and 'Heavy' divide is entirely fictitious. The difference in weight between Leather Armour (in those areas that used it, it was never very common in Europe) and a full plate harness was negligible. Even the heaviest period plate armours were only about 50lbs, and the lightest could be less than 30 (my high school backpack weighed more than a full suit of plate). Regardless of whether you were wearing metal or the carcass of a dozen cows, the weight you carried was the same. If we're talking about PARTIAL armour, like comparing a Plate Harness to a Maille Byrnie, well, that's an entirely different issue. That's like comparing a Tuxedo to a pair of sweatpants.

So it became a play between the exact battlefield roll and the types of weapons one would be up against, rather than some arbitrary weight-class. Maille persisted through to the renaissance because of it's ability to resit light thrusting weapons (it even became popular amongst civilians with the rise of the Rapier) but almost disappeared entirely from military use because of the increased use of the Longsword. The whole 'Light Armour' versus 'Heavy Armour' distinction never existed historically, there was just Armour, and the types of weapons it was useful against. No one would realistically only use a single type, unless they simply couldn't afford it.

The one advantage of rolling a warrior with light armor is being a glass cannon. No heavy armor usually (depending on the game, natch) means the character is using less stamina to preform actions, and their ability to move swiftly across the battlefield and hammer down opponents brutally is second to none. Those types of builds tend to favor larger, two handed weapons, as the extended reach lets them stay somewhat safe from enemies with shorter weapons, and allows them to dole out the max amount of damage as possible. This pairs well with perks/abilities that allow increased damage at low health, as getting hit sends your health spiraling downward, spiking your attack and making you far more dangerous then you were a second ago. This also makes it much easier to avoid spells and other projectiles in general, the prior being more important, since magic usually bypasses armor anyway.

The disadvantage is, well...being lightly armored. No real damage reduction beyond its innate armor rating, or any other benefits to wearing heavy armor. This can be a good thing if your going with the beserker option I mentioned, but don't expect to take a lot of massive blows and walk away from it. Overall though, its a very solid build that I'd like to see expanded on in TES.

In gameplay, light almost always weighs less, and depending on your build your armor may not matter at all.


With the way shields worked in Skyrim, you could get by just using one as your defense.


You asked about 2 handed though, and there is a perk that increases stamina regen if using light armor, so it has that going for it.

I do light armor for my warriors because I like the cosmetic value. Never gave a darn about mechanics.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:The_Armorer

Works with Glass Cannon- and Fragile Speedster -styles. "Speed is armor."* Extra points if you poison your weapon.

Also, less armor weight --> more loot!

*I believe that was used as a reasoning behind battlecruisers, which didn't actually work that great in the end (for various reasons) but there's still some point to it.

RIP AND TEAR!

...

That's more of a Hand-to-Hand -thing though. And in the wrong part of the forums...

There are a few things that has to be addressed before this question can be answered. For example, what style of light armor are we talking about? And for what purpose?

There are different styles of light armor in the TES lore and it is touched upon in books like "Light Armor Forging", referred to as "metalic" and "non-metalic" armors. And, going by the design of the armors, not all non-metalic armors are the same either. Looking at the amount of metal in use for something like the http://en.uesp.net/wiki/File:SR-item-Scaled_Armor_Male.jpg we see in Skyrim, it is clearly designed for combat usage and not stealth, even though it does not cover as much as Elven or Glass and cannot therefor be expected to protect as much.

Reaistically speaking, heavy armors take time to get in and out of and do restrict movement to some degree. It also mmakes bodies of water a possible danger. And looking at the design of the Elven and Glass armors since Morrowind, they seem to be at least as difficult to get in and out of, because despite being lighter in weight their design is similarly covering of the whole body.

Generally, the drawbacks of heavy armor and the full-on metalic light armors would limit it to be battlefield armors. Usability is one of the things that has to be taken into account when choosing armor and weapons. A traveling warrior would be more likely, I think, to wear something like the Skyrim scaled armor when travelling. It is less restrictive for moving and easier to get in and out of, while offering at least some protection in battle(though I would recomend an undershirt). Which means most of the game Skyrim. Only the civil war stuff really makes sense of wearing the heavier armors, as I understand it. Balgruuf equipping some steel plate in the battle for Whiterun, while normally wearning clothes, is a nice detail about how such armor types were used.

Naturally, just like some light armors(glass, elven) share drawbacks of heavy armors, some heavy armors will not share them. The Skyrim iron armor seem simple and unrestrictive enough to be worn when wandering, for instance.

Norse and Germanic people would get as much protection as possible. Often with a combination of fur or leather with chainmail. The reason many went with less was due to the fact that they were raiding against unarmed monks and villagers. It was a hit and run. Otherwise they fought with full protection with chainmail and plate helmets and made a shield wall. Plate armor came later and was very much adopted by Germanic Northern European knights.

I don't think full armor is that hard to move in for someone who life is dedicated to building up the strength and skills to wear it. Maybe for someone who does not have the time to train and develop the skills and body type required.

https://youtu.be/teUUiqo1Ky8


From a mechanics perspective of any rpg game (which are there to reflex real life science), I cannot see why a warrior would lessen his armor rating unless it was for speed. In rpg this is usually represented with agility. A warrior packing light armor and something like dual light swords / daggers would not have the strength required, but would make up for the much lesser A.R. with speed of movement to attack quick and the ability to dodge. I can totally understand the need for less protection if the character has had to forfeit physical strength in place of something like agility. The same would make sense for a battlemage type of class where magicka is needed. I totally see the need then?


A time I think I could consider light armor is if I could use the Orsimer special ability of tough skin to compensate my A.R. i would still try and introduce speed and archery into that build though. Something like dual orcish daggers or dual orcish battle axes and an orcish bow.

The other thing to keep in mind, as I pointed out in my post, is the usability of the armor during whatever activities you are to undertake. Plate armor takes a lot of time and help to get into and thus not a realistic option for someone who travels a lot. Chainmail is pretty easy to get in and out of, while also protecting very well against some types of weapons, so it is no wonder it has been so commonly used throughout history. As for restricting movements, training can minimize this, but it remains more resptrictive than, say, chainmail.

From a gameplay perspective in Oblivion and Skyrim, it really doesn't matter much with the addition of the option to completely reduce the armor's weight when it comes to mobility, and most medium to high end armors can meet the AR cap. In the end, it is an aesthetic choice.

For me that choice just happens to make me look for armors I think make sense to wear given the amount of travelling the character undertakes. And I typically(even though my character skill with such armor is pretty low usually) wear heavy armor during the civil war stuff because I think it makes sense. Well, with the exception of the sneaky mission, but the point still stands.

I normally just lurk around here but this is so utterly ridiculous that I have say something.

Full plate armor normally weighs about 25kg at most, which is about the same as what modern soldiers equipment weigh. And don't forget, that weight of the plate harness is distributed among the entire body. The myth that medieval armors were so heavy that it restrict someone from just getting up is just a stupid myth perpetuated from people looking at jousting armors.

Which Vikings? Which period? And do you also think the pop depiction of vikings as being savage barbarians charging into battle naked with a fur coat is an accurate representation? Most vikings wore mail, which is the heaviest armor in the pre-plate period. And what type of "knights" are you talking about? Saxons (which is basically more or less the same)? Or the legionnaires which conquered almost the entirety of europe? Mind you, real full plate armor didn't exist until the very end of the late medieval period and the beginning of the renaissance.

Mail armor are heavy and distribute weigh worse than plate armor. I really wonder when did the mail = light armor myth spread. This is certainly the first time I've heard someone referring chainmail as 'light'.

Real full plate armour isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the mish mash of armour that ends up being "heavy". Heavy armour that I'm referring to is when someone wears chain mail, and then puts on a bunch of armour over top and is wearing a full suit that takes like 20 minutes and another person to wear (this can be a crude plate over top, or even a thick hard leather armour).


Yes it wasn't until later that full plate that was efficient and fit properly that you had a plate mail that was movable in. But before that, people wore chain mail with armour on top of it and gave them limited movement.


It was absolutely true that falling into a semi fast river was enough to drown these people while wearing these suits.


And when I was referring to chain mail, calling it light wasn't the right way I was trying to explain. I mean chain is lighter as in it only takes a few seconds to put on or remove (and if you're caught in an undercurrent with only chainmail, then you have a higher chance if survival by removing it), and can be worn by travellers and adventurers. But when wearing chain mail underneath thicker heavier armour, which is what I'm referring to as heavy armour when put together, is very fatiguing and gives limited movement, especially for travelling.

This is the universal rule for armour. ALL armour is going to impair mobility, be it Cuir Couilli or Plate or modern Kevlar. And, by and large, similar coverage of armour, regardless of type, is going to weigh a comparable amount (at least until you get into the later Plate, which was both lighter and more protective, while not needing the layered protection of gambeson and maille underneath).

But, different armours DID require different amounts of work to make and don, and did offer different degrees of protection for different situations. Even during the late medieval period, particularly paranoid individuals wore byrnies under their clothing to protect against would-be assassins, since it was very difficult to stab through or cut maille. It was useless against force impacts, but it protected very well against small blades and was quick to put on.

Ultimately, anyone who can really afford good armour is going to have multiple suits, and is going to wear what they feel is appropriate for the situation. If they are expecting a full blow, drag-em-out fight, they have little reason to wear anything but their heaviest (or rather, most protective) armour (unless there are extenuating environmental considerations, though many of those aren't easily predictable). If they're expecting to ambush a caravan or travelling party, then something lighter and less complete is more likely.

If you don't have the choice, because of a lack of ability to buy good armour, then you're far more likely to just wear the best you can afford.

That's really one of the necessary absurdities of RPGs... you almost never did any traveling in armour. Even during the crusades, when you could reasonably expect to be ambushed at any point, knights only really tended to wear their armour when they were sure they were going to fight. The same goes for weapons, really. You rarely carried more than a dagger when you weren't actively trying to kill people. Travelling in armour just wasn't something people did very often...

But in an RPG, with an emphasis on exploration and adventure, having you rummage through your cart and put on your armour every time you see something interesting is a serious hassle...

Thanks for the post. What you say is basically my understanding of armours. I have a younger brother who does reenactment of the Norse / Germanic time period (not sure exact details but most his group are Polish and I know they cover Danes, Saxons and Scythians etc). Hearing him talk, he gives this impression as well. To my understanding, a warrior who is trained to be physically able and skillfull in a full set of armor is able to move just as easy as someone in a light armor without the training. Much the same way a marine commando is able to run further, faster and be able to maneuver in full combat gear better than most of us without it due to their strict training. When going into full combat then it does seem that there is no advantage to less protection unless your fighting style requires stealth or speed and freedom of movement.

https://youtu.be/LzNdzz9PT2w

This is my preferred approach too. Often I do not even choose an armor class just incase I see a heavy armor that I like better than light and vice versa. When possible I like to mix and match pieces to get a desired look.

Many....no.Since battles weren't fought while crossing rivers.And if they were crossing rivers they usually weren't wearing armor.This [censored] again.

Oh and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg

Stop spreading lies.

Rich "Vikings" or norse, since not all of them were pirates, used heavy armor as much as knights.Oh and look at history.

in RPGs, light armor is for staying out of direct combat. it's meant to withstand a couple hits better than no armor, and allows better stealth.

and who cares about real world examples -- this is fantasy and TES physics can be altered on a whim (hence the magic of alteration, haha). as long as it plays well in gameplay.

And it needs to look good! Gotta look GQ in my role playing games!

They love it. They thrive on these debates even when the debates have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You have only to mention armor or weapons and a small platoon of armchair medieval combat experts come out of the woodwork. It's a harmless eccentricity.

I demand armored codpieces, armored bikinis, and boob plate armor!

the more powerful the light armor, the skimpier it gets. bulging muscles prevail!

most of my barbarian characters use light armor, though they are dismayed with the progression of elven and glass for looks. I just like the look of fur and hides for the most part.

Well, it was sorta the whole question. Plus, the real-world is full of diverse examples of arms and armour, designed for different situations and different cultures. Real World armours, and their examples, are more diverse than any RPG has ever managed to cobble together, so why NOT look at them?

I'll show you harmless!

But seriously... there is a huge wealth of ideas, expressions and variations found in the real world, be it in clothing or armour or architecture, that RPGs have never managed to achieve, largely because they have a tendency to rely on awkward or even superficial distinctions to categorise things. The Light-Medium-Heavy dynamic in RPGs actually serves to dramatically simplify the huge diversity in armour, limiting what characteristics you can represent and the applications of, frankly, dozens of different styles of armouring.

When it comes to arms and armour, reality is the fantasy, and fantasy is the bland, simplistic and largely uninteresting over-generalisation.

Mike Loads is an iron man to be pulling off those types of stunts at his age. Guys also a good shot with a bow . . . from horseback.

About difficulties getting up after being knocked down while wearing armor, there might be other things at play than just the weight of the armor (though I imagine hours of fighting and possibly walking in mud is probably pretty tiring). First of all, the reason you're knocked down. If you get a hit to your head, you might get a concussion, even if you were wearing a a helmet. Falling from your horse, you might land in a way that knocks the wind out of you or you hit your head on a rock. Those could leave you helpless for minutes and others wouldn't know the real reason you couldn't get up.

Ooh, but I have a degree! Certified by International Kamprad Educational Academy.