Over the several decades of our hobby, armor has been 'modeled' in numerous ways. In the various iterations of Dungeons & Dragons, Armor Class makes its wearer harder to hit, on the understanding that some hits simply don't get through the armor, so why worry about them. We only need to concern ourselves with the hits that penetrate. Other systems take the approach of reducing damage done by a successful attack, either by granting a Save based on the amount of armor, or by subtracting an Armor Value from the the damage of the attack.

Of the two main methods, personally, I find the D&D version less appealing, because it impedes my sense of a fight as a scary, tension-fraught action sequence. I prefer to know when a character or NPC has been hit, then determine what, if anything, their armor, if any, does for them. I know others feel differently, and do not find the additional step necessary to reduce damage through an Armor Value to be worth the trouble. That's fine, of course. There is enough game, and sufficient and various game systems, to please just about everyone.

What I would like to examine over the next few posts, is how armor worked historically, as best we are able to infer, and how it can inform our gaming. I am not going to go into modern armor for two reasons. First, I have almost no experience with it. Second, It seems, as an uninformed observer, that modern warfare and modern armor, are different enough that they cannot be judged using the same criteria as earlier forms of either. At least not by me.

OK. Pre-Modern Armor:

The first piece of armor to examine has to be the shield. Nearly every culture that fought came up with them, and they function as both a piece of armor [Static Defense]  and as a tool for actively blocking or parrying [Active Defense].

Static Defense:

A shield has a chance of getting in the way of an incoming thing, slowing it down. If it does it reduces or removes the thing from contact with the body behind said shield. The first function of a shield, which, if it is of good size, it performs admirably, is defense against projectile weapons. Short of not being there, there is nothing better than a shield for stopping arrows, bolts, javelins and spears, from causing damage. Since most engagements, historically and around the RPG table, start with at least some ranged combat, this cannot be overstated. In fact, the shield was such a good tool for intercepting arrows and other light projectiles, that many cultures did not consider body armor cost effective when a shield was being employed. Often the head, legs, and weapon arm, would receive armor, but the body would not, being considered safe, or reasonably so, behind a shield. It was not unknown for warriors who had no use for a shield in melee combat [someone wielding a two-handed weapon, for example] to carry a shield JUST to get through the hail of missile weapons that preceded contact. Viking great-axemen are known to have done so, then tossed the shield as they came into contact.

In battles, archers weren't aiming for individual body parts of course. In fact they weren't even aiming at individuals. Instead, at least until the enemy were quite near, they shot [and practiced] to hit a unit of enemy troops at various ranges. This is not the case for most RPG encounters though, where enemies are usually treated and targeted individually.

To get an idea of how well a shield might work as missile defense, consider the multicolored bullseye of target shooting. If you have ever tried archery this is even easier to visualize. Most shields were at least 50% bigger than a modern bullseye. Now consider a person drawn behind the bullseye, head tucked low, shield arm, weapon arm, torso, groin, and possibly the upper legs hidden behind the shield. Shoot. If you hit the 'shield' you have wasted valuable time and ammunition and probably not done significant damage. What do you have left to shoot at?

In mass battles between the leading ranks of units of fighters, with spears and swords thrust and swung in a way not entirely different from the one I described for archers shooting at units of enemy, shields operate similarly. They do a large part of their job just by taking up space between the body they are protecting and the things trying to do it harm. They don't tend to do it quite as well, because swords, axes, spears and other polearms tend to behave differently and can be directed to attack from a number of angles generally not available to distant archers, but they are still extremely valuable in a melee asa passive defence, especially if you have shield carrying friends to either side of you. Greek hoplite armies, Roman legions, Viking shieldwalls and a host of other armies throughout history have all made good use of fairly close order shield-bearing troops working as a unit.

But shields are also an Active Defense:

In combat between individuals, which is to say, the sort of fighting we see a lot of in RPGs, shields still have a major roll. They still create a barrier to ranged attacks, they still impede some melee attacks just with their presence, but where they really shine in individual combat is as an active defense system - where they are being used actively to intercept attacks as they come, rising to meet a sword swinging for the head, dipping to catch a thrust at the thigh, etc; - that intercepts an attack BEFORE it ever contacts whatever armor lies beneath.

The reason for this is that, passively, in individual combat, shields are not that great. If you have never used one, it is hard to grasp how easy it is for an attacker in melee to avoid a shield that is not actively defending. The shield is in the neighborhood, but not working to thwart you, so it is not very hard to get around it. But if you think back to you pirate days as a kid, you probably had a little experience sword fighting. Of course if you fence, or box, or do another martial art, you know this already. Remember how you had to move the sword to parry, just as your opponent did, or somebody got tagged. It wasn't hard, even as unskilled kids, to hit a target that wasn't moving and ACTIVELY defending itself. Similarly, the shield, even though it is big, is not that hard to get around, even by an unskilled hand, if all it does is sit there. But when used actively, the shield gets a lot harder to avoid. it is a big barrier moving around trying to stop you from getting to the prize. Its size makes defending easier, but it is the person holding the shield working against your attack that does the job. The greater the skill of the shieldbearer, the greater the skill necessary for the attacker to circumvent his active defense.

So, how can this help us in gaming? Well one way has nothing to do with mechanics, but everything to do with perception of what is happening. I think fighters often get the short end of the stick as far as appreciation of their abilities goes in RPGs. The wizard studies arts unknown to most to bring forth fire or lightning or to dazzle mens' minds with a gesture and an incantation. The cleric devotes years to the worship of a deity, so as to demonstrate that deity's majesty and might. The rogue has a plethora of skills, all required to stay one step ahead of the law, and two feet free of the grave. But a lot of folks just think fighter hit things and leave it at that. In fact, using a shield well is an art that requires study and years of devotion. Weapon skill, how to work, move and fight in armor, knowledge of opponents, their styles, strengths and weaknesses requires more dedication.

Mechanically, it is impossible to modify a single aspect of a system without affecting the whole. I am not suggesting that you go back and tell your GM that his shield rules need to be reworked. it's probably enough that you, and possibly your GM, understand that there is a lot more going on even with a simple plank of wood with a handle [in truth, even the most basic of shields were more than this, but this post is long enough already].

Next time - Armor!