Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Izumi" data-source="post: 5939232" data-attributes="member: 6668759">What gives you all the impression a man in heavy armor is more difficult to strike or more difficult to dodge? Neither is actually true. With room to maneuver, an unarmored man of experience can easily escape a man in full plate or keep him at bay until he grows tired. The problem arises when he tries to KILL the Knight with urgency and/or he has a lot of friends. A plate-armored man is not so slow one can easily get to a vital opening. There are ways and methods to do so, however. (Talhoffer's 87th Recto 1459 shows a good tactic.) The answer to this problem isn't giving the fighter better AC than extremely nimble men. It's to inflate the fighter's hit points as a reflection of his superior skill to beat foes with the armor's advantages, and ability to endure the armor's disadvantages. They are taken in combination for the system, not individually, and what's more the higher AC of Full Plate comes from the Chainmail war game which rightly groups men in ranks. Unable to use their mobility on the field gives the foes of heavily armored men a decisive disadvantage. Other thoughts to consider are how many D&D battles are one on one? Shouldn't AC be divided by the  amount of surrounding attackers to honestly reflect reality better? Can they come out with a good compromise that will suit us simulationists, and the Lancelot in historically wrong armor-ists?</blockquote>