Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7360786" data-attributes="member: 6801845">For my assessment I was assuming the PC AC was 20 and a level 10 monster, a Stone Golem with +10 to hit.&nbsp; Although I goofed because it's worse than I thought.With a +10 to hit, it's always going to hit at least an AC 12 (since 1's always miss) before the die is rolled.&nbsp; So 95% of the misses will be because of armor unless I'm missing something.&nbsp; That means that in a typical fight, 5 rounds means 10 attacks.&nbsp; Since the golem misses 50% of the time, that's 4.75 damaging hits to the armor per fight or 9.5 point of armor damage per combat (at 2 points /hit).If I was forced to play with this rule I'd carry a bunch of shields and replace them after every other fight or not play a character with heavy armor.&nbsp; Replacing plate armor every day is not tenable.So suppose you tweak your numbers.&nbsp; If you assume that HP reflects more than just ability to withstand blows but to also absorb or avoid most of the damage, then HP should factor into your armor's durability.But that doesn't solve the basic issue, the question you've never answered, that several people have asked.&nbsp; What are you achieving other than adding finicky overhead?&nbsp; The answer &quot;more realism&quot; doesn't cut it for me because I don't think anyone here has any idea of how much damage armor would take in a typical combat along with PCs facing a ridiculous amount of combat.&nbsp; Part of what's bothering me is that if you get hit the armor takes no damage which doesn't seem right either.&nbsp; If I have heavy armor, the chinks in my armor are few and far between.&nbsp; If I'm taking damage it's probably because the armor absorbed some of the damage but not all ... but then that gets into armor DR and how would low-level opponents be a threat and so on and so forth.Want a grittier world?&nbsp; Simplify.&nbsp; Use the slow healing rules from the DMG along with some kind of armor damage based on how many HP you're down.&nbsp; You have to pay to get your armor fixed during your downtime, it slowly degrades and needs to be repaired.&nbsp; Lower quality armor would need to be fixed more frequently but at a lower cost.&nbsp; But at that point ... it just becomes fluff or an addition lifestyle cost.Anyway, you don't seem too interested in feedback so good luck with this.&nbsp; If there's anything you don't understand about my analysis I can clarify but until then I think you'd have to start with a completely different game system for something like this to make sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7360786, member: 6801845"] For my assessment I was assuming the PC AC was 20 and a level 10 monster, a Stone Golem with +10 to hit. Although I goofed because it's worse than I thought. With a +10 to hit, it's always going to hit at least an AC 12 (since 1's always miss) before the die is rolled. So 95% of the misses will be because of armor unless I'm missing something. That means that in a typical fight, 5 rounds means 10 attacks. Since the golem misses 50% of the time, that's 4.75 damaging hits to the armor per fight or 9.5 point of armor damage per combat (at 2 points /hit). If I was forced to play with this rule I'd carry a bunch of shields and replace them after every other fight or not play a character with heavy armor. Replacing plate armor every day is not tenable. So suppose you tweak your numbers. If you assume that HP reflects more than just ability to withstand blows but to also absorb or avoid most of the damage, then HP should factor into your armor's durability. But that doesn't solve the basic issue, the question you've never answered, that several people have asked. What are you achieving other than adding finicky overhead? The answer "more realism" doesn't cut it for me because I don't think anyone here has any idea of how much damage armor would take in a typical combat along with PCs facing a ridiculous amount of combat. Part of what's bothering me is that if you get hit the armor takes no damage which doesn't seem right either. If I have heavy armor, the chinks in my armor are few and far between. If I'm taking damage it's probably because the armor absorbed some of the damage but not all ... but then that gets into armor DR and how would low-level opponents be a threat and so on and so forth. Want a grittier world? Simplify. Use the slow healing rules from the DMG along with some kind of armor damage based on how many HP you're down. You have to pay to get your armor fixed during your downtime, it slowly degrades and needs to be repaired. Lower quality armor would need to be fixed more frequently but at a lower cost. But at that point ... it just becomes fluff or an addition lifestyle cost. Anyway, you don't seem too interested in feedback so good luck with this. If there's anything you don't understand about my analysis I can clarify but until then I think you'd have to start with a completely different game system for something like this to make sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification