Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 5932496" data-attributes="member: 48135">Yes, that's an argument that has been made, I suspect, since the day after OD&amp;D was first released. Armour as DR would be more realistic, but since the D&amp;D combat system has never been about realism, that's not much of a concern.Because, once again, it's an abstract system. Details are left out in favour of playability.I mean, why are you content with damage being determined separately from hit/miss? You have only one category of &quot;genuine&quot; hit there. But surely hitting AC by more than 10 points should be a better hit that just barely hitting it? Yet against an opponent with a 12 AC, an attack roll of 12 will do just as much damage on average as an attack roll of 22, because damage is determined separately (barring crits).You're advocating degrees of failure based on the attack roll, but not degrees of success. That's not very realistic, though it is quite abstract.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fifth Element, post: 5932496, member: 48135"] Yes, that's an argument that has been made, I suspect, since the day after OD&D was first released. Armour as DR would be more realistic, but since the D&D combat system has never been about realism, that's not much of a concern. Because, once again, it's an abstract system. Details are left out in favour of playability. I mean, why are you content with damage being determined separately from hit/miss? You have only one category of "genuine" hit there. But surely hitting AC by more than 10 points should be a better hit that just barely hitting it? Yet against an opponent with a 12 AC, an attack roll of 12 will do just as much damage on average as an attack roll of 22, because damage is determined separately (barring crits). You're advocating degrees of failure based on the attack roll, but not degrees of success. That's not very realistic, though it is quite abstract. [/QUOTE]

Verification