Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6551809" data-attributes="member: 6778044">The reality is that it depends on the type of attack and the type of armor. Chainmail is very poor at stopping piercing weapons and things like arrows and bolts, along with bludgeoning weapons. It's very good against slashing (but not chopping) weapons.For example, to stop an arrow, you need a type of armor that will absorb the force by transferring over a wider area. Plate armor does that very well, so does lamellar. When striking chainmail, very little energy is absorbed, and anything wearing it receives very little protection.Another factor that comes into play in my mind with natural armor is the fact that damaging the natural armor of a creature is actually damaging the creature. If you put chainmail on, say, a Thri-kreen that has an exoskeleton, and you hit them with a mace. It won't break through the chain, but it will crush and damage some of the exoskeleton. Plus, you don't actually have to do any damage to the exterior to do real physical damage. Bludgeoning weapons don't usually break through the armor, they just compress and damage the target through the armor. A really good example of this is all of the discussion about head injuries in the NFL.The 1st Edition tried to take this into effect, and there have been other systems that have gone farther, but it gets very complicated. In addition, when designing a game system you often have to make compromises when looking at very specific situations so that the system works in general across most situations.I've always viewed AC as combining the raw stopping power (of armor, thick skin, etc) and skill (DEX bonus), along with magic if applicable. But the skill portion of AC is also partially accounted for in hit points, which continue to rise when you get better (raise levels), even though the actual ability to withstand a sword thrust that strikes true doesn't. Your increasing hit points really accounts for the fact that you are better able to keep that thrust from striking true.So I look at the raw stopping power of worn armor, natural armor, and magical armor (barkskin, mage armor, etc.) as non-stackable. If something gets past the strongest layer of defense, then it's broken through.  Shields on the other hand are quite different. First off, they are often of stronger materials that help stop a blow. Second, if an arrow pierces a shield, for example, it generally doesn't go all the way through. More importantly, unless the shot actually hit the arm, a blow that goes through a shield then 'strikes' open air. Strikes directly against the shield absorb the blow because the shield (and arm) can move. If it does get through the shield to actually strike the wielder it's as if it's another attack. So I've always seen shields as logically stacking, simply because it works differently than armor (including natural armor).It wouldn't bother me if the system was designed to work differently. My point is that it doesn't bother me that it's designed the way it is. There are a few gray areas, and in my book a shield does stack with barkskin and mage armor.I also don't see any point in mage armor being automatically dispelled if donning armor. If the armor's a higher AC, then the mage armor is ineffective and pointless. If the donned armor is a lower AC, then the mage armor does it's job and the worn armor is simply decorative.  Maybe you are trying to disguise yourself as a member of a guard and they wear padded or leather armor. I'd have no problem allowing you to cast mage armor give you a better AC. It doesn't stack, you just use the better of the two.Is it a perfect model of how the physics of combat work? Of course not. But for a simple combat system that will allow me to model a combat relatively realistically? I think so.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification