Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gez" data-source="post: 477607" data-attributes="member: 1328">A very popular house rule is using armor as a damage reduction factor, rather than as the damage avoidance factor it is in D&D.Here's why D&D is more realistic. With armor as DR, you will only be able to hurt people with the biggest weapons. Unless you've Conan-like strength, you're not going to ever hurt a full-plate armored guy with a dagger.And that's where the irrealism lies. Daggers were created to pierce armors, because larger, less precise weapons couldn't be used to target the holes in the articulations. Against heavy armor, daggers were the most efficient weapons. With armor as DR, they are the least.Beside, with armor as DR, and a heavy armor, you become invulnerable to everything. In a Renaissance game using this method, people in full-plate were immune to pistols -- in real world, pistols were among the reasons full-plates were forsaken.So, unless you add in armor penetration factors to each weapon - a damage reduction reduction if you want - armor as DR is wrong. That's my rant of the day. Everything here is IMHO, since it's a rant.</blockquote>