Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 9713512" data-attributes="member: 1645">If we go back to the original proposal, it makes the most sense for combatants who are armored homogeneously, with a full suit of armor or a thick hide covering their whole body. In that situation, a hit is a hit, and any weapon has to overcome that armor. (This makes smaller weapons useless against any armor.)If we look at D&D’s basic system, it makes the most sense for combatants who are armored unevenly, with some amount of coverage, but with armor that is proof against most weapons. It takes luck or skill to hit an unarmored spot, but then — well, you do one die of damage against someone who might have multiple hit dice. (This leaves smaller weapons somewhat effective.)Rolling to-hit versus Armor Class makes less sense when the weapons and armor are mismatched. If you have a magic sword that cuts through stone or a mundane firearm that punches through steel, then normal armor shouldn’t help, but being able to dive out of the way should. This might be a strange corner case in a medieval wargame, but a common occurrence in a fantasy RPG.</blockquote>