NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6387860" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I'm not sure I fully agree with this (or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you). Armor can deflect a blow, or it can absorb some of the blow. But since it's worn, once those defenses are broken, you'll take damage. If your natural AC is less than that of the armor, then I think if the armor is defeated, then so is your natural armor, thus there isn't an inherent stacking of AC. If your natural armor is higher than a given type of armor, then yes, perhaps it would make more sense if the armor did provide some added protection, at least in the case of absorbing damage. But D&D's AC is based on deflection, not absorption.  Either you hit, or you don't. So in that scenario, stacking doesn't make as much sense. Instead, hit points account for some of the absorption, along with combat skill, pain tolerance, and other factors. The reality is that it's much more complex than even this, but adding that complexity doesn't necessarily improve the simulation of combat provided by the game.With a shield, it's different. Even if the blow gets through the shield, it still has to contend with your armor, natural or otherwise. And that's assuming it actually gets to the armor. For example, and arrow or spear that pierces the shield may have to fully penetrate the shield and still have enough force to overcome the armor. So it makes sense to me that a shield provides a bonus to AC (as the rules indicate) even if the AC provided from armor doesn't stack with natural armor.</blockquote>

Verification