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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6608939" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Obviously, I am in favor of at least trying this out in my own games, or I wouldn't have bothered converting the tables. I'd keep the modifiers on the attack roll, however, and not, as some have suggested, use damage resistance/vulnerability to model the effects of various weapons versus different types of armor. Here's why: in D&D the benefit of armor is represented by your AC. The attack roll is, in part, the attempt to overcome the protection that AC provides. Once you have scored a hit, damage is dealt not to the armor, but to the creature wearing it. What, for example would happen to a skeleton who is vulnerable to bludgeoning damage is wearing armor that is also vulnerable to that type of damage? Would it take quadruple damage? Also, armor that confers resistance to certain types of damage to the wearer is magical in nature, and creates such an effect separately from its functioning as a suit of armor.Also, as for the modifiers being big enough to be meaningful, check out my conversion which I provided a link to up-thread. We're talking about a bonus of between +3 and +6, and penalties between -2 and -5. There are no +1's. I'd implement this within the context of a limited number of weapon proficiencies as well, so that the focus is not on selecting from a large number of weapons to choose the absolute "best" weapon, but rather from the small number of weapons with which the character has already chosen to equip him or herself.</blockquote>

Verification