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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5705831" data-attributes="member: 996">The numbers aren't going to work.  Well, OK, they'll work, but I don't think they'll do what you want.So, if enemies hit 'x' half the time, they'll hit x+4 about a 30% of the time.  If damage averages around 12, damage through put vs Plate would be 3.5, and damage throughput vs None would be 3.6 - higher damage makes no armor better, lower damage makes plate better.  Heavy-armor characters would thus be good at wading through legions of low-damage mooks, while they'd want to strip their armor off to fight a dragon or giant.I don't know.  A duelist with a rapier should be attacking with DEX, his deal is precision.  One with a greatsword obviously needs a lot of STR.  If you wear the other guy down with repeated shield blows you're using CON most heavily.  If your style depends on intimidation, deception, and flamboyant risk-taking, you could use CHA.  If it's a matter of methodical training and watching the enemy for each slightest 'tell' of his next move, it could be WIS.  It's not completely nuts.Damage dice can be 'hot,' too.  OK, but, if you want it to work at all levels against a range of foes, you'll have to have the armor reduce damage by a percentage.  If you just want it to be as good as no armor, that'd be by about 10% per each 1-lower AC the armor gave - assuming hitting 50% of the time, to start.  So the guy in plate should flat out be taking half damage.The flip side of that is that the wizard doesn't dominate play when those 'significant advantages' turn out to be a little /too/ significant.True.  But not automatically bad.  If WotC isn't willing to do things with 5e that it hasn't done with D&D before, it'll just be another tepid re-tread, like early 2e or 3.5...   Trying to make something better means taking the risk of making it /different/.</blockquote>

Verification