Armor Class (AC) has never made any sense to me. I understand that, like all things in D&D, it's an abstraction. But if you think about it even a little bit, it all falls apart. In the game, it goes something like this: Creature A is attacking Creature B. Creature A needs to roll a certain number, which consists of a formula involving Creature B's AC, and then is modified by Creature A's attack bonus, whatever that might be, if it even exists. In other words, #-to-hit = AC-modified. If the roll hits, then damage is applied, determined by whatever weapon/spell/whatever Creature A is using.
The problem I have with it is two-fold. First, since when does wearing Plate Armor make you harder to hit than being completely unencumbered? The opposite, in my mind, must be true. A person wearing in excess of fifty pounds of armor wouldn't move as fast as somebody who wasn't, and then must be easier to be hit. In D&D these sorts of questions arose, at least in my mind, when a player wanted to cast a "touch" spell against an opponent. Many times did I think, you mean all I have to do is touch this walking tin-can and the spell goes off? So how come it doesn't because I can't roll that absurdly high number?
Second, wouldn't wearing a bunch of armor minimize what damage did get through? I once read a news story about a lady in NYC who was shot on the subway, but she was wearing so many layers of fur coats that the bullet stopped before it actually penetrated her body. Wouldn't the same thing be true when dealing with slice&dice weapons, against leather and mail armor? Of course it would.
Now, in D&D, once it has been determined that you hit, your damage is not affected at all. If you're wielding a longsword, you do 1-8 damage. Period. This seems backwards to me. Armor should not affect the chances to be hit (or if it does, to increase said chances), but rather affect the damage roll.
Am I wrong on this? Let me know.
Next up: Demi-humans. Or magic. Or maybe something else. I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment