12-31-2011, 09:05 AM
Havard Wrote:The odd side of AC in D&D is of course that it doesnt distinguish between attacks that miss the opponents and attacks that hit, but dont cause damage.I think they work just fine.
What do you think of the Armor Class rules?
-Havard
In my games, I ruled a roll of 1-9 a complete miss (no contact); hits 10+ but not the number needed to hit AC glanced off the armor to little effect. (If the opponent was unarmored, or less heavily so, these hits could have dealt damage) Only hits that matched or beat AC got through to do damage (be it actual armor penetration or just heavy bruising through the armor was up to the player-DM interaction and weapon type). If the character has a shield, a would-be hit that misses the improved AC by 1 point is taken/brushed aside by the shield.
Gilliam wears leather armor (AC7); he has a dexterity of 16, bringing his AC down to 5. He is fighting a kobold, which needs a 14 or better to hit him. If the DM rolls 1-9, the kobold misses completely. 10-11, it would have hit, but Gilliam ducks or dodges aside (Dex bonus). A roll of 12 or 13 means the kobold's rusty short sword scrapes off Gilliam's leather breastplate. A 14 or better indicates the kobold gets lucky and lands a strike.
Admittedly, Gilliam should probably invest in some chainmail, (he's a fighter, not a thief!) but that's just not in fitting with the rest of his character
For monsters, it can be a bit harder to tell, because they don't have a dexterity/armor type breakdown. But the general rules apply, I think: less than 9 misses, 10+ would make contact, but be brushed aside bounce off, depending on the creature type. Tough hide? Armored plating? Scales? Kobolds and goblins being so small, I usually attribute "near misses" to them ducking and weaving out of the way.
It doesn't go into the tedium of armor itself taking the damage, and thus needing repair, like a certain other system, although such rules could easily be bolted on.