Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger
In a duel it absolutely does. Consider a duel between - 13-11-8 bastard sword, small shield, no armour: damage 2+1, hits stopped 0+1: against opponent below, attacks with DX 11 and does 2-2, MA 10.
- 11-13-8 short sword, small shield, leather armour: damage 2-1, hits stopped 3: against opponent above attacks with DX 11 and does 2-2, MA 8.
The guy with the extra ST is just better than the one with the extra DX: more hit points, more MA. And the slope of damage versus ST is actually a bit more than 1 so the example is arguably generous.
One reason armour is attractive is that most fights in an RPG involve the heroes winning with tolerable damage. Having armour tends to slow the fight down and minimise the chance it will suddenly get out of hand in a freak event, like a PC death. Also, it's a way to use attributes after the benefits of ST and adj DX have plateaued. |
Other considerations should be projectiles, small creature attacks, swimming, etc. Against a couple of archers with small bows, for instance, the armored character might have the advantage, as with insects, rats, spiders, fire, etc.
Swimming might be disadvantageous.
When choosing a bow to use, the unarmoured character might be at a disadvantage in this little duel, taking a crossbow doing effectively 2-3 every other turn vs. the armoured character's longbow at 1+1 every turn.
The guy with the bastard sword has the option to reduce his armour by dropping his shield and increase his attack to 3-5. The armoured guy can, depending on the situation, strip off his armour to increase his DX for whatever mission might need it.
My point is that the interesting aspect of TFT is that one can do a pure mathematical analysis of weapons, etc. but there are enough variables and game elements that blur what is the "better" character construction. :)