It makes absolutely no sense to me that a chainmail gives the same protection against a sword and a hammer, for example. A chainmail is awesome against cutting weapons but almost useless against bludgeoning ones.

Actually, medieval armors were made mostly to fight swords.

I remember in AD&D there was an alternate system to change armor protection according to the type of damage.

Do you guys know if there is any alternate system in Pathfinder that corrects this blunt distortion and adds more realism to the game?

If there is I am curious how would dexterity fit in the equation. Because it was vital for fighters with good dodging skills to turn incoming deadly blows into softer ones and actually survive.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Possibly related \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Apr 28 at 21:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are you looking for rules published or officially recognized by Paizo, are 3rd party publishers acceptable, and/or are house-rule options acceptable? \$\endgroup\$ – minnmass Apr 29 at 2:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ The AD&D Players Handbook did have the optional weapon vs. particular AC adjustment rules. HârnMaster also has a similar concept - all armor has 3 values, against Slashing, Piercing and Blunt. I don't know of any implementaion for PF or D&D 30./3.5, though. \$\endgroup\$ – LAK Apr 29 at 14:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ 3rd party or house rules are acceptable, minnmass. \$\endgroup\$ – Daniel May 13 at 1:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ I remember those rules, LAK. They were great! I think about creating a system for my games. I have already many improvements in the storyteller and pathfinder rules by myself for my groups. I like realism and dont like to restrain players. I take care of everything. \$\endgroup\$ – Daniel May 13 at 1:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.