[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Roman]When you write “armor is full of strong and weak points” you are implying that the two exist in equal abundance. This is

No, it implies both exist. There are ways to represent the fact that strong points are commoner while still using a random roll. For example, a 2d4+1 range will produce an average of 6, and both really effective parts and (more importantly) really bad parts aren't nearly as common to hit. More to the point, in some cases they _are_ just as common; if all you're wearing is a leather jacket with ballistic implants, most hits on you will land on unarmored or lighter armored areas.

damage to particularly good skill rolls i.e. specials and criticals. The damage roll is a better place to subsume any question of the attackers ability to place a weapon effectively on target not the armor. Again such a mechanic lowers

That, however, has the effect of producing unusually high end results against targets who are already lightly or unarmored, which is usually undesireable; its not a quality of the weapon that's being simulated, after all, but the armor.

the utility of armor to far less than what it was historically. Warriors knew that their harness was trustworthy and that the possibility of a wound arriving through some deficit was remote. Vegetius comments to the infantry

I think this is a vast overstatement. If that was the case, most battles would end in draws.