So average protection would be:
leather 1D6-1 = 2.5
half plate 1D8-1 = 3.5
full plate 1D10-1 = 4.5
w/helm 1D10+2 = 7.5
So leather is a bit stronger and plate a bit weaker.
Then, what the heck!?
Melnibonean half plate 1D8+4 = 8.5
Melnibonean full plate 1D10+8 = 13.5
With +4 and +8, doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of rolling?
Anyway, I am in the fixed armor camp.
The variable damage covers angle of attack and Specials and Criticals would be hitting weak points or unarmored areas. Armor is designed to minimize weak points and gaps. Sure there is going to be some, but armor is designed to minimize those as much as possible.
How effective is a dagger vs. full plate anyway? There is no way you are going to shove a dagger through a metal plate. You are either going to have to jab at the seams (Special), or you are going to stab through a gap (Critical).
I find it interesting that the example was made that "even the sorriest specimen of goblinhood can skewer the big knight in plate armor" when talking about variable armor. We have played with fixed armor for years and the number of times that some lowly bandit or militia (or trollkin or zombie or feral broo, etc.) has taken out a location of even our most heavily armored warrior is frightening. Specials and Criticals are not to be discounted.
