No, I do understand all of this. My problem is that one and the same enemy with identical damage rolls can hit my naked mage and my heavy armored dwarf and it makes no difference, it's 10DMG either way.
That's what I was saying above I do understand the system I just don't think it's a good one.
Of course, because if the enemy manages to get past the much more effective armor, the damage will be the same. That much is sort of obvious when you think about how one would go about attacking someone wearing armor.
The fact you're wearing a breastplate doesn't mean a cut to your neck or a stab under your armpit is any less damaging.
I say you don't understand because you're treating it like a roll of 17 against an AC of 18 means the attack didn't land; it may well have, but the armor prevented the damage. The only way for armor to be represented the way it actually works in real life is through an AC system. The whole point of the damage roll afterwards is to determine how damaging of an attack it was. If you roll a 19 against an AC of 18, you managed to get past the armor *somehow* and actually deal damage to the person wearing it. The amount of damage you deal afterward is representative of just how well you managed to do so.
The reason your naked mage takes the same damage as an armored dwarf is because *armor prevents the hit in the first place.* If the attack lands, the damage can be the same.
