DatOneGuy wrote:If you are 'moving' none of your armor counts, it's negated....
No, that is not true; it is only the defense bar which is negated.
I see, so then it was the bypass that was the thing, I wonder if swords still do, when I tested there shouldn't have been enough damage to bypass the armor, so I figured it negated it. Well since you provided the new information a week or two back I guess I'll have to test it all out again and see what I did wrong
I always thought the AC was the amount of damage a piece of armor could take without getting damaged. I was pretty sure that thought was justified to me by the fact that my leather armor would take damage from foxes, but not my bronze or cutthroat cuirass.
Want to touch my fibula?
Gulgatha, place of the skull.
That's partially true mummy but not the whole concept. As noted by loftar and the wiki, armor class offers two takes of damage reduction: Deflection and Absorption. Deflection is the first number while Absorption is the second. Deflection is the damage your armor outright stops and is completely ignored. Absorption is damage that Deflection could not stop and that hits your armor's health instead of your health. Anything that spills over that is damage that you take. In addition to that, there is damage that pierces armor although we have no clue how much of any attack pierces.
So the fact that you were taking no damage from foxes with bronze armor indicates that your armor was deflecting enough damage so that the foxes attacks were futile. =)
