D&D General The diminishing effectiveness of armour across the editions

[Lanefan]

I'm pretty certain it's this.

Why? Because countless games with randomized attacks have found the same exact thing - whiff-fests are boring and annoying.

Whiff-fests are also the way to win.

It's an odd but very true parallel: in both D&D and most team sports the adage "defense wins championships" is bang-on right.

If you've got better defense (i.e. AC) than your opponent, chances are high you're going to win that battle.

If you go around the table and it's just miss miss miss, it's like, why are we even here? It doesn't even fit the fiction. Hence most MMOs, ARPGs, CRPGs and the like have a 96-100% hit rate when fighting "appropriate" creatures. Some it is lower but it still tends to be pretty high for the PCs.

The problem with this is that it over-blows the importance of having lots of hit points (a game conceit) at cost of undercutting the importance of having good defense (realistic).

This of course directly leads to players insisting on hit-point generation methods with lots of safety nets so as not to be left vulnerable by one or more bad rolls.

On a different note: there is in fact one way in which armour-based defense improved from 1e to 3e (RAW): in 1e a shield only improved AC by 1, in 3e (and forward) a shield adds 2 to AC.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure, but I'm talking about professional game designers doing actual tests involving hundreds or thousands of people and go on for months or more, not a single amateur going with what their group SAY they like.

Hey, I have two groups, thank you very much.

The bigger issue is just what is enjoyable to the table. I'm very quick with the math, so I don't mind hitting more, etc. but most of the players in my group aren't. People are sitting around waiting for a guy to roll his SA or smite or Fireball damage. And smites are worse because the player can add the damage on both hits when he hits twice! I've actually given one player a calculator and just asked him to use it. He's a great guy and fun player, but man, math is not his strength!

I mean, have you actually looked at the actual numbers? It sounds like not. AC18 isn't hard to get at low levels, and your chance of being hit by lower-end monsters is drastically lower than a PC with, say, 14 AC (not 20% lower as you might expect).

No, 18 isn't hard to get, and for God's sake I have run SO MANY NUMBERS it is ridiculous! I have tried so many variants and ideas I can't even remember them all.

AC 18 gets attacked by +4 foe, chance of getting hit is on 14 or higher, which is 35%.
AC 14 gets attacked by +4 foe, chance of getting hit is on 10 or higher, which is 55%.
That sure looks like a 20% difference to me...

If you are thinking more along the lines of 35/55 indicating the 18 AC guy is 36% (roughly) less likely to be hit, then you are looking at them as dependent, which they aren't since one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

"The common sword", he said, as if swords were a common weapon, rather than a rarer one. As I said, plate is great against slashing weapons, but in actual dungeon situations and stuff I question how valuable it would be.

Agree on the "how good would it really be, anyway?" thought.

Combat is so abstracted that there really isn't much comparison of AC?? and real life anything.

If a 30' tall giant were trying to smash my face in with a tree I would hope for a good AC because of my dodge rather than because I have thin layer of metal and cloth i'm hoping absorbs the energy. Trying to model this in the game would be a nightmare (and most high CR monsters would be instant death) so at the end of the day both DEX and "stuff in the way" can take you to mostly the same point.

 

[GreyLord]

One other change (only read page 1 thus far), is that DEX used to be able to be added to AC no matter what armor you wore.

For some odd reason people started thinking in RPG (D&D at least) that wearing heavier armor affected your mobility so much that suddenly your Dexterity and agility were absolutely useless.

Not being able to add DEX to your AC has also been detrimental to AC and Armor usage in general.

In addition, (this has been mentioned) the Monsters have increased in their deadliness.

Using the Orc, I'd put an Orc in AD&D perhaps as a 1/4 CR creature in 5e. That means it's much more deadly now, than it was originally.

 

[the Jester]

One thing that would add to the importance of armor, and a house rule I have been thinking about for, oh, three editions or so, is if you treated helmets like a shield- a helm adds an additional +1 or +2 to AC. Personally, I think I like a coif or light helm adding +1, and a great helm adding +2 but imposing disadvantage on Perception.

 

[GreyLord]

On AC, boosting one's AC isn't a bad thing.

If we take +3 Plate, +3 Shield, and a +3 Defender, you could get an AC of 29. Add in the Defense fighting style and you suddenly have a 30 AC...nothing to laugh at.

In theory, adding a Ring of protection gives you another +1 so then you have an AC of 31.

 

[DND_Reborn]

On AC, boosting one's AC isn't a bad thing.

If we take +3 Plate, +3 Shield, and a +3 Defender, you could get an AC of 29. Add in the Defense fighting style and you suddenly have a 30 AC...nothing to laugh at.

In theory, adding a Ring of protection gives you another +1 so then you have an AC of 31.

It's all well and good, but 5E design was meant to be played without magic items. That list has a lot of high-powered items on it.

This bigger issue I have with AC is unless you have tons of magic or devote nearly everything to it, it doesn't really improve drastically.

Consider a Rogue at level 1 with DEX 16 and studded leather for AC 15. Most foes have a +4-6 attack, so hit 50-60% of the time.

After 8 levels and two ASI bumps for DEX 20, AC is only 17. Most foes also bump about +2 for +6-8, so same changes to hit the rogue.

But, what happens now? Without magic, AC remains at 17 but the attack bonuses for foes continues to increase and the rogue gets hit more and more.

Sure, you get more HP, but so what, the damage is also increased. So, how is that Rogue supposed to continue to defend himself? The answer: magic items. Just like it was in 1E but I thought 5E was supposed to take care of that. Did I miss something?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Uh-huh, but he could be knocked to the floor or seriously injured if he ignored someone with a bludgeoning weapon, even if it didn't penetrate, and could end up getting seriously hurt by a piercing weapon in a variety of ways.

Plate is extremely good at dealing with slashing weapons (as was chainmail, but plate is both better and easier to move around in and arguably to maintain), but not as foolproof as you're suggesting. And if you get knocked down or stunned or grappled or rendered semi-conscious or whatever, all it takes is a normal dagger to end it all.

Plate is really hard to deal with no matter what the weapon. Just because specialised bludgeoning weapons have a better chance of injuring a plate wearer than generic weapons like swords, doesn't mean that it is easy.

Likewise knocking them down and finishing off with a dagger. - This is not easy to accomplish, it is just one of the few ways that it is possible to kill someone in plate. It is still much harder to do this to someone in plate than an unarmoured or lesser-armoured opponent.

"The common sword", he said, as if swords were a common weapon, rather than a rarer one. As I said, plate is great against slashing weapons, but in actual dungeon situations and stuff I question how valuable it would be.

Extremely valuable.
In close quarters plate is more effective than where combatants are free to move and swing large weapons. The situations where it would possibly be a detriment are water and pit traps I would expect.

 

[CubicsRube]

I've submitted an idea before on removing dex bonus from armor and basically assuming a +2 Dex on light and medium armor, which results in a table like below.

Common response was "you've killed the swashbuckler!", but personally I like heavier armor being worth more.

An advantage to below is that it makes medium armor worth a damn, and even makes getting medium armor proficiency potentially worth a feat choice.

Armor	Cost	Armor Class (AC)	Strength	Stealth
Light Armor
Padded	5 gp	12​	—	Disadvantage
Leather	10 gp	13​	—	—
Studded leather	45 gp	14​	—	—
Medium Armor
Hide	10 gp	14​	—	—
Chain shirt	50 gp	15​	—	—
Scale mail	50 gp	16​	—	Disadvantage
Breastplate	400 gp	16​	—	—
Half plate	750 gp	17​	—	Disadvantage
Heavy Armor
Ring mail	30 gp	14​	—	Disadvantage
Chain mail	75 gp	16​	Str 13	Disadvantage
Splint	200 gp	17​	Str 15	Disadvantage
Plate	1,500 gp	18​	Str 15	Disadvantage
Shield
Shield	10 gp	+2	—	—

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've submitted an idea before on removing dex bonus from armor and basically assuming a +2 Dex on light and medium armor, which results in a table like below.

Common response was "you've killed the swashbuckler!", but personally I like heavier armor being worth more.

An advantage to below is that it makes medium armor worth a damn, and even makes getting medium armor proficiency potentially worth a feat choice.

Armor	Cost	Armor Class (AC)	Strength	Stealth
Light Armor
Padded	5 gp	12​	—	Disadvantage
Leather	10 gp	13​	—	—
Studded leather	45 gp	14​	—	—
Medium Armor
Hide	10 gp	14​	—	—
Chain shirt	50 gp	15​	—	—
Scale mail	50 gp	16​	—	Disadvantage
Breastplate	400 gp	16​	—	—
Half plate	750 gp	17​	—	Disadvantage
Heavy Armor
Ring mail	30 gp	14​	—	Disadvantage
Chain mail	75 gp	16​	Str 13	Disadvantage
Splint	200 gp	17​	Str 15	Disadvantage
Plate	1,500 gp	18​	Str 15	Disadvantage
Shield
Shield	10 gp	+2	—	—

The only issue I would have with a table like this is what is the benefit for selecting Studded Leather or even Ring mail over Hide? All have AC 14, but both cost more and Ring mail even imposes disadvantage on stealth.