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

[Lanefan]

@Neonchameleon - that picture in post 95 above is more like what I'd call full plate or field plate rather than simple plate mail, and would require a considerable amount of fitting to the wearer. Leg length and girth, torso length and girth, shoulder width, boot-shoe size, even getting the helmet right such that the eye slit is somewhere usefully in front of the wearer's eyes - way too many variables to allow for mass production of close-fitting armour like that.

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO

Going from being hit on a 19-20 to being hit on a 20 is nearly meaningless. Yea, you are a lot tougher but when your not going to die from attacks in either case it doesn’t really matter.

it’s much more important to go from being hit on 2-20 to being hit on 3-20. Why? Because It’s actually can extend your in combat life in real terms. The high Ac guy in either case doesn’t have to worry.

Mathematics does not agree.

 

[Mr Fixit]

Mathematics does not agree.

As Mr. Spock once said: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end".

Now replace "logic" with "mathematics".

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

that is true, but in any way more armor you have more valuable is the next +1 to AC.

and that does not mean only mass battles. if you are frontliner and you have 5-10 battles per day, and you charge in 1st to soak any trigger happy campers in hiding, at the end of the day you WILL notice that +1 AC in amount of potions used or healer spell slots spent, or your own HDs for healing.

Yes, improving AC has increasing returns in terms of avoiding damage that that character takes from attack rolls.
However, I believe FrogReaver is trying to make the point that it may have diminishing returns in terms of overall party efficacy because only being hit on a 19-20 still means that hit point damage from attack rolls against that character are not a significant cause of party failure, even compared to if the character was only hit on a 20.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As Mr. Spock once said: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end".

Now replace "logic" with "mathematics".

And end with beginning.

 

[auburn2]

At 19 to be hit you will be hit 6 times out of 60 attacks. At 20 you will be 3 times out of 60 attacks.

Most monsters are going to hit an AC 19 character far more than 6 times out of 60. A Goblin or Kobold for example is going to hit a 19 AC character on average 18 times in 60 rolls or 15 times in 60 rolls for a 20AC character.

I know you were talking about a 19 or 20 roll to hit, but that is not realistic. That is going to require an AC of 23 or so for even weak monsters. The only characters that can push AC that high are going to be bladesingers with mage armor and super-high dex and intelligence, some multiclass monks and barbarians might manage it too, but it is out of reach for most characters without magic items.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Most monsters are going to hit an AC 19 character far more than 6 times out of 60. A Goblin or Kobold for example is going to hit a 19 AC character on average 18 times in 60 rolls or 15 times in 60 rolls for a 20AC character.

I know you were talking about a 19 or 20 roll to hit, but that is not realistic. That is going to require an AC of 23 or so for even weak monsters. The only characters that can push AC that high are going to be bladesingers with mage armor and super-high dex and intelligence, some multiclass monks and barbarians might manage it too, but it is out of reach for most characters without magic items.

In addition, when you get to higher ACs at higher levels, many creatures then have +10 or better attack bonuses--so you will still be hit more than 6 or 3 out of 60 attacks.

 

[Lanefan]

Most monsters are going to hit an AC 19 character far more than 6 times out of 60. A Goblin or Kobold for example is going to hit a 19 AC character on average 18 times in 60 rolls or 15 times in 60 rolls for a 20AC character.

I'll take your word for those numbers, but man - that's crazy! You're saying a typical Kobold hits someone using plate and shield by merely rolling a 16?

In 1e that Kobold would need to roll a 20 to hit someone with AC 1 (19 in modern numbers).

Yeah, no wonder present-day defense gets ignored in favour of just-gimme-more-hit-points!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'll take your word for those numbers, but man - that's crazy! You're saying a typical Kobold hits someone using plate and shield by merely rolling a 16?

In 1e that Kobold would need to roll a 20 to hit someone with AC 1 (19 in modern numbers).

Yeah, no wonder present-day defense gets ignored in favour of just-gimme-more-hit-points!

Yeah, kobolds are +4 on attack rolls, just at 16 or better is all they need to hit a PC in plate armor and shield. And it isn't just kobolds, most monsters have a +4 or much, much better. Orcs are +5 and an Ogre is +6, etc. What really makes you harder "to hit" in 5E is just getting more HP.

 

[lewpuls]

The advantages of heavy armor in AD&D compensated a fighter (some) when he saw the MU doing scads of damage quite beyond what a fighter can (the artillery spells). But 5e's take on fighters may compensate for the loss of armor efficacy. Or does it?