D&D 5E Why AD&D Rocks and 3e - 5e Mocks all over AC...

[James Gasik]

That seems odd. So a guy with 20 Dex and Leather armor is almost as effective defensively as a guy in Full Plate. But Full Plate doesn't protect you any more or less no matter how high your Dexterity is? Assuming Dex bonus = dodging.

 

[Willie the Duck]

That seems odd. So a guy with 20 Dex and Leather armor is almost as effective defensively as a guy in Full Plate. But Full Plate doesn't protect you any more or less no matter how high your Dexterity is? Assuming Dex bonus = dodging.

IMO, and I think Steampunkette's point, the guy with 20 Dex and leather approaches the same defense as the guy in full plate is a real but separate issue*. I think the question is: is the guy with a great dexterity and wearing plate mail hugely better at avoiding taking damage than someone else in plate mail who is not massively dexterous? The person in cloths or light armor has to dodge and duck and weave and evade the attacks coming their way. The person in plate mail, they can still dodge (again, we all agree that knights in armor weren't lumbering tin cans), but how much additional protective quality does it provide them?

honestly, the OP used AD&D and 3E, and that's where I think these analyses work better in that context. 5e went all-in on dashing swashbucklers and Dex supremacy, and beyond that bounded accuracy puts all sorts of things within a hair's breadth of each other. In 3e, well, medium and heavy armor do allow you to add dex bonuses -- just with a relatively low cap (+1 at dex 12 for plate mail). Also in 3e, leather armor only gets you just-shy-of-plate AC when one has a Dexterity score well in excess of starting base human*.
**although, at that point we should probably mention that 20 Dex is in excess of starting base human in 5e as well.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If we wanted to be a bit more realistic, we'd separate "attacks connecting" from "taking damage" in the rules - so dodging would prevent you form getting hit in the first place, but platemail means you often don't care even when you do get hit because 'ding'.

Dex (and other unarmored defense abilities) would affect dodging and therefore getting hit in the first place (possibly cross-referencing encumbrance), armor would reduce damage on a hit (and if it's reduced to 0 secondary effects wouldn't trigger - ie no poison).

This, of course, adds a layer to the whole attack-roll sequence, which makes combat slower.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We wouldn't be here if the designers didn't try to frame it as armor making you into a sad turtle man and instead said Dex to AC didn't stack with AC from heavy armor.

 

[Steampunkette]

If we wanted to be a bit more realistic, we'd separate "attacks connecting" from "taking damage" in the rules - so dodging would prevent you form getting hit in the first place, but platemail means you often don't care even when you do get hit because 'ding'.

Dex (and other unarmored defense abilities) would affect dodging and therefore getting hit in the first place (possibly cross-referencing encumbrance), armor would reduce damage on a hit (and if it's reduced to 0 secondary effects wouldn't trigger - ie no poison).

This, of course, adds a layer to the whole attack-roll sequence, which makes combat slower.

Huh.... Thoughts on this:

Could make it so you take a minor amount of damage on a hit that doesn't beat your AC but -is- above 10+Dex?

And then have Monks and Barbarians use 10+Dex+(Stat) for their unarmored defense.

So you'd have a Glancing Blow AC and a "Real" AC that it would be easy to check against.

BUT. It makes Dex -even more important- since you still take some damage in full plate on hits that miss your real AC.

 

[Horwath]

So uh...

All the Dex in the world will let you dodge some attacks in light armor to minimize the damage you take. In heavy armor, the same amount of dodging makes no difference 'cause they'll hit metal instead of you.

Not getting Dex to AC in full plate has nothing to do with being -unable- to dodge. It's being unable to dodge more effectively than the armor already is at stopping you from taking damage.

well, we could now get into the type of damage you can get.

while you are better off in a plate if someone attacks you with one handed sword, as it will most probably do nothing,

if someone swings a warhammer at you, you better try to dodge, as it will knock you out if it connects with your helmet.


but, the truth is, you ARE slower in armor.
for how much? not by very much, but it is measurable, and for D&D, you are slower by "game balance" amount.

But, I liked 3.5e version better where every armor had it's own max dex and armor check penalty(it was too high IMHO in general)
also 5ft speed penalty for heavy armor is reasonable. more if you do not have STR required.
Then again, all armor should have STR requirement.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I'd prefer stats go back to like in AD&D where people don't grub for that +1 bonus. If you didnt have at least a 15 in a stat you got nothing.

AC was mostly reliant on armor and shields.

Blows my mind how people think 5th ed is less complicated. It's just as complicated, just in its own way.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'd prefer stats go back to like in AD&D where people don't grub for that +1 bonus. If you didnt have at least a 15 in a stat you got nothing.

AC was mostly reliant on armor and shields.

Blows my mind how people think 5th ed is less complicated. It's just as complicated, just in its own way.

Well, TBF, in AD&D people almost always used generous rolling systems to help ensure they got bonuses. Right at the front of the ability score section in the 1E PH, Gary is telling us a PC in AD&D usually needs at least two 15s to be viable.

Having spent a lot of time with my 1E and 5E books, it is certainly my opinion that AD&D is much more complicated. Compare the ability bonus charts, for example. Or the spell descriptions. One of my least-favorite parts of the latter was when two classes would have the same spell, and the description under one class would tell you to reference the entry in the other class' list, but to apply the following changes to casting time, area of effect, and spell components, say. Referencing spells in that edition and remembering what they did was much trickier. I'm not even going to get into Initiative.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'd prefer stats go back to like in AD&D where people don't grub for that +1 bonus. If you didnt have at least a 15 in a stat you got nothing.

AC was mostly reliant on armor and shields.

Part of me feels that that was an era that didn't exist for many people. Alternate rolling methods sprang up pretty much in '75 when attributes started mattering with the release of oD&D supplement I (as did keep rolling new characters until you got 'a decent one'). Having the valuable stat range shoehorned into the 15-18 range just focused the same amount of attention* into that smaller range, not mean that the attention did not exist.
*or grub, as you put it, I like that turn of phrase, will have to find a use...

Be it 18/00 strength (approximately doubling damage, depending on weapon and magic), not even being able to cast the highest level spells without a maximum Intelligence as a Magic User (regardless of whether you really expected to reach those levels), or primo classes like paladins (that people would absolutely want to play, and not just once every several hundred characters) made hash of the rarity-gated benefits. Helped along by alternate rolling methods included in the official materials. People found ways to get those necessary stats -- some cheated, most just cajoled the DM into a different rolling system or rolling again if the result was boring.

Blows my mind how people think 5th ed is less complicated. It's just as complicated, just in its own way.

Now that is certainly a truth. All D&Ds are complicated, if for no other reason than so many monsters and spells and magic items have their own unique rules and exceptions here and there. Most of the specifics between editions pale in comparison to that.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Huh.... Thoughts on this:

Could make it so you take a minor amount of damage on a hit that doesn't beat your AC but -is- above 10+Dex?

And then have Monks and Barbarians use 10+Dex+(Stat) for their unarmored defense.

So you'd have a Glancing Blow AC and a "Real" AC that it would be easy to check against.

BUT. It makes Dex -even more important- since you still take some damage in full plate on hits that miss your real AC.

I mean you could, but I don't like it. If we're going for realistic, people in full plate don't care about glancing blows. They just bounce off. If you want to hurt them with a small weapon, you need to knock them down, have four of your buddies grab the knight, open their visor and stab them in the face. The introduction of full plate negated swords as sidearms against heavy troops and caused the re/introduction of different weapons like maces and poleaxes, which could actually hit hard enough to make an armored enemy care that you hit them.

If we don't care about all that and just want the fantasy while keep the game running smoothly - either stick with AC as-is or make armor give you DR or bonus hit points. (and in that case have a parry bonus to AC by default)