Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4905350" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think it's kind of a system/legacy thing. The following elements lead to D&D having a powerful love of armor:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Dwarves and other "heavy tank" archetypes should probably have armor. They need to be balanced with creatures that have no armor.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> D&D evolved out of a medieval minis game, where armor vs. weapon was a big strategy, as it was in the medieval battlefield itself. This was important for minis wargaming, but not so much for fantasy RP. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> D&D hearts loot. Gear. Things. Stuff. Armor is more Stuff for you to take from monsters you beat up. "Agility" is not something you can take away in a cart. This fits some of the archetype D&D is going for: legendary epic characters often have entire books of their epic poetry dedicated to the stuff that tricks them out.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> D&D has a two-stage attack mechanic: to-hit + damage. Armor and agility have both only ever affected the first of these rolls. A svelte elf who puts on full plate and a dwarf ninja thief all are equal.</li> </ol>It's OK to hate armor, I think, but it's also OK to love it and D&D should appeal to both sides. I think, perhaps, though, it is past time to use a different mechanic to represent the two. You wouldn't think they'd play the same as each other, but they really do to a large degree, since both are "tough to hit."</blockquote>

Verification