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

[lewpuls]

It's because of what characters people want to play.

Back in the 80s that was decently realistic burly men like Schwarzenegger.

Now it's basically anime heroes and lithe females.

The connection between strength and fighting prowess has been truly broken.

Just consider how the portrayal of Legolas and Gimli differs from book to film.

Once they were equals; Gimli's sheer brute force more than a match for Legolas speed and agility. Now Gimli is the joke while Legolas has become essentially a superhero, with his arrow-stabbing, shield-surfing, and mumakil-killing.

You look at 5E you'll see the exact same tendency.

A minmaxer would never build a strong slow character like Gimli today, when options for magical death rays and dexterity out the wazoo gives much better results for the same costs.

I bet that come 6th edition only hapless NPC guards (and a token PC build) wears heavy slow cumbersome armor. All the rest of the heroes don't let armor crimp their style.

This is one of the more insightful things I've read on ENWorld, thanks. It set me to thinking about how my simple RPG rules fit the newer zeitgeist. My characters don't have ability numbers, only skills, so that takes the STR-DEX competition out of the equation.

 

[auburn2]

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!

A Kobold has a +4 to hit, plate and shield is AC20 so yes, he will hit on 16 or higher.

If you want a defense build that has low hit points and avoiding hits you need a bladesinger.