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

[Ruin Explorer]

I understand why they did it but people just aren't physically capable of dodging fast enough to get out of the way of an arrow.

That's kind of a separate problem though, isn't it? Really melee AC and ranged AC should be two entirely different things, if we're talking "realism" of the kind you're discussing. Melee AC should primarily come off how good at fighting you are, not what armour you're wearing. No way in hell should it be as easy to land a blow on some guy who is the best of the best as some guy who is new out of City Guard school, just because both are wearing chainmail or whatever. But it absolutely is, in every edition of D&D. Defensive competence is absolutely NOT simulated in any meaningful way, except maybe your DEX going up.

Which causes other problems like for example in Starfinder were people start to come to the conclusion that there is no point in investing much resources into armor because the enemy will hit anyway thanks to the way monsters are build for "fun" (= very high attack, low AC).

Yeah I guess the difference with some games is that with ARPGs and CRPGs (less so MMORPGs), they don't do what Starfinder did. They make it easy for the PCs to land hits, but allow PCs to make themselves hard to hit. I mean, in Path of Exile, I can certainly make it so I almost never (or even literally never) miss or get evaded or the like, and it's not hard to do so. But I can also make it so monsters can almost never hit me. Indeed I can do both at once. Whereas in Starfinder, as I understand it, it's just everyone hits everyone, which isn't a very good or interesting design.

 

[Derren]

That's kind of a separate problem though, isn't it? Really melee AC and ranged AC should be two entirely different things, if we're talking "realism" of the kind you're discussing. Melee AC should primarily come off how good at fighting you are, not what armour you're wearing. No way in hell should it be as easy to land a blow on some guy who is the best of the best as some guy who is new out of City Guard school, just because both are wearing chainmail or whatever. But it absolutely is, in every edition of D&D. Defensive competence is absolutely NOT simulated in any meaningful way, except maybe your DEX going up.

It should be both. Landing a hit on someone wearing plate is very hard, no matter how well he fights as the vulnerable area is tiny unless you have special weapons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Still, landing a blow on someone wearing plate is very hard, no matter how well he fights as the vulnerable area is tiny unless you have special weapons.

Sure, and D&D does simulate part of that - what it can't handle gracefully is someone who is skilled and parrying and blocking and dodging and using footwork well and so on, so it just puts all that weight on DEX mod and calls it done.

And you mean landing an incapacitating blow, because landing a blow is easy.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Sometime I wish WotC would use a Defense Score (10+Dex+Shield) to beat with the Attack Roll, then a Armor Score (varying by armor type) that would reduce the Damage Roll.

High Dex build with only light armor would be harder to hit, but their armor would reduce less when actually hit. A character with low Dex and heavy armor would be easier to hit, but could shrug a lot more damage.

Maybe add to that the Vitality variant rule?

 

[Derren]

Sure, and D&D does simulate part of that - what it can't handle gracefully is someone who is skilled and parrying and blocking and dodging and using footwork well and so on, so it just puts all that weight on DEX mod and calls it done.

And you mean landing an incapacitating blow, because landing a blow is easy.

Landing any damaging blow.
Someone in plate can practically ignore someone with a one handed sword as this guy would need to perform some sword-fu to actually endanger someone in plate.

Often times you were better off using the sword as a club (mordhau).

 

[DND_Reborn]

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. 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.

As you know, I have found the opposite to be true, especially after level 5 when characters routinely get two attack each round. Now, they are bored with the constant "hit-fest" and are more excited when they actually miss. Hitting so often leads to the other question: hit, hit, hit, why I am I even rolling!?

Which causes other problems like for example in Starfinder were people start to come to the conclusion that there is no point in investing much resources into armor because the enemy will hit anyway thanks to the way monsters are build for "fun" (= very high attack, low AC).

This is it precisely. In our online game one of the players in completely new to 5E but was a former player of mine in the 1E/2E days. He brought up the observation that he should just focus on attacking, damage, and maybe take tough to boost his HP because boosting his AC doesn't seem to help much. And, big shocker, it doesn't unless you are a complete min-maxer devoted to a crazy AC from the start IMO.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Someone in plate can practically ignore someone with a one handed sword as this guy would need to perform some sword-fu to actually endanger someone in plate.

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.

As you know, I have found the opposite to be true, especially after level 5 when characters routinely get two attack each round. Now, they are bored with the constant "hit-fest" and are more excited when they actually miss. Hitting so often leads to the other question: hit, hit, hit, why I am I even rolling!?

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.

And, big shocker, it doesn't unless you are a complete min-maxer devoted to a crazy AC from the start IMO.

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).

 

[Derren]

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.

Notice how the common sword fulfils none of those criteria?
The effort needed to kill someone in plate is much, much higher than when fighting someone in lighter armor, even if the enemy is not an experienced fighter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Notice how the common sword fulfils none of those criteria?
The effort needed to kill someone in plate is much, much higher than when fighting someone in lighter armor, even if the enemy is not an experienced fighter.

"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.

 

[Derren]

"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.

In D&D? Yes they are very common.