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?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.
Huh.... Thoughts on this: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.
well, we could now get into the type of damage you can get.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, 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.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.
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.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.
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.Blows my mind how people think 5th ed is less complicated. It's just as complicated, just in its own way.
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.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.
1e had that, or a variant, in its "weapon vs armour type" tables.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.
I am really not after this1e had that, or a variant, in its "weapon vs armour type" tables.
I'm not sure how many (but I suspect not many) DMs used these tables; but they sure sound like what you're after with this.
My old college group would start games saying we wanted to use those tables (they existed in 2e too) and then promptly forgot about them a session or two in.1e had that, or a variant, in its "weapon vs armour type" tables.
I'm not sure how many (but I suspect not many) DMs used these tables; but they sure sound like what you're after with this.
We used them all the time, but it helped that I put space on character sheets for them so people remembered to use them:I'm not sure how many (but I suspect not many) DMs used these tables
That's the weapon side, but where's the armour side? Armour is what's under discussion here, and its effect on "hittability" and-or damage taken.I am really not after this
It just makes the system too complicated with few benefits.
Attack riders depending on damage type or weapon use seems much more elegant.
Be that with basic abilities that everyone can use, or with feats like Piercer, crusher, slasher or combat maneuvers.
Does it, though?Lots of talk about dexterity and armor... but AC has only one job in D&D: it's a damage gatekeeper. Damage serves one primary job: reducing hit points. And what are hit points? Well, they're not just meat. So to me, it's not a question of how well you roll in armor or whether an unarmored person dodges better. It's this:
Why does a given D&D edition reward some characters with more survivability than others?