What Good is Armor in Dungeons and Dragons?
This debate has cropped up on several occasions within our gaming group. The core of the debate is that heavy and medium armors in D&D are not very optimal. You can have just as good an armor class as a light armor wearing, high dexterity having character. This type of character also benefits from other aspects as well, such as no reduced movement, lower armor check penalties, and the ability to use feats like spring attack.
When you boil it down, armor class in general is a lost cause. Once mid-levels are attained the attack bonuses of the creatures you should be fighting will be high enough to make your AC virtually a moot point. This seems to have given rise to an influx of light-weight, back-stabbing rogue/swashbuckling type characters. And when put against the once formidable “tanks” these fast-talking no-fair-fighting wire-walkers can often have their way with their lumbering opponents.
What benefits are gained from wearing heavier armors? None it seems. Has this has killed the archetypical characters such as the knight in shining armor, or the plate mail wearing battle clerics.
Popularity: 6%
August 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I can see where you are coming from with your comments about armor in D&D, specially heavy armor. I do think that upon closer examination you find that your way off on your conclusion though.
Take a fighter in say a point buy system, he doesnt need to put anymore then 12 into dexterity and he will get the maximum effect for his armor class, all his other points saved from dex can be pumped into strength, which will give this fighter an enormous amount of damage output while still having great armor class and his damage is not situation specific like a rogues sneak attack, the figter does high damage all the time.
For example, a full plate armor fighter, with a tower shield, 12 dex = 23 ac right there with basic every day common materials, no magic involved. if they were +5 full plate and +5 tower shield then the fighter would have 33 armor clas. a rogue at level 20 only has +15 AB, with a +5 weapon and weapon fineesse with 20 dex he would have +25 on his best attack.. Now if that warrior has an amulet of natural armor, dodge feat, etc.. etc.. the armor class could be in the 40s, making the rogues best case attack bonus still very low, and dont even think about the rogues 2nd and 3rd swings.
Now compare the rogue who has very high armor due to dexterity.. if the fighter was to grapple the rogue, the rogue can loose all his dexterity bonus, this makes it so the fighter can hit the rogue very easily and with the high strength, the rogue will be smeared all over the ground.
I think the full plate, tower shield, high strength, bastard sword wielding warrior is an extremely deadly opponent, and if i were a rouge i would NOT want to face one. I think heavy armor is balanced for giving you such high armor class without having to sink vital stat points into dexterity.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Well your argument has merit but you pitted the fighter with all his glory against the rogue with only part of his. If you allow the rogue to take advantage of his arsenal of skills then he might be able to level the playing field.
But compare those two against typical monsters. The garden variety are not so difficult to hit and can often easily blow through a fighters high armor. So the fighter has wasted his gold on expensive armor and shields and will usually still get hit as easily. While that rogue is hitting the low AC of the monster and tumbling through the AoO to spring attack and move away without a scratch.
I will concede that if that rogue gets hit he’ll feel it more, and his hits aren’t doing the most damage (unless he’s using sneak attack).
Now alter the scenario a bit and make both characters fighters. One armored to the hilt and the other quick on his feet in light armor. Give him a mithril breastplate +5, and maybe an amulet or ring with a little AC and with his high Dex he is the same AC as the other fighter. And now they have the same base attack and same AC. The armored fighter’s hits will deal more damage but I think the lighter fighter will isn’t going to go toe-to-toe - thats what the other fighter wants - what he needs. This guy is going to spring attack, tumble, and feint - OK, maybe not feint. But my point is the other fighter can only stand there and absorbs the hits and hope the opponent will try that to - which never works out for the opponent.
From the experiences I’ve had (which have never included +5 plate and +5 tower) the lighter fighter types are coming out of the fights unscathed and really kicking some but. You should see one of the character in our campaign now - they don’t call him The Dash for nothin’.
Thanks for the response!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I can see your point about armour. There is a neat rule trick out there for this.
Have you seen the Conan RPG rules? They are basically d20 rules, but changed the effect of armour from improving defense to damage reduction. Another major change is that a PC can opt to “dodge” out of the way using DEX modifiers to his defence (with all the penalties for armour) or actually try to “parry” using the STR modifiers! The TANK is back!
Still, armour damage reduction can be bypassed with Finesse but it takes a lot of tooling up for this.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:58 am
This is a problem with how the game system models reality. In reality, a character wearing full plate armor wielding a longsword will generally not lose against a swashbuckler in light chain shirt and a rapier. Simply put, the swashbuckler can run away faster if he feels like he’s losing, but if he closes to melee the heavy will stab him once and drop him. The rapier simply cannot penetrate the armor. And if you grant that there’s a slight chance of the rapier getting through the eye slits or breathing holes, or sliding up under a plate and around the chain underneath, then by that time the heavy will have just slashed the swashbuckler’s leg a dozen times and immobilized him.
Historically, heavy armor ruled the day. The mild steel arrowheads of the English at Agincourt were unable to pierce the heavy French cavalry armor. UNABLE TO DEAL DAMAGE PERIOD. The battle was decided by crowd fighting physics, which is a lot like traffic and sand in an hourglass.
Armor lost its edge only when firearms came on the scene. While armor could still reduce the damage from a bullet, it would have been too heavy for the average guy to run around in. So they stuck to helmets and decided on mobility.
Swashbucklers and fencers existed in places where nobody was wearing armor anyway, whether because of firearm development or because everyone was a civilian. A fencing foil FAILS COMPLETELY and EVERY TIME against platemail.
No natural 20. No critical hit. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 XP. The armor wins because the weapon is not good enough to dent it.
All that said, D&D is a game not about historical accuracy, but about fantasy. How many medeival movies show the heroes all wearing helmets? You wouldn’t be able to tell who was who!
So I think if you accept that D&D’s rules are designed to encourage wire-weenies in chain shirts, then play the game. If you don’t want a game like that, make hosue rules or play something else. Because in the end it’s your game, and your fun, and so long as the group has a good time you’re not doing it wrong.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
By the way:
Enlarge + Huge Poisoned Spiked Chain + Improved Trip + Whirlwind Attack + Sneak Attack. Broken game in general.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The last example is a good one, except Id probably rule that you could only do either whirlwind attack, improved trip (i.e. only one of those) on an attack run. Also I dont think Id allow sneak attack damage on a whirlwind attack. If there are holes in the rules it is up to the DM to keep the game in check. Poor editing is not an excuse to abuse and overlap combat feats. So the best you could do in my game is enlarge + Huge poisoned spiked chain + whirlwind attack. You could get sneak attack damage but only if you had someone flanked to begin with and if you didnt use whirlwind attack or improved trip at the same time. I need to check this, but no matter what the books say, Id probably rule one flashy feat-type manuever per full round attack action, tops. In any event this is moot since the uber-fantastic super cool 4th edition fixes all this, right? (lol).
Dave
20 year+ DM from 1st edition onwards.