[RPG] the history of vampires having high natural armor class

dungeons-and-dragonshistory-of-gamingmonsters

Based on this question to Order of the Stick #1002 featuring combat between the main protagonist and a vampire, I wonder what is historical motivation for D&D vampires being tough to hit, not based on sneakiness and, uh, Dexterity-ness (agility I guess ;), but due to natural armor class?

Why do vampires even have a natural armor bonus? Being a vampire doesn't make you a rhino or a dinosaur. You are faster and [sneakier], sure, but not thicker skinned.

Answers based on the history of any edition of the game—including those preceding the formal concept of natural armor class—welcome.

Comment on accepting KorvinStarmast's answer given the other good answers here: The "no explanation was given for why they were so hard to hit" really seems to nail it. The "vampire's magical nature is the root of its high armor class" just feels like so much (fantasy) handwavium, given that other corporeal under such as the ghast or wight are also magical in nature, and yet do not have the vampire's serious natural armor. The history of D&D game design simply seems to have valued hard-to-hit vampires, and that is about it.

Best Answer

Vampires Were Always Hard to Hit

  1. The original release of OD&D didn't explain why. The Vampire was assigned the armor class of 2, which was the equivalent in OD&D of plate mail and shield. This may have been related to its level as a monster (7-9 HD) and thus a reflection of how tough it was even for higher level characters to do significant damage to it. It could also be explained by the vampire's inherent magical nature.

    From Monsters and Treasures (OD&D, Vol II, TSR 1974, p. 3)
    Armor Class 2 // Move 12"/18" (foot/flying) // HD 7-9 // % in lair 25% // Treasure Type F

In the text on page 9, no explanation was given for why they were so hard to hit. It explained much else on what made vampires such tough monsters.

  1. In AD&D 1e, (MM, p. 99) the armor class was improved to 1, and the vampire had to be hit with a magical weapon +1 or better. No explanation was given. The "eastern vampire" was cited as being invisible and thus causing -2 from any to hit roll. (effective AC of -1). No further explanation was given. (Of interest, the DMG p. 45 noted that Polymorph Other only changed the form of vampires and other shape changers for one round, and that in gaseous form Holy Water would not harm vampires).

  2. An early article on Vampires in Dragon #17 (p. 9) explained how DM's weren't playing them hard enough. While addressing powers of a vampire, it did not say why the AC was so high.

  3. An extensive treatment of the undead in Dragon #138, Tim Moldvay, did not explain why vampires had high AC.

  4. Second Edition AD&D Monstrous Manual carried over 1e info. No "why" was given for high armor class; Eastern Vampires lost the Charm power while retaining invisibility.

    • The 2e DMG (Ch 9, Combat) used vampire as the example of immunity to non-magical weapons

    ... they loose a volley of arrows at him. Three hit, but he doesn't even break his stride. They watch, aghast, as he disdainfully plucks the arrows from his body.

What is Armor Class?

While not getting this sort of detailed treatment in OD&D, Monster Manuals for 1e and 2e both described AC as ...

... the general protection worn by humans and humanoids, protection due to physical structure or magical nature, or difficulty in hitting due to speed, reflexes, etc.

You can derive from this that a vampire's magical nature is the root of its high armor class.

Related Topic