D&D 1E AD&D players and referees, what do you think of ascending AC?

[cbwjm]

Didn't Natural Armor bonus also stack with regular Armor bonus?

Yep. That was another stackable.
Armour, deflection, natural, shield, dodge. Might have been others but these are of the top of my head. I think they overcompensated for reducing the amount of dexterity bonus you could apply to heavy armour.

I guess when looking at the actual numbers it doesn't seem too crazy a difference if all the gear is the same:

Fullplate +2, shield+2, ring of protection+2, dexterity 13
2e: -4 (24 equivalent in 3e, +11 armour, +3 shield)
3e: 27 (+10 armour, +4 shield, +2 deflection, +1 dexterity), flat-footed 26, touch AC 13 (I think)

Add in an amulet of natural armour +2 and AC becomes 29 for the 3e fighter.

A higher dexterity also benefits the 2e fighter more since there is no limit on AC bonus. A 17 dexterity would allow the 2e fighter to match the 3e fighter before any natural AC or dodge bonuses kick in.

 

[teitan]

It looks like he's saying AC 10-30, not stats. I haven't kept up with high end 5e WotC stats but I do not remember seeing any 30+ ACs though in the ancient dragons or demon lords in the MM or Mordenkainen's.

Not in 5e no. I even commented on the bounded accuracy. The creep was in 3.x to 4e and Pathfinder.

 

[Voadam]

Not in 5e no. I even commented on the bounded accuracy. The creep was in 3.x to 4e and Pathfinder.

Ah, I think you meant 4e when you typed 5e then and so the confusion. I think we are all on the same page.

Had 3.x or 5e simply gone with 10 being worst and 30 being the cap they would have retained that bounded accuracy and AC's wouldn't escalate like they have since 3.x was released.

1e didn't have a cap that I am aware of, just not a lot that could add into the numbers. Top end +5 plate, +5 shield, Dex 18 gets you to -12 AC for example. There is even an explicit notation for such off the charts ACs in the DMG on page 73.

"To determine a “to hit” number not on the charts, project upwards by 1’s (5% increments), repeating 20 six times before continuing with 21 (Cf. MATRIX I.A.)."

There was an explicit normal floor of 10 though on AC, which could be breached by cursed items. Again page 73 "Armor class below 10 is not possible except through cursed items."

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Simple question. No need for a poll.

I keep looking at the mess that is DMG page 74 and how much easier and quicker it would be to switch to attack bonuses and ascending AC.

For people still playing AD&D, how would you feel about the switch?

Been playing D&D since 1976 or so and effectively 1E since the MM publication in 1977. Descending AC is not really a difficulty for any child old enough/smart enough to be able to grasp negative integer math. Is it more cumbersome than ascending AC? Sure. Is it worth the effort to reverse one for the other? IMO no. Any such conversion is of course not hard to do - but it's VERY extensive to the point that it's just not worth fretting about. Besides, I would argue that using descending AC and combat tables instead of d20-system based mechanics DOES have features that are lost if you flip it and discard the combat tables. Even 2E's choice to only drop the combat tables for "THAC0" was a change not necessarily for the better. It's a bit fiddley and not talked about a lot - but it's most definitely there. How desirable those features are is subjective, yet it has come to be something I actually like about 1E mechanics over later editions.

In any case, for AD&D (and 1E in particular) ascending/descending AC is SO FAR down the list of system issues warranting real concern it's hilarious. AD&D is not for the feint of heart. It will fight you, especially if you're coming from a comparative easy-mode RPG like 5E. If AD&D is what someone is really interested in, I'd say focus on the more important parts needing attention.

 

[teitan]

Ah, I think you meant 4e when you typed 5e then and so the confusion. I think we are all on the same page.

1e didn't have a cap that I am aware of, just not a lot that could add into the numbers. Top end +5 plate, +5 shield, Dex 18 gets you to -12 AC for example. There is even an explicit notation for such off the charts ACs in the DMG on page 73.

"To determine a “to hit” number not on the charts, project upwards by 1’s (5% increments), repeating 20 six times before continuing with 21 (Cf. MATRIX I.A.)."

There was an explicit normal floor of 10 though on AC, which could be breached by cursed items. Again page 73 "Armor class below 10 is not possible except through cursed items."

Your right, it isn't hard capped, my bad but extremely difficult and your example is a common error, adjustment for Dex is subtracted from the die roll. But that is an esoteric aspect that brings in the Weapon vs Armor tables. Even the example below would require the Weapon vs Armor table.

DMG page 73:

Armour class below 10 is not possible except through cursed items. Armour class above 2 is easily possible due to magical bonuses and dexterity bonuses. To determine a "to hit" number not on the charts, project upwards by 1's (5% increments), repeating 20 six times before continuing with 21 (cf. MATRIX I.A.).

 

[Voadam]

Your right, it isn't hard capped, my bad but extremely difficult and your example is a common error, adjustment for Dex is subtracted from the die roll. But that is an esoteric aspect that brings in the Weapon vs Armor tables. Even the example below would require the Weapon vs Armor table.

The 1e description seems to say explicitly that the dexterity defensive adjustment changes the AC and not the die roll.

PH page 11:

It also applies to the character’s parrying and/or dodging ability in missile or melee combat; in this case the penalty subtracts from the armor class (q.v.) of the character, making him or her easier to hit, while the bonus adds to the defensive value of the character’s armor class, making him or her harder to hit. For example, a character with plate mail and shield is normally treated as armor class 2; if the character has 3 dexterity, there is a +4 penalty, so the armor class changes to 6 (2 + 4). However, if the same character has a dexterity of 18, there is a bonus of -4, so armor class changes from 2 to a -2 (2 + -4 = 1, 0, -1, -2)."

 

[Sepulchrave II]

When I play AD&D, I use the Old Ways.

 

[rabindranath72]

When I play AD&D, I use the Old Ways.

This is the Way!

 

[teitan]

The 1e description seems to say explicitly that the dexterity defensive adjustment changes the AC and not the die roll.

PH page 11:

It also applies to the character’s parrying and/or dodging ability in missile or melee combat; in this case the penalty subtracts from the armor class (q.v.) of the character, making him or her easier to hit, while the bonus adds to the defensive value of the character’s armor class, making him or her harder to hit. For example, a character with plate mail and shield is normally treated as armor class 2; if the character has 3 dexterity, there is a +4 penalty, so the armor class changes to 6 (2 + 4). However, if the same character has a dexterity of 18, there is a bonus of -4, so armor class changes from 2 to a -2 (2 + -4 = 1, 0, -1, -2)."

I am human enough to admit when I am wrong. Thank you.

 

[Gus L]

Your right, it isn't hard capped, my bad but extremely difficult and your example is a common error, adjustment for Dex is subtracted from the die roll. But that is an esoteric aspect that brings in the Weapon vs Armor tables. Even the example below would require the Weapon vs Armor table.

DMG page 73:

Armour class below 10 is not possible except through cursed items. Armour class above 2 is easily possible due to magical bonuses and dexterity bonuses. To determine a "to hit" number not on the charts, project upwards by 1's (5% increments), repeating 20 six times before continuing with 21 (cf. MATRIX I.A.).

As others point out, AD&D generally adds AC bonuses directly to armor class... but I don't think your view of AC as "hard capped" or magic armor/AC bonuses effecting attacker rolls is wrong exactly. AD&D is a bit of a mess at the best of times, and the rules in OE (OD&D) were based around that kind of subtraction and appear to include AC caps (which I find help make combat less of a slog, especially at higher levels). I wouldn't be surprised if the older idea slipped through editing somewhere, but I won't be looking.

From "Monsters & Treasure" pg. 30

This is largely I think a response to Chainmail's system which it borrows this rule from:

From Chainmail 1E pg. 38

I personally like capped AC (max of 18 for normal creatures or 20 for otherworldly and magical creatures/spells ascending [2 or 0 descending]), but I don't have strong feelings about ascending or descending AC, THAC0, AC tables or attack bonuses. The subtle distinctions feel somewhat insignificant to me.