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

[overgeeked]

Perhaps, but it's faster yet if the DM does the behind-the-scenes math rather than shove it all over to the players - some of whom are much better-quicker at arithmetic than others, and its those others who grind things to a halt.

I get that it’s your preference, and that’s great, but you’re arguing that extra steps make it faster. That’s not how it works.

It still works around a target number, only that number is a constant rather than a by-creature variable.

And instead of having one creature-based variable to compare it to, you have to add or subtract a different creature-based variable to/from the PC’s reported number to get to your fixed target number.

Again, it’s your preference, and that’s fine, but it’s weird how you keep claiming doing extra steps is somehow faster than fewer steps.

 

[nevin]

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?

I think Armor should just soak damage or be DR. AC should be roughly the same for all Human sized objects, then you can increase it with Dex, magical effects etc. But if Armor just soaked up damage it would make more sense to me. If you've ever done any sparring you still get bruised and tired with armor, it just prevents the big immediate death. But then you have to make magical buffs on weapons do more damage to get passed the DR and then things like dragons might need 100 plus points of damage per attack just to get through thier armor. So not sure the end result would be any better. Then you have to give wizards more DR with spells, and everything else has to be adjusted and you basically get something close to Palladium's Hero's Unlimited or Rifts.

 

[Mannahnin]

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?

On the occasions when I play AD&D (or other TSR editions) I'm familiar and comfortable with descending, but as you point out, the math is the same, just simpler, with ascending (or Target 20), so I'm easy either way.

I do think it's a bit silly to keep the descending scale once the rules allow ACs to go below 0. Negative numbers basically spoil what elegance the original system has.

It's been stated that ascending AC was contemplated for 2nd edition AD&D, but in the end they decided not to for reasons of backwards compatibility, so even the game designers realized it was probably better for the game back in the 80's.

Gygax considered it for FIRST edition AD&D.

DMG 164: "ARMOR AND SHIELD (III.F.) As Dungeon Master you must be fully conversant with the armor gradation system. Because prior game forms worked from a high base number (9) upwards, I have opted to follow the same progression herein for the sake of continuity and familiarity."

Sadly he made the mistake of assuming that he needed to placate the existing 70s fans to maintain backwards compatibility with a then-small pool of existing products, and then 2E's mandate to maintain reverse compatibility with 1E prolonged the mistake further.

If you actually follow the rules and don't allow 21 DEX PC's into your game, the two-handed fighting rules in 1e AD&D are quite balanced and one of the few things that rewards a high DEX combatant with no shield. You only at most get one additional attack a round - it DOES NOT double your attacks per round - and that second attack will generally be at a penalty, and further that second attack will generally be with a different weaker weapon. If you stick to the rules you get no Drizzt. You do however let a thief fight with a dagger in the offhand to make up for their otherwise weak fighting skills.

I agree re: TWF in AD&D being balanced, but sidebar: could you remind me where AD&D clarifies that "it does not double your attacks"? I don't see any clear statement in Attacks With Two Weapons on page 70, but I imagine there's a clarification or Sage Advice ruling somewhere. I know the 2E PH is explicit that you only ever get 1 additional attack.

 

[Lanefan]

I get that it’s your preference, and that’s great, but you’re arguing that extra steps make it faster. That’s not how it works.

And instead of having one creature-based variable to compare it to, you have to add or subtract a different creature-based variable to/from the PC’s reported number to get to your fixed target number.

Again, it’s your preference, and that’s fine, but it’s weird how you keep claiming doing extra steps is somehow faster than fewer steps.

I'm claiming, on the assumption that those steps will be done regardless, it's faster if the DM does those steps rather than the players.

Players add up the stuff they know. DM adds up the stuff the players don't know, which includes the combat matrix or attack bonus along with the target's AC* and any other mitigating factors, then declares hit or miss.

The only difference between that and your system is that in yours adding in the attack bonus gets pushed to the players...and players are on average slower than DMs at this stuff.

* - exception: if the target is another PC then the only DM input is the combat-matrix or attack-bonus piece; the players can figure out the rest for themselves.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree re: TWF in AD&D being balanced, but sidebar: could you remind me where AD&D clarifies that "it does not double your attacks"? I don't see any clear statement in Attacks With Two Weapons on page 70, but I imagine there's a clarification or Sage Advice ruling somewhere. I know the 2E PH is explicit that you only ever get 1 additional attack.

We have a thread for this, actually.

D&D General - Attacks With Two Weapons, Game Design, And the Evolution of D&D

A topic that has come up now repeatedly (first arising in the context of my posts regarding Drizzt and Rangers) is the idea of Dual Wielding, aka Two Weapon Fighting, aka Attacks with Two Weapons. I think that it's worth developing into a separate post given that the topic is more general than...

www.enworld.org

 

[Voadam]

I'm claiming, on the assumption that those steps will be done regardless, it's faster if the DM does those steps rather than the players.

That seems counter to my experience. Figuring out the different relevant factors of stat adjustments, various weapons, specialization, etc. can be done on the DM side so all they say is "I roll a 14 for my attack with my longsword and a 13 with my dagger in my offhand" but I think it would take a while for the DM to work through all the relevant stuff to figure out the player adds a net +2 on the longsword and a +1 to the dagger attack. The DM has to either have a copy of the characters stats and look them up himself, have it all memorized, or stop to ask each of the relevant factors (What level thief are you? what is your strength? What is your dex for the two weapon fighting penalties, what is the magical bonus of the sword and for the dagger). A player can have this on their sheet and have it more top of mind for their one character while the DM can easily be trying to juggle a half dozen PCs and a dozen enemies in a round of combat.

I think it is generally faster to have each of the players figure out their own stuff than have the DM juggle each of the PCs' math in the middle of the combat round.

There were 1e official character sheets with THACO entries for weapons so that the PC can handle most everything predone for the math and just roll and say "I hit AC 4 with my longsword and AC 7 with my dagger." and all the DM has to do is factor in any hidden factors and then compare to the monster's AC.

B/X had the THAC0 stuff on their sample sheet as well and did not hide any of the info, the player knew their modifiers, rolled, then looked on the chart and told the DM what AC they hit. It was quick.

The 1e DMG style of having the players only declare an action and roll a die is a bit more immersive for a player, but I don't think it is quicker for resolving a round of combat.

 

[jdrakeh]

As a fan of AD&D 1e (and OSRIC, Hyperborea, etc). I much prefer ascending AC in actual practice. It's just more intuitive for me as both a player and referee.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm claiming, on the assumption that those steps will be done regardless, it's faster if the DM does those steps rather than the players.

Sure. But that bolded part isn't true.

Players add up the stuff they know. DM adds up the stuff the players don't know, which includes the combat matrix or attack bonus along with the target's AC* and any other mitigating factors, then declares hit or miss.

Exactly. And that's where the trouble is.

1. Player rolls 1d20 and adds their mods, reports that total to the referee.

2. Referee looks up the monster's AC.

3. Referee finds the right combat matrix for the PC's class.

4. Referee cross references the monster's AC with the PC's level.

5. Referee compares the PC's result to the listed target number.

6. Referee declares hit or miss.

Using the combat matrix you have all six steps. Using ascending AC you skip steps 3 and 4, the most time consuming of all six steps. Cutting those two steps cuts the handling time by a lot.

The only difference between that and your system is that in yours adding in the attack bonus gets pushed to the players...and players are on average slower than DMs at this stuff.

They're already adding their own mods to their 1d20 roll, adding another small number isn't a huge time wasting imposition. Certainly not enough to make up for the added steps and time involved in cross-referencing monster AC, PC level, then comparing numbers on the combat matrix.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. But that bolded part isn't true.

Exactly. And that's where the trouble is.

1. Player rolls 1d20 and adds their mods, reports that total to the referee.

2. Referee looks up the monster's AC.

Once, then it's memorized.

3. Referee finds the right combat matrix for the PC's class.

4. Referee cross references the monster's AC with the PC's level.

Once, maybe twice, then it's memorized for that character for that combat (unless something major happens e.g the character loses one or more levels).

5. Referee compares the PC's result to the listed target number.

6. Referee declares hit or miss.

Using the combat matrix you have all six steps. Using ascending AC you skip steps 3 and 4, the most time consuming of all six steps. Cutting those two steps cuts the handling time by a lot.

Er...not quite. You're tying [use of ascending AC] to [use of a BAB model rather than a combat matrix]; these two things are not connected. I could flip AC to ascending and still use the matrix; or I could change from the matrix to a BAB model and still use descending AC (which is what I've partly done behind the scenes, over the years).

A perhaps minor but IMO still significant side element to descending vs ascending that hasn't been mentioned yet is that due to tradition descending AC is generally assumed to be capped at -10 where - and for the same reason - ascending AC is assumed to be sky's-the-limit.

 

[Celebrim]

That seems counter to my experience. Figuring out the different relevant factors of stat adjustments, various weapons, specialization, etc. can be done on the DM side so all they say is "I roll a 14 for my attack with my longsword and a 13 with my dagger in my offhand" but I think it would take a while for the DM to work through all the relevant stuff to figure out the player adds a net +2 on the longsword and a +1 to the dagger attack. The DM has to either have a copy of the characters stats and look them up himself, have it all memorized, or stop to ask each of the relevant factors (What level thief are you? what is your strength? What is your dex for the two weapon fighting penalties, what is the magical bonus of the sword and for the dagger). A player can have this on their sheet and have it more top of mind for their one character while the DM can easily be trying to juggle a half dozen PCs and a dozen enemies in a round of combat.

I think it is generally faster to have each of the players figure out their own stuff than have the DM juggle each of the PCs' math in the middle of the combat round.

Yes, I would agree with that.

However, it is even faster to treat this as prep work where you build character and weapon specific to hit tables so that you only need math for temporary buffs. You can redo the tables when characters level up (usually trivial work) or get new weapons.

There were 1e official character sheets with THACO entries for weapons so that the PC can handle most everything predone for the math and just roll and say "I hit AC 4 with my longsword and AC 7 with my dagger." and all the DM has to do is factor in any hidden factors and then compare to the monster's AC.

Yep. Those are incredible time savers. I got to where I had each PC's to hit tables clipped over my DM screen because that was vastly more useful than using looking up generic class tables and applying individual modifiers.