D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[ezo]

No, but it is definitely there.

I would argue that with practice, it isn't even there anymore.

Honestly, considering how little of the time was spend on the maths actually done compared to the amount of time spent playing, IME few people ever even noticed. But YMMV certainly.

When I was first introduced to D&D's ascending AC in 3e, I thought "Oh, this will be easier". Then it didn't take long for me to start encountering AC 35 with an attack bonus of +25...but sometimes the AC was 42 and the attack bonus was +32, depending on the time of day and the what the opposition was. The math itself was simpler, but I felt the numbers were getting out of hand.

I didn't play 3E for long but played other d20 systems and I do remember the numbers getting cumbersome. And modifiers for everything under the sun. AD&D had that, too, but IME they didn't seem to pop up as often or were a regular thing so you were used to them. Situational wasn't as much a thing in AD&D IIRC.

While some things about 5E I have never been keen on, keeping numbers smaller, using advantage/disadvantage, and such were IMO improvements.

 

[Lanefan]

As far as THAC0 is concerned, I am an educator and mathematician. I know for most people adding is easier than subtracting, especially when you get into negative numbers like descending AC could. But does that make Ascending AC "better" just because it is easier? Not IMO. It is just a different system to accomplish the same goal. I mean, one of the reasons I am so good with maths is because I played D&D from a young age on. I know kids who learned to understand negative numbers back in the 80's because of D&D and descending AC.

And that right there is the capstone reason for bringing back descending AC, and pronto.

Make the game a bit harder, and maybe some people will learn something. Make it easier, and that opportunity is lost.

 

[Eric V]

And that right there is the capstone reason for bringing back descending AC, and pronto.

Make the game a bit harder, and maybe some people will learn something. Make it easier, and that opportunity is lost.

The designers of the game are not pedagogues; they are trying to make a fun, accessible game that will sell well.

 

[Eric V]

I know for most people adding is easier than subtracting, especially when you get into negative numbers like descending AC could. But does that make Ascending AC "better" just because it is easier?

I don't know if I would use the word "better" but, based on the italicized above, it would definitely be accurate to say "more accessible." Purposefully making a game less accessible for no real play difference in the end definitely sounds like gatekeeping, which I believe is definitely "not better," and probably crosses over into "worse."

 

[Warpiglet-7]

The designers of the game are not pedagogues; they are trying to make a fun, accessible game that will sell well.

Some recent design choices seem pretty divorced from entertainment only decisions.

But that said, I would not want to go back to descending AC.

I admit it was foreign to me when we moved to 3e from 1e in 1999. But we adapted and don’t see a need to go back.

 

[ezo]

I don't know if I would use the word "better" but, based on the italicized above, it would definitely be accurate to say "more accessible." Purposefully making a game less accessible for no real play difference in the end definitely sounds like gatekeeping, which I believe is definitely "not better," and probably crosses over into "worse."

I don't know. I never met any kid in the 80's or adult in the 90's who didn't play AD&D because they couldn't handle the math of Descending AC. I'm sure they are out there, to be clear, but if more people can benefit from a bit harder system math-wise even if a couple people can't hack it, I'm okay with that.

Call it whatever you like. Frankly, unless it is someone I personally know, I don't really care. And if it was someone I knew, I would help them learn to master it so it wouldn't be a problem. I don't believe in designing down to the lowest common denominator when those people could be raised up instead of left behind.

As for "gatekeeping", naughty word that it is around here, it never mattered to me in the slightest. People can gatekeep or not, whatever.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know. I never met any kid in the 80's or adult in the 90's who didn't play AD&D because they couldn't handle the math of Descending AC. I'm sure they are out there, to be clear, but if more people can benefit from a bit harder system math-wise even if a couple people can't hack it, I'm okay with that.

Call it whatever you like. Frankly, unless it is someone I personally know, I don't really care. And if it was someone I knew, I would help them learn to master it so it wouldn't be a problem. I don't believe in designing down to the lowest common denominator when those people could be raised up instead of left behind.

As for "gatekeeping", naughty word that it is around here, it never mattered to me in the slightest. People can gatekeep or not, whatever.

Something to keep in mind about AD&D and AD&D 2E. First edition used matrices were are actually really easy and require almost nothing from the player side. 2E used THAC0 which was subtraction but there were plenty of THAC0 charts to get around having to do the math as well. You could easily write a chart on your sheet so you always knew what number you needed to hit a given AC for instance

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know. I never met any kid in the 80's or adult in the 90's who didn't play AD&D because they couldn't handle the math of Descending AC. I'm sure they are out there, to be clear, but if more people can benefit from a bit harder system math-wise even if a couple people can't hack it, I'm okay with that.

Call it whatever you like. Frankly, unless it is someone I personally know, I don't really care. And if it was someone I knew, I would help them learn to master it so it wouldn't be a problem. I don't believe in designing down to the lowest common denominator when those people could be raised up instead of left behind.

As for "gatekeeping", naughty word that it is around here, it never mattered to me in the slightest. People can gatekeep or not, whatever.

Might be selection bias. People who didn't understand didn't play.

Half my 2E group ate 5E players. Found 2 people who haven't played since 3E and a younger guy who loves the old stuff.

Newer ones don't get thac0. Pretty much everyone voted not to use it. If tgey wanted to I would have.

Reading the phb I just told them lower the better. We still use THAC0 as a reference but they normally quote me the AC or THAC0 and I convert it to +5 or whatever.

We used 2d6+6 for stats pick whatever array got rolled. It's fairly close to 5E default array in terms of modifiers. 18/80 strength is roughly 18 in 5E.

 

[ezo]

Something to keep in mind about AD&D and AD&D 2E. First edition used matrices were are actually really easy and require almost nothing from the player side. 2E used THAC0 which was subtraction but there were plenty of THAC0 charts to get around having to do the math as well. You could easily write a chart on your sheet so you always knew what number you needed to hit a given AC for instance

Yep, and a LOT of people had character sheets like this!

Might be selection bias. People who didn't understand didn't play.

Maybe... but I doubt it. Or kids/adults might have given me a different excuse, but 90% of the people (whatever age) who tried it played for at least a good while; and none of them ever said they didn't want to stay because of the math with THAC0. Maybe they were too embarassed about it? I don't know. I can only accept them at face value and believe in their reasons (which most of the time was scheduling, even as kids, with sports, clubs, etc.).

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep, and a LOT of people had character sheets like this!


Maybe... but I doubt it. Or kids/adults might have given me a different excuse, but 90% of the people (whatever age) who tried it played for at least a good while; and none of them ever said they didn't want to stay because of the math with THAC0. Maybe they were too embarassed about it? I don't know. I can only accept them at face value and believe in their reasons (which most of the time was scheduling, even as kids, with sports, clubs, etc.).

Let me guess. Middle class family, two parents, decent suburb probably opportunity to go to college?

I'm seeing it now in 2025. Not everyone's good at math or reading dice. Or they've been out of school for 20+ years.

Two smartest players I've had recently. Ducks to water they're both scientists. Ones something brain related she's doing a masters. Other one she did genetics. Both beyond my pay grade.

One guy struggles adding up the dice on say fireball. By struggle I mean it takes him longer I can do it with a glance other's group dice buckets in groups of ten. Alot of its just practice. I suck at algebra I can easy do AD&D xp tables and add up buckets of dice.