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

[Zardnaar]

The thing is that even though I can admit descending AC is more complex than ascending AC it doesn’t change the fact that modern D&D is more complex than say B/X. With subclasses and feats and every other class being a spell caster and four or five different kinds of actions. It’s a lot more to keep track of, they have just changed one complexity for several smaller ones.

As far as gatekeeping by having people do subtraction I don’t think that applies. Had they written the game in a secret language, using forbidden math, that might be gatekeeping. But gatekeeping through complexity is like saying they gatekeep Swedes when they release in English or that they gatekeep poor people because they charge money for their books.

Easiest D&D I've run is B/X clones using ascending AC.

BUT modern players some like that it's probably to simple. Adding sone moving parts or bit more complexity works. 2E, Castles and Crusades maybe OSE (haven't tried it might be to basic).

They grok B/X clones easier than AD&D imho.

Gold for xp another rule. Fun in short term both for myself and them. Once you get into higher level and hordes are 132854 copper pieces on top of everything else and magic items eyes start glazing over. To much book keeping even with their best interests to do it (gp=xp).

 

[Bedrockgames]

The thing is that even though I can admit descending AC is more complex than ascending AC it doesn’t change the fact that modern D&D is more complex than say B/X.

This

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, weren't you the one arguing that the terminology in AD&D actually changed the meaning of "+" and "-"? If it wasn't you, sorry, but, the argument was certainly made that "+" didn't actually mean "plus" in AD&D. And "-" certainly didn't mean minus.

So, how did AD&D teach you about negative numbers when it didn't actually use math terms but instead pretended that "+" actually meant "subtract" and "-" sometimes meant subtract and sometimes meant add?

 

[Hussar]

15 - 4 = 11 is hard???

But it was never 15-4. It was 15+4=11. Or, sometimes 5+2-2=1 (chainmail, +1 shield, decent Dex).

Tell me again how this is teaching math.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is that even though I can admit descending AC is more complex than ascending AC it doesn’t change the fact that modern D&D is more complex than say B/X.

But this is an entirely different thing. I doubt anyone would argue that B/X is more complex than 3e-5e. I certainly wouldn't. But, again, this is a totally side issue from ascending vs descending AC.

Why not just say that then? I find 5e too complex and I prefer B/X is a perfectly cromulent thing to say and I certainly would never argue against that. There's nothing to argue. The reason you are getting push back isn't because of your stated preferences. It's because you stated your preferences as facts - that there is no difference between ascending and decending AC. That you prefer one or the other is perfectly fine.

Like I said much earlier, in a discussion about preferences, there's not a whole lot of counter arguing going on. @ezo likes older versions of D&D. Groovy. I prefer newer versions of D&D. Again, groovy.

If people would stop trying to "prove" their preferences and just stick to their preferences, things would go a lot more smoothly. Instead of conflating personal taste with expressions of quality, just stick to personal taste.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The thing is that even though I can admit descending AC is more complex than ascending AC it doesn’t change the fact that modern D&D is more complex than say B/X.

This

A system which uses simpler basic parts is able to then leverage those basic parts to make other things more involved.

Front-loading complexity and then back-loading simplicity is, I should think, a generally less-than-helpful design approach unless the up-front complexity can't be avoided. E.g. we teach children arithmetic before algebra, and algebra before number theory, even though technically number theory is more fundamental, because arithmetic is usually easier to grasp. But in the case of (say) quantum physics, you have to have integral calculus (and usually differential equations) before you can even start...even though most of your early learning will feel really basic compared to what you had to do for DiffEq.

 

[Hussar]

I said this earlier, but, I think it got lost in the scrum.

You have two methods of achieving a result. One method is simpler than the other. The simpler method achieves the same result.

To me, the simpler method is always better. It's more efficient, it's easier to use, it has less chance of mistakes being made. All things being equal, the simpler method is better. I mean, we could express AC in Hexadecimal, but, that isn't going to be an improvement. It's far more complicated than expressing it in decimal, so, does that somehow make it better?

 

[Kromanjon]

But this is an entirely different thing. I doubt anyone would argue that B/X is more complex than 3e-5e. I certainly wouldn't. But, again, this is a totally side issue from ascending vs descending AC.

Why not just say that then? I find 5e too complex and I prefer B/X is a perfectly cromulent thing to say and I certainly would never argue against that. There's nothing to argue. The reason you are getting push back isn't because of your stated preferences. It's because you stated your preferences as facts - that there is no difference between ascending and decending AC. That you prefer one or the other is perfectly fine.

Like I said much earlier, in a discussion about preferences, there's not a whole lot of counter arguing going on. @ezo likes older versions of D&D. Groovy. I prefer newer versions of D&D. Again, groovy.

If people would stop trying to "prove" their preferences and just stick to their preferences, things would go a lot more smoothly. Instead of conflating personal taste with expressions of quality, just stick to personal taste.

Please quote where I stated my opinion as fact. Can’t remember doing it.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't recall any creature having an AC below -10, but could easily be wrong. As I don't have my 2E books anymore, I can't verify it.

As for PCs, they could get below -10. I don't recall that being a limit for players... can you cite one??

1e by RAW capped at -10 for everything, I think, though I can't be arsed to haul out my DMG and find the page right now. I can't offhand think of a way to get a PC below about -12 in any case: field plate +5, shield +5, and dex 18 gets to -12 by my math. Oh, I suppose Boots of Speed or a Cloak of Displacement could give a further bonus in the right conditions; but to get all that you've got some stupid-expensive and stupid-rare magic on you.

Not sure if 2e kept the -10 limit or not.

15 - 4 = 11 is hard??? If it is I think we need to examine what we do with our spare time.

Or what we've done to our education system....

I don't care much about social issues, however, the "soap" issue is one box I'll stand on and insist on for people with whom I play.

No argument here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1e by RAW capped at -10 for everything, I think, though I can't be arsed to haul out my DMG and find the page right now. I can't offhand think of a way to get a PC below about -12 in any case: field plate +5, shield +5, and dex 18 gets to -12 by my math. Oh, I suppose Boots of Speed or a Cloak of Displacement could give a further bonus in the right conditions; but to get all that you've got some stupid-expensive and stupid-rare magic on you.

Not sure if 2e kept the -10 limit or not.

We have already seen that a 2e gold dragon did not adhere to that limit, as the last two have AC -11 and AC -12.

In 1e, while age categories affected things, I'm not seeing evidence that armor class was among those things, so...apparently all gold dragons had AC -2. Given Bahamut and Tiamat themselves had only AC -3, it seems pretty unlikely that age categories affected AC that much. Of course, the big problem with this is that someone playing a Fighter with a powerful magical weapon and some other benefits could quite easily hit even the dragon-gods themselves even with relatively poor rolls. (And, having searched through a 1e DMG, I'm not seeing anything with an AC lower than -8, and only two instances thereof: Demogorgon, and Will-o-(the)-Wisp.)

But all of this points to the real flaw with descending AC. The idea with descending AC is that it is rooted in ordinal numbers: first place, second place, third place, etc. That is, if you have AC 1, you have "first-class" AC. If you have AC 2, you have second-class AC. Etc. Ordinal numbers are not meant for arithmetic in the first place. You can't say that second place plus third place equals 4th place. Nor can you say that if you subtract 2nd place from 4th place, you....somehow get 2nd place again. That's patently ludicrous nonsense. And it gets worse when you have to start inventing "zeroth place" and "negative-first place" and "negative-second place" which is better than "negative-first" place etc., etc.

People struggle with this for the very simple reason that the concept that originally went into it, that ACs were place values on a qualitative chart rather than numerical bonuses on a quantitative chart, is completely incompatible with the way that it was actually used. It's ordinal data, but being treated with cardinal arithmetic (where 1+2=3 and so on.) The mere existence of a shield that could somehow "bump" you up to being zeroth-class AC is already an admission that the system is at war with its own conception.

Or what we've done to our education system....

Arithmetic is not one of the things wrong with our current education system. There's plenty to complain about, but that specific part isn't really that much of a concern.

No argument here.

Honestly not sure what's being said here. Are you saying people aren't washing?