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

[KYRON45]

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??


Getting better at maths.


Yep.


Sounded like it...


Yes. Even taught at university.

Parents didn't help... I didn't need it. I was tutoring my parents' friend in her college math class (for nursing school) when I was in 8th grade.


15 - 4 = 11 is hard??? If it is I think we need to examine what we do with our spare time. I understand more issues with learning, confusing numbers, etc. due to a condition perhaps, but otherwise this is we're talking about stuff most kids learn around age 10-12 (depending on where you live, etc.).


We're talking basic arithmetic, not rocket science. Honestly, most of the number in the realm we're discussing you can use your fingers and just count.


Oh, certainly not, but again we're not talking hard maths here. IME people struggled more with ascending AC in 3E and other d20 systems due to all the modifiers and numbers involved and the scale of adding them then ever had issue with subtraction and descending AC.


Lacking social skills is one thing, but doesn't affect the use of THAC0 or Descending AC. Boiling water... well at least there's a number in there somewhere.


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.

Some people are just bad at some things. Let it go.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.


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.


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

2E dragons and giants were buffed a lot. Along with fiends as well.

Probably more. Dragon breath also got redone. I think Gold Dragon was about the lowest it went outside obscure books. There is lower but I can't recall what it was.

2E dragons about the scariest dragon have ever been. On paper 3.5 but they need an *.

2E only edition we had a TPK without the DM screwing up or over the top (heres an adult dragon. You're level 3).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Heh. Totally apropos, I had a class this evening and this was one of the slides:
View attachment 402405
Heh. I did not create this lesson. Heck, I hadn't actually seen the slide until I taught it. Just thought it was hilarious that when teaching an ESL class on how to persuade someone, they straight up said exactly what I've been saying all along.

But did it include all relevant evidence: such as we live in a flat? Gardening takes time and energy? Sometimes the slugs eat them before you get the chance? You can only have it in season?

 

[Bae'zel]

So if there’s no inherent difference in complexity between ascending and descending AC, and the preference for one over the other is just subjective (the implication being that some people just aren’t good enough at math or can’t/ won’t put in more cognitive effort), why are none of the major publishers still using it?

Why did 3e D&D move away from THAC0? Surely WotC and Paizo could still make millions if they switched back, right?

 

[ezo]

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.

In terms of Armor "Class" we're discussing the + and - of magical armor, nothing more. "+" for magical armor is a denotation to improve armor class, while "-" is the denotation to worsen it. So, chain mail +1 goes from AC 5 to AC 4, an improvement of 1 class.

THAC0 is a different issue. To determine the number needed to hit you subtract the oppenent's AC from THAC0. This is where 2E started using AC as an actual value for calculations. Ex. THAC0 15 vs. AC 4 is 15 - 4 = 11. I need to roll an 11 or better on the d20 to hit.

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?

In THAC0 they don't work that way, and I think you know that and are simply trying to be difficult.

But it was never 15-4. It was 15+4=11.

I stand corrected... maybe you don't know how it works.

It was 15 - 4 = 11, not 15 + 4 = 11.

Or, sometimes 5+2-2=1 (chainmail, +1 shield, decent Dex).

Tell me again how this is teaching math.

Well, it would help if you didn't confuse AC adjustments with THAC0 calculations.

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?

Think of how much better people would be with hexadecimal if we did, though.

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.

I wouldn't call it a "flaw" if you actually took the time to understand it and the differences. In 1E you used tables. There using ordinal numbers isn't an issue. Some things affected your armor class, such as a cloak of displacement:

(class)
While other things impacted your "to hit" roll.

Arithmetic is not one of the things wrong with our current education system.

LOL I very much disagree. There are plenty of things wrong, certainly, and it is one of them IME (at least here).

Are you saying people aren't washing?

Or not using deodorant or antiperspirant??

Some people are just bad at some things. Let it go.

Or I can help them get better. Sorry, but I do care about the people I know, anyway.

 

[Kromanjon]

So if there’s no inherent difference between ascending and descending AC

No inherent difference? Let's check the logs shall we?

My opinion is that descending AC is neither better, nor worse, than ascending AC, only different (and not by much either).

According to this guy it is different. Wait, that's me. Let's ask someone else.

I am definitely in the camp that neither is better, they're just different.

Different eh? You can't trick me internet. One last try.

but Ascending AC isn't better, isn't worse, it is just different.

Oh I give up. It's almost like no one has made the claim that there is no inherent difference. In fact the claim seem to be that there is a difference, just that one is not inherently better or worse than the other.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Rare but below-10 existed. Think one of the spelljammer dragons and maybe the dragon darksun had higher than -10.

You, of course, mean lower than -10, which is exactly the problem.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

If the difficulty of Thaco really is such a significant barrier, you'd think people would care more about how the playerbase's current preference for complexity is locking a lot of people out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I wouldn't call it a "flaw" if you actually took the time to understand it and the differences. In 1E you used tables. There using ordinal numbers isn't an issue. Some things affected your armor class, such as a cloak of displacement:

(class)
While other things impacted your "to hit" roll.

You, of course, mean lower than -10, which is exactly the problem.

You were saying, ezo?

You're a teacher, from what you've said, so you know more about pedagogy than I do--I've only studied it at a pretty low level. But I am more than a little surprised that someone with strong opinions about what is and isn't good education would assert this.

Yes, you can shift up or down a certain number of places. But the point remains: ordinal numbers aren't and can't be added or subtracted. "First class" plus "second class" doesn't equal anything--it's nonsense. Maybe a magical spell can add that, I won't drag in any argument about that here--but why would a SHIELD do this? This is like saying if you increase any horse's speed by the same fixed amount, it would guarantee move any horse up one place or down one place regardless of what place they're in. It's like saying that combining (not even digging into the ambiguity of how you're "combining" them) a first-class ticket and a second-class ticket will somehow directly produce...what? Should it be one place better? Two? How would you even answer that question? But that's exactly what a shield does.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the difficulty of Thaco really is such a significant barrier, you'd think people would care more about how the playerbase's current preference for complexity is locking a lot of people out.

Would they?

Learning to drive a stick shift is necessarily harder than learning to drive an automatic. Yet the cars of today are much, MUCH more complicated than they were ~70 years ago when essentially all cars were automatic.

Does this increased back-end complexity of automatic shift cars mean people would reject buying a car?

Because that's the issue here. Modern D&D makes the initial hurdle less complex. But the race is now somewhat longer.

You are responding to, "We shouldn't have the initial hurdle be too high" with "Well then we shouldn't have any extra hurdles either!" Different kinds of things. Different purpose, different user response, different expectations.