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

[eyeheartawk]

I'd redo the thief to make it more balanced with the other classes.

What, having a 30% chance to climb walls at level 10 not good enough for you?

 

[the Jester]

The last few times I ran AD&D, I used ascending AC. I think it's pretty smooth to port over, if you just trade the attack matrices for a bonus on to hit rolls, and it makes it easier for any math-challenged players to manage (and I have some).

 

[Voadam]

I was really excited during the late 2e period when Dragon Fist came out as a 2e variant with ascending AC.

With descending AC I always seemed to trip myself up trying to figure out the directions of multiple adjustments on attack rolls and AC and have to consciously think it through instead of just adding them in straight without thinking about it. Part of it is the multiple valid ways you can implement the bonuses to get the same result (adding a bonus to your roll then comparing the result to the THAC0, using modifiers as adjusting the THAC0 so you just compare the roll, modifying the target's AC versus modifying the attack roll, etc.).

 

[Celebrim]

What, having a 30% chance to climb walls at level 10 not good enough for you?

Surprisingly, climb walls is one of the few things where thieves have reasonable chance of success.

The 1e thief has a lot of problems. The biggest problems though are that you have a martial class that attacks using the same attack matrix as a 3e Wizard and gains no bonus attacks at higher levels and whose lacks any real defenses either in hit points or saving throws. The class is in fact front loaded. It never gets more powerful than the brief period between 1600 XP and 2000 XP where it has 2HD and decent saves, and then after that it is just straight up worse than every other class.

The truth is that 'backstab' is such a weak ability that even if they could backstab every round they'd still be doing less damage on average than a weapon specialized fighter of similar level.

The only balance they have against being worse than every other class in everything is the thief skills which at low levels are too unreliable to attempt and which at higher levels are completely outclassed by even the simplest spells - fly > spider climb > climb walls, clairvoyance > hear noise, invisibility > hide in shadows, find traps > detect traps, knock > open locks, etc. What you discover is that all you are doing is saving spellcasters spell slots but the amount of spell slots you are saving in a typical adventuring day is less than the number of slots you would have if you were a spell caster yourself, and then you'd also be a spell caster capable of solving other problems.

Worse, once 1e/2e started dabbling with a skill system in the form of NWPS, thieves weren't even the skill monkey as fighters got more NWPs than thieves did.

So at minimum to fix the thief:

a) They need to use the cleric attack matrix.
b) They need to get bonus attacks per round equal to a specialized fighter of half of their level.
c) They need to gain bonus damage with daggers at name level.
d) They need to advance Dexterity like a cavalier.
e) They need the most aggressive rate of acquiring NWPs.
f) Every time they gain a level, they should have the ability to advance an existing NWP as if they had taken it multiple times.
g) Their thief skills need to be overhauled so that they are more reliable at low levels.
h) If it isn't already clear, it should be made clear that they have the same dual wielding capabilities as rangers.
i) Their saving throws need to be reengineered such that they are clearly the best at saving throws depending on luck and reflexes.
j) Their XP advancement table needs to be reconfigured such that they tend to stay at least 1 HD above most classes and that gap increases as the things go on to at least 2 HD by 8th level (they hit 8 by the time most classes hit 6) and at least 3 HD by 16th level (they hit 16 by the time most classes hit 13).

And honestly, the class still wouldn't be that good but it would at least be playable.

 

[overgeeked]

I think we need to know what ACKs is? (You were hoping someone would ask weren't you? Go on - admit it!

A bad AD&D clone put out by a person most gaming sites flat-out ban mentioning him or his game. He’s about on par with Zak S, the Pundit, and Venger S in terms of radioactivity.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Has nothing to do with being “better for the game” when the stated reason is bad. Appeals to tradition hold people back.

Besides, it’s trivial math to switch.

20 - Descending AC = ascending AC.

 

[overgeeked]

I only use descending when I'm literally playing AD&D.

I mean, that’s literally what I’m talking about. Playing AD&D. With ascending AC.

 

[billd91]

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 haven't played AD&D since the 5e playtest. After years of playing 3e, then 4e, then dumping 4e to return to 3e, we decided to play a bit of 2e to refresh our impressions of AD&D. But I'll answer as if I were presented with the option of playing with ascending AC for the next AD&D game I participated in - I'd say "Hell, yes". There is nothing, absolutely nothing, descending AC brings to the table that isn't better with ascending AC with the single exception of being able to use monster stats in AD&D adventures as printed. That may have been a more important concern back in the late 1980s when the dev team was working on 2e, but it isn't now.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I mean, that’s literally what I’m talking about. Playing AD&D. With ascending AC.

Yeah, I'm just saying I don't make the switch while playing AD&D because...

I haven't played AD&D since the 5e playtest. After years of playing 3e, then 4e, then dumping 4e to return to 3e, we decided to play a bit of 2e to refresh our impressions of AD&D. But I'll answer as if I were presented with the option of playing with ascending AC for the next AD&D game I participated in - I'd say "Hell, yes". There is nothing, absolutely nothing, descending AC brings to the table that isn't better with ascending AC with the single exception of being able to use monster stats in AD&D adventures as printed. That may have been a more important concern back in the late 1980s when the dev team was working on 2e, but it isn't now.

I'm lazy.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I'm just saying I don't make the switch while playing AD&D because...

I'm lazy.

That’s part of the reason I’m thinking of switching. It’s just easier to use ascending AC. It’s a lot of simple math in the moment or a little simple math beforehand.