Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9770535" data-attributes="member: 7026594">How so?  When I got 2E I found THAC0 a welcome rationalization and convenience compared to the combat matrices I learned on from BECMI and 1E.  I do think descending AC in general is counter-intuitive, though the <a href="https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-best-combat-algorithm.html" target="_blank">Target 20 variatio</a>n makes it simpler and more straightforward, especially if you just give Fighters a straight +1 to hit per level (<a href="https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-did-armor-class-descend-from-9-to-2.html" target="_blank">as was the original idea</a>, before they changed the formula to a table in the 1974 published rules) and other classes a ratio thereof. Nowadays I find it ruefully humorous how D&D's combat rules were made and then kept harder to understand because they were trying to appeal to existing customers over new ones.  First by changing the simple playtest formula of "20 - AC is your target, add Fighter level to your roll" to matrices/tables like wargamers would expect to see, then truncating those tables into "chunks" where advancement is slowed to only every few levels, purely to save page space!  And then again when AD&D 1E was published, choosing to stick with descending AC for reasons of familiarity to existing players (see DMG p.164 where Gygax mentions this).  And then of course 2E kept descending AC for the same reason of continuity/familiarity/reverse compatibility.  It amazes me to realize that we could/should have had ascending AC more than 20 years earlier, but didn't from conservatism/fear of alienating existing customers.</blockquote>

Verification