Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6235565" data-attributes="member: 8835">It may also be that the more open-ended nature of 3e's attack roll resolution is an artifact of re-arranging where the 3 values go.In 1e/2e the PC had an Attack Value (descending in nature).  A fighter had 21 - level as his attack value.  In 3e, to make big numbers mean better, it was simply Level.In 1e/2e the PC had an AC (5 for chainmail if I recall).  In 3e, as part of the inversion to make big numbers be good, it was 10 +5, so AC 15.The last variable was the die roll.So in 1e/2e it was AV - AC < d20 means successIn 3e, it was AV + d20 >= AC means successSince 1e/2e started with 2 values having fixed maximums (THAC0 20 and AC 10), that kind of locked in things.Once those variables were inverted, the upper bounds became unlimited, though the mathematical behavior remains intrinsically the same when using the basic game stats for armor and THAC0/BAB, the expression was clearer for most folks (a subject claim, I know).So in my view, D&D did and did not change it's mechanical design for combat.  the basic stats remain the same (BAB progression runs at the same rates per class as THAC0 progression did as did AC).The inversion can be initially viewed as a minor tweak to make the math easier to absorb and make consistent (big is good). But it clearly had side effects like removing an upper bounds for really good ACs or really good Attack Values.</blockquote>