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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6235772" data-attributes="member: 3192">I'm confused a bit about what you wrote, but I'll try and work it out. It's early.  [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] is right about OD&D and AC 9, I just use that system so much I forgot 1e made the change too. AC 9 is an armor class, human wearing clothes (or not) in OD&D. It's not the armor, but the band of defense 9.999(repeating) to 9.0 the armor rests somewhere within. 2e increased the boundaries of the mechanic beyond 20, beyond the variance in the actual die roll, and used 1e's "humans as above are AC 10" as default. Still, even if that doesn't matter to you results 10 down to 1 span 50% of that d20 roll for a greater chance to hit than in OD&D. 3e's base AC 10 is actually converted to 11 in the old system. So that game begins with 55% odds of hitting on its d20 attack roll. Actually, much of D&D was built on the valuations of increasing modifiers to the target number or the roll inherent in its constant variation. So it very much mattered what side you applied adjustments to. But that's getting away from the simpler point: that even the base To-Hit number is different among these three.A 2e human with a 1 point penalty for being unarmed would apply the point to the attacker's roll. Their AC doesn't change from 10, but odds have shifted in their opponent's favor. Those odds are not the same as if we worsened their AC to 11. Or what I believe you are saying is 9 so it can be just like OD&D, which would actually be an improvement. I'm not clear on what you were meaning here.</blockquote>

Verification