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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="teitan" data-source="post: 8921575" data-attributes="member: 3457">3 of those are die rolls and one is not. That’s a key to understanding AD&D. If you roll the die you add it. If it is a static number you subtract it. Even with NWP. You take an NWP that is +2 STR it’s rolling under your STR+2 and if your STR is 12 that is a 14. But with AC it’s a static number so it’s subtracted. When you look at 1e for a different example, the weapon vs armor table. You see certain weapons get a bonus vs armor types and what appears a penalty against armor types but that isn’t actually how the table works. This is the key to understanding how AC works and the standardization that occurred in 2e and why it is confusing. On that table the + is added to the attackers die roll but the Penalty is actually an AC adjustment for the defender! It’s mathematically the same but strategically different. It emulates the effect of the weapon Vs the armor. Chainmail wasn’t a +5 to Armor class. It was AC 5. A Shield was an adjustment to AC, as was a dex bonus. So Chainmail with a dex of 15 and a shield was an AC 3. (Not accurate numbers most likely). The AC charts listed Armor types. You’ll also note in 1e they didn’t have a 20 was always a hit, they had to hit numbers above 20 on the charts and that was with the Weapon vs armor type charts taken into account. So some weapons we able to with the bonus to hit, strike those unhittable target numbers because of the weapon vs armor type modifications and it is why some monsters were described as have natural armor like “Chainmail” for instance. In 2e it was changed to AC +5 because it was mathematically the same but in 0e and 1e the emulation was a different effect. They effectively say the same thing but the change in how they presented it made it needlessly more confusing in 2e.</blockquote>

Verification