D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Remathilis]

What this hobby could really use is a Hug a Grognard Day

Sponsored by Old Spice and Dove soap.

 

[ezo]

View attachment 401974
Oh so high Dexterity makes your AC worse then?

Um... that's NOT armor. That is your Defensive Adjustment...

For ARMOR (which is what was being discussed), "minus is not minus" for AC.

Take your insults elsewhere, please and thank you.

What insult? Minus is not minus for armor. People said they struggled with it, so I asked if maybe you were one of them??

 

[ezo]

Keep in mind that the Defensive Adjustment also applied to Saving Throws. In the text, IIRC, there is a description of how the number alters AC in the opposite direction. This table can definitely be confusing if players weren't reading the rules.

At least 2E tried to clean it up a bit, more by addressing the fact people were treating the AC values as actual numbers (to be directly mathematically adjusted) and not as classes or categories of protection.

 

[CellarHeroes]

At least 2E tried to clean it up a bit, more by addressing the fact people were treating the AC values as actual numbers (to be directly mathematically adjusted) and not as classes or categories of protection.

Absolutely! I can definitely understand someone coming from modern games not grasping right away that AC is not the To-Hit number.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It's not true that only two examples were given. Others included language surrounding changes to the lore and explicit statements from folks on the D&D design team that grognards were not worth listening to.

Well, I’ve provided my citations, I invite you to provide yours.

 

[The Firebird]

Well, I’ve provided my citations, I invite you to provide yours.

I have. See my previous posts.

In the first case, regarding claims about grognards not worth listening to (I'll just include just a small part of relevant posts to keep the post length reasonable). Also limiting this to my posts because I remember those best.

It works for me. Post IDs are #504 and #574 for the grognard claims; #597, #705, and #713 for the lore; #496 and #543 for the broader context. You can check my post history if you want more context.

I'm not really sure how the ignore feature works, but I imagine that could cause you or FrozenNorth to be missing pieces of the discussion. If you can't see those posts, I hope you'll take my word for it that these other claims were raised.

 

[Lanefan]

Wayne Reynolds remain one of the greats of the D&D art pantheon.

If the posted examples (thanks @dave2008 ) are representative of his work in general, I'd beg to differ.

 

[Bae'zel]

In the end I think most players couldn't care less how others play the game in the privacy of their homes. Online we just debate semantics and preferences, opinions stated as irrefutable facts or challenges to others' playstyles.

You have to expect some of us to challenge statements like "THAC0 was universally and easily understood by everyone and no more complex than the current ascending AC system". I mean... I know that lived experiences != evidence but... well we're not scientists doing peer review here.

 

[Bae'zel]

If the posted examples (thanks @dave2008 ) are representative of his work in general, I'd beg to differ.

I've never been a fan, but I respect any artist who makes it big in the industry.

I just wish he showed some restraint (those giant, overly elaborate swords with multiple wavy hooks... RETCH).

 

[Lanefan]

The problem was, the modifiers can get pretty impressive.

Be Elf. +1 to hit with sword. +1 to hit with 17 Strength. Possible +2 to hit from Bladesong Fighting Style. +1 to hit from weapon specialization. Maybe +1 to hit from exceptional quality sword.

Now add some magic.

+1 sword, +3 vs. regenerating creatures. +3 (actually +2) to hit from Gauntlets of Ogre power. +1 to hit from Bless.

Or hey, instead of Bladesong, how about two-weapon fighting? +1/+2/+3/+4 flametongue in one hand, +2 short sword of quickness in the other.

I have a Samurai with two different Strength scores, normal and 18/00 when he uses his kiai. Rangers occasionally get a +4 against certain foes, and Dwarves and Gnomes have +1 against certain foes.

An evil character fighting a Paladin suddenly has a -1.

What if your DM uses weapon vs. armor type optional rules? Then each weapon potentially has like 9 different bonuses based on the armor in question!

Oh, you want to make a called shot? That's a -4 to hit. Situational modifiers- a rear attack ignores Shield AC and gives you +2 to hit- but it's +4 to hit if you're a Thief. Attacking with two weapons can impose -2 to hit with one weapon and -4 to hit with the other...or less, depending on Dexterity. Defender invisible? -4. Defender off-balance? +2.

(Hey Anakin, do you remember what bonus Obi-Wan has for the high ground? It's +1!)

Speaking of Thieves, for some reason, if you're a multiclass Thief, you might have to keep track of two different Thac0's- say, your Fighter one, and your Thief one with +4 to hit when using Backstab.*

*I don't believe this was stated in the PHB, though I saw it as a house rule at some tables, and it was eventually confirmed in Dragon #243, which clarified how multiclassing was supposed to work, which most of my DM's ignored, as they'd come to their own conclusions about multiclassing by that point, lol.

Some monsters have multiple AC's, like the Bullette, depending on where you attack it. Some enemies have -4 to hit Dwarves.

And this is far, far from exhaustive.

The way I do it, the players don't know the foe's AC.

They roll the die and add on any bonuses they know they have - strength, magic, prayer or bless effects, etc. - and give me a number.

I-as-DM take that number, apply any bonuses or penalties the players don't know about - unknown magic, bane effects, etc. - then add the character's effective "fight level" (equivalent to BAB) and the target's AC to the result. (THAC0 really messes up this step!)

I then compare the result against the number 20. Exceed it, you hit. Otherwise, you miss.