Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4692075" data-attributes="member: 18280">This is true in (say) 3e; but note that this does not have to be true.  Increasing the number of modifiers with an open-ending system is intuitive because it is a way to make small differences meaningful, and because the pitfalls of doing so are not immediately obvious.A BAB (or positive AC) system can be designed where this problem does not occur.  There are several retro-clones doing this right now, and at least one retro clone that uses both positive and negative AC, so that the end user can choose which one he or she prefers.What I noted is an inherent pitfall in using positive AC in the design process (including sub-design, such as DMs making houserules, new monsters, etc.), not in the actual at-table use of the system.To my mind, these are two different issues.  Both relate to how easy it is to use THAC0 or BAB, but they relate to how easy they are to use in two different circumstances.  Game designers who want to use an AC system reminiscent of some edition of D&D merely decide whether ease-of-use at the table or ease-of-use in the design process is a better goal.  As I've said a few times now, I myself chose ease-of-use at the table.YMMV.RC</blockquote>