Quote from: Brad;729243Nahh, I'd rather just ask for the citations to the study you did.

Read the thread.

Quote from: Haffrung;729520Pretty much. Someone who plays AD&D and uses his own adventures should be about as concerned about WotC and its marketing plans as I - someone who doesn't play Warhammer Fantasy Battles - should be concerned about Games Workshop.

But yeah, a lot of the bitching about WotC seems to come from people playing OOP editions of D&D, and people who have never even liked D&D to begin with. They labour under the delusion that the reason more people don't like what they themselves like is because those other people are tricked into playing something else by a big, bad company. I guess some people just need villains.

Okay. So you actually were not answering my post, and specifically not answering that part of my post you bolded in your quote preceding that answer, instead shifting gears completely to wonder why it is that people feel concerned about games called Dungeons & Dragons when they play one that's also called Dungeons & Dragons, and to make an equivalence between that and you not worrying about some Warhammer Fantasy Battle game you've never played in any of its iteration and don't give a shit about. Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: JRR;7292171e:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are few), announces result, DM consults monster stat block, generally one line, glances at chart, tells him whether he hits or misses.

3:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are dozens)  Player is much more likely to forget one or more of the many temporary bonuses to add, which the dm must retroactively apply to the target, DM consults monster stat block, generally one to two pages,  DM announces whether he hits or misses.

In the event the player has all his ducks in a row, doesn't forget any of the modifiers, 1E is still faster, unless the DM knows the ac of every creature the pcs may encounter.  In that event, it's slower by an eye glance.

Though it interacts with the to-hit system, modifier crunching comes from separate rules.

But let's look at that anyway: in 3E the modifiers are mostly front loaded right on the character sheet, so the only change comes from immediate sources like circumstantial bonuses or penalties, or ability drain...both of which are present in AD&D.

Here's the thing...

The purpose of to-hit rolls is to determine whether or not the attacker gets to roll damage against the target. This is true of both modern and classic D&D.

AC in modern D&D is stated, whereas AC in classic D&D is derived. That means that whether by cross referencing on a chart, or through Thac0 calculations, deriving AC is an entirely extraneous operation.

To justify this extra operation, you would have to show that the act of deriving AC adds value to the process that simply stating AC does not. Otherwise, the extra operation is just superfluous waste.

If two rules are designed to do the same thing, but one gets from point A to point B easier and more efficiently, then that rule is objectively better designed than the other.

I use roll under in 2e, because the quick reference to 100% on the d20 die in a 5% gradient allows for faster GM improvisation, therefore descending AC is empirically better.

I mean if we're all going to shit in one spot, y'know. :shrug:

Quote from: Opaopajr;729608I use roll under in 2e, because the quick reference to 100% on the d20 die in a 5% gradient allows for faster GM improvisation, therefore descending AC is empirically better.

I mean if we're all going to shit in one spot, y'know. :shrug:

Hulks and Horrors rewrote the to-hit mechanics to roll-under to match the stat check system.

Quote from: Opaopajr;729608I use roll under in 2e, because the quick reference to 100% on the d20 die in a 5% gradient allows for faster GM improvisation, therefore descending AC is empirically better.

I mean if we're all going to shit in one spot, y'know. :shrug:

So .... you roll a d20 and subtract the THACO bonus and other stuff with the descending AC as the target number???

So to hit AC -3 I roll a 12 substract 10 for my 10 levels as a warrior and then 3 for my double spec and 3 for my magic sword and ....
so I end up with (((12 -10) -3) -3) =-4 so its a hit as its lower than -3

Am I correct?

Not sure how that is simpler than d20 + BAB vs AC

I tend to agree that because the target number is the AC and your bonuses are all grouped into a single number that rarely changes, 3e is the simplest option for combat resolution.

I said nothing of thaco, I said of descending AC.

And yes, descending AC + BAB (or die roll - BAB) is empirically better. Haven't you been reading the thread?
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729586I

I think that you think I'm trying to trick you into admitting that there is one objectively better rule in WotC D&D, that it somehow makes it not okay that you prefer AD&D 1st or 2nd edition over 3rd or 4th edition. Again, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't like classic D&D, nor am I arguing that modern D&D is an all around better game, merely that one rule out of many is better than another.

You would be wrong. There are rules i like better in 3E than 2E. I am not someone who thinks TSR got everything thing right. I just happen to prefer the attack resolution system in in 2E to the one in 3E. As i said earlier, i originally returned to 2E basically to mock the old system, because i genuinely thought the old mechanics would be silly. Inwas just surprised that many of the design choices (not all) that seemed counter intuitive or clunky (and could in fact be unwieldy in play for some people) had reasons for being there. In some cases i liked those reasons. And like i said, WOtC made the right choice in going to Ascending AC. Given how many people prefer ascending and find it easier, it is absolutely the right call for d20 and later editions. I am not a hardcore old schooler by any stretch. Happy to play old school editions, but always interested in new mechanics too. And i think mechanics can be judged, just not in isolation like you are doing here (again provided the math isn't broken).

As another posted pointed out, you are just trying to derail the thread. So i am not going to contribute further to that. Counter points have been made to each of your points by several posters, and you have ignored the strongest of them.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729587Read the thread.

Oh, I read the thread. You seem to think it's somehow more difficult to look up numbers on a chart vs. in a monster manual. So, I'll ask my question again: Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards? I'm betting $50 it's the second one. Even though you're a troll, I shall point something out:

Ascending AC seems "easier" in the sense that the player tells you a number, and that number just has to be equal or great than the AC of the monster they're trying to hit. However, in ACTUAL PLAY, it's not any quicker than using the chart. I'm not concerned with esoteric BS, which directly contradicts your insistence that ascending AC is empirically better. Gooby pls, learn what empiricism means.

Quote from: talysman;729494I suppose I should also thank Zak, for getting a little crazy while trying to promote the idea that we should shun crazy people. Fortunately, I'm not going to take his advice and shun him, because I know that he says things of value most of the time, so I can forgive his off-topic ranting. We *all* cross the city limits into Crazyville every once in a while.

:huhsign:

Zak is an extremely patient (and polite, I might add) gamer who lets other gamers walk themselves to Crazyville by exposing the irrationality at the core of their arguments.

Quote from: Brad;729628Oh, I read the thread. You seem to think it's somehow more difficult to look up numbers on a chart vs. in a monster manual. So, I'll ask my question again: Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards? I'm betting $50 it's the second one. Even though you're a troll, I shall point something out:

Ascending AC seems "easier" in the sense that the player tells you a number, and that number just has to be equal or great than the AC of the monster they're trying to hit. However, in ACTUAL PLAY, it's not any quicker than using the chart. I'm not concerned with esoteric BS, which directly contradicts your insistence that ascending AC is empirically better. Gooby pls, learn what empiricism means.

To reiterate:

Both classic (descending AC) and modern (ascending AC) D&D resolve attacks with a d20 roll + modifiers vs. target number, yes? Yes.

With ascending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is stated. It as presented directly as the AC.

With descending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is derived. You need to manipulate information, either through Thac0 calculation or cross-referencing on a chart to arrive at the target number.

That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that ascending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

This in and of itself is not an indictment of the rule, but you have to show that this extra step adds value to the process - that it makes the game better in some way.

Unfortunately, the end result of attack rolls in both ascending and descending AC systems is the same: a binary pass/fail. That makes the extra step of deriving the target number completely superfluous. It's dead weight.

So in conclusion - one system (ascending ac) gets from point A (attack roll) to point B (determine success/fail) one step sooner than the other. It is faster, easier and more intuitive than descending AC. The step that ascending ac cuts out (deriving target number) adds nothing of value to the gameplay experience, so nothing is lost by streamlining the process. Therefore...ascending AC is an objectively better rule. That's not to say that ascending AC makes for a better all around game, but it is a better rule.

Now do you have any argument other than plugging your ears and chanting: "LALALA can't hear you"?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821Now do you have any argument other than plugging your ears and chanting: "LALALA an't hear you"?

Whoooaaaahhhh!  Irony overload.  I need to take a breath...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729625As another posted pointed out, you are just trying to derail the thread. So i am not going to contribute further to that. Counter points have been made to each of your points by several posters, and you have ignored the strongest of them.

There haven't been any strong counterpoints - only dunder-headed tenacity and contrariness.

And the belief that everything I say is invalid because I bought a something awful account.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729823Whoooaaaahhhh!  Irony overload.  I need to take a breath...

Can you prove that deriving a target number does not require one more operation than using a stated target number? No you cannot.

Can you detail the value added to the process by that extra step? No you cannot.

Can you explain how, between to two systems that do the exact same job, the less efficient one is better?

Can you offer any argument in favor of descending ac other than: "You're a goon, so you're automatically wrong about everything"?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729827Can you prove that deriving a target number does not require one more operation than using a stated target number? No you cannot.

Can you detail the value added to the process by that extra step? No you cannot.

Can you explain how, between to two systems that do the exact same job, the less efficient one is better?

Can you offer any argument in favor of descending ac other than: "You're a goon, so you're automatically wrong about everything"?

Question?

How many times do people need to keep pointing out to you that "better" is completely subjective because you're trying to measure what a person's preference is, rather than measure something quantifiable like volume or mass, and therefore your entire argument is flawed from the get go, before it finally sinks in?

I'm pretty sure it's been clearly explained to you nearly a dozen times, and yet you keep ignoring it.

Thus my comment about irony overload.