Quote from: Black Vulmea;729944Being a goon doesn't make you wrong. It makes you a horse's ass.

6 +2 HD, AC4, rubbery green skin, regenerates 3 HP per round.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729959And note it totally ignores the question of "chart lookup," which is a fish riding a different unicycle completely.

Part of the problem is he is giving each step on both sides equal weight only when it suits him but differing weight only when it suits him (i.e. Subtraction being harder than adding). And different people are going to value each step differently.  I pointed out early on, thac0 and matrices allow you to fold in those big BAB numbers that grow with level, resulting in less addition or subtraction if you use a tracker for thac0 or the 1E matrices. The modifiers you do use end up being smaller, and you just look at a number on the chart for the most part. I find that incredibly easy. A lot easier than juggling the growing bonuses you get in 3E, where you might be adding a 17 or more to your d20 roll.

To me the difference was stark. I played 3E for years and loved it, and i thought going back to thac0 would be a pain. At first it was, until i used trackers for different thac0 ratings. Then i found it was honestly easier for me and faster to use thac0.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729959And note it totally ignores the question of "chart lookup," which is a fish riding a different unicycle completely.

I should actually apologize, because I let myself get drawn into the topic that I've been saying isn't relevant at all.  IMO, it shouldn't even get to the point of what might be .00004 seconds faster or not, because it's not relevant at all.

The purpose of a game is to have fun
Having fun is subjective

Therefore, the only truly relevant rule is the one that allows one to have more or less fun playing a game.  And since we've established that having fun is subjective, it by definition is not objective, and any analysis of a subset of the greater game (like a rule) cannot be objectively measured when talking in the context of what the point of games are.

My new dice are bigger than my old ones from the B/X boxed sets and are easier to read because the numbers are bigger.  That's objective.  But it's an analysis that has no relevancy on the game because the larger dice don't make me have any more fun.  GMD's logic is that the larger dice are objectively better, and what possible value do the smaller, harder to read dice have to offer.  Well, I enjoy using the older dice more.  Just like some people enjoy using THAC0 better.  There's your value.  Because for a game, enjoying it is the only real metric that matters.

Again this comes down to his broken mental process that can't seem to grasp that other people enjoy things he doesn't.  In fact, that seems to be a common trait shared among the goons; almost a requirement.  They are like a more potty-mouthed version of Sheldon from BBT.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;729949See also, 'damning with faint praise.'

No doubt there, but he isn't--to borrow his own phrasing--"objectively" terrible.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729914The relative speed of addition vs. subtraction isn't the point.

With descending AC, the target number to-hit is derived. It takes one more step to resolve than attacks vs. ascending AC. That is a fact.

Except that in 1e, there is no math involved at all.  You take the number the player gives you, and look at a chart.  Done.

Quote from: JRR;730002Except that in 1e, there is no math involved at all.  You take the number the player gives you, and look at a chart.  Done.

Hush, you and your "facts."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;729920Just makes me want to make an unholy abomination that includes BAB, descending AC, and roll under, just so more people can whine about the objective quality of things that are pretty subjective.

TN = BAB + Modifiers + AC, d20 roll under.

oddly, I actually do see benefits to it...

Yes, join the dark side, come to the empire! Mwa ha ha ha! :mad:

(actually it has been suiting my subjective bias campaigns for many years now. but, shhh! that's heretical.)

Just so I can say as a game designer that I participated in one of the most mentally stunted trolling arguments yet in regarding game design.

Lets see here then. AD&D
Im a MU level 5. Im trying to hit some whatever and the DM says roll vs AC 4.

I look at the chart and see I need a 17 or better. Bam. That is all there is to it.
Say I've got a +1 dagger. I roll and add 1. Bam and that is all there is to it. Same for the monsters.

Its all of 2 steps, 3 if you count adding bonus. And it changes very little if at all from one round to the next.

How the hell many steps are there for BAB? How many shifting +'s and -'s do you have to juggle every turn?

AD&D with its simple little charts is mechanically faster than BAB. Only THAC0 was faster and that was because it was pared down even simpler and could and was converted into a chart too. Objectively its faster too because of less incessant bonus juggling.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729922I claimed that ascending AC is an objectively better rule than descending AC. BAB and Thac0 are only by-products of these rules.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly common malady.

Quote from: Omega;730014Im a MU level 5. Im trying to hit some whatever and the DM says roll vs AC 4.

I look at the chart and see I need a 17 or better. Bam. That is all there is to it.
Say I've got a +1 dagger. I roll and add 1. Bam and that is all there is to it. Same for the monsters.

ng.

I am surprised you had the mental energy to continue playing, factoring in that +1 bonus only moments after looking at a chart. You must have been exhausted.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729913I'm sorry..but all this seems to prove is that bonuses in OD&D are superfluous and counterintuitive. If you need a 20 to hit an AC of -1 and a 20 to hit an AC of -7, then what is the practical difference between -1 and -7?

No. Bonuses are rare and DON'T make the actual d20 roll superfluous. The practical difference is that, when designing a game that uses a d20, keeping most practical results within that range isn't such a crazy idea.

What is the practical difference? You are aware of the concept of more powerful characters/creatures having a better chances to hit right?

So to someone who needs a 20 to hit there isn't much difference. To someone that could hit on much less than 20, the difference is quite significant.

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

"You keep using that word."

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

Got to give it to him though: that's an awesome example of what the thread was actually talking about... at the beginning, long ago, in a Galaxy far, far away.