Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729124No matter how many ways you try to bend and twist this, the simple truth is that descending AC is objectively slower and more clunky than ascending AC. It arrives from A to B more directly, and using less steps.

Hmm, two things about this.

First, in the AD&D example, there is no reason to have 1 and 3 be separate steps.
Step 1 the player determines his total roll
Step 2, the GM takes that number, and cross references level vs. ac.  The comparison of which is higher is the same comparison as that in 3e, the only difference is the monster stat block in 3e says AC:25 and that's it.  So step 2 is faster in 3e, but not by a large margin with a screen.  A player has his Thaco written out on the sheet, and the GM tells him the AC, then we're talking fractions of a second difference.

Second, the much larger difference I think is the difference in getting the totals in 3e vs. 1e.  Conditions, Feats, Counter-Feats, there are a ton of situational modifiers (such as stat mods) that vary quite dramatically from round to round in 3e, where 1e tends to be a smaller base to which is applied a single digit modifier.

Poison, debilitating spells, tactical modifiers for facing, all are much more complex in 3e.

So to sum up, 4 steps vs. 3 steps is only when the steps are defined specifically to give 1e the higher number, and even if there are less steps in 3e, if the main step for each player is much more complex, then you're not saving time, you're losing it.

Quote from: Daztur;729179Running Basic D&D now and I still find myself converting AC to ascending in my head when I adjudicate stuff. At least for me, ascending AC is easier as long as you don't get crazy number bloat. Having to deal with +15 or whatever modifiers seems to be the problem not the underlying system...

I think most people would agree with you. BAB is definitely not going anywhere soon and it is more straightforward. Just for me, I find thac0 easier.

I do agree the big issue is the large bonuses, but those are harder to reduce in BAB (especially if you want attacks to improve by level). With Thac0 it's folded into your thac0 score. You could certainly reduce it. My understanding is next is doing just that. Haven't been following it too closely though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729157Some people like looking at the goddamn chart.  Seriously, this is one of the biggest problems goons like you have, and you're completely oblivious to it.  Some people like different things than you.  Get over it.  You're not that special, and you're no "better" than anyone else with a differing preference.  Maybe if you spent more time understanding the point of playing games, and less time mocking anyone who has a different opinion than you and doubling down on badwrong fun, you wouldn't be so narrow minded

Precicely.

I like the AD&D to hit charts (and the battle wheel!) and I just do not click to BAB. THAC0 is somewhere in between as you can just render it into a chart and whammo.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729172Gizmo, thac0 removes some of the math, by loading it onto your thac0 score instead of shifting those numbers to bab. I am the first to admit bab was a positive step in terms of making things more intutive for the majority. But every design decision comes at a cost and even bab has one. Those numbers now need to be added to your roll. Some people will find that easier (after all, adding fifteen to a d20 roll is pretty easy) but some people will find it easier to refer to your thac0 tracker and see what number you need for the situation, then add a small modifier to the roll. The problem with your calculation is you treat all steps on both side as equal, and they aren't. There is a difference between adding bab to a roll against a tn and looking at your sheet for the number you need to hit the target and adding a fairly small modifier.

And look, i think bab is probably here to stay. For most people it seems to be easier. For me though and, i am learning quite a few others, something like thac0 and attack matrices are easier.

That's still an entirely superfluous extra step that doesn't actually do anything. It's only there to make the process more complicated with absolutely no gameplay payoff. So why is it there?

Secondly, how exactly do you find descending AC easier? That means comparing two variable values as opposed to comparing one variable value to a static value (ascending AC). Yes you're dealing with smaller numbers, but you're either operating on both sides of the equation, or taking the extra step of cross referencing on a chart.

Let me ask you this: you presumably play 2nd edition as your edition of choice, and you think that Thac0 and descending AC are just hunky-dory as far as game mechanics go. So can you name one mechanic in AD&D 2nd edition that you consider to be a bad rule and why?

Quote from: Brad;729174Yes: show me empirical evidence that ascending AC is better than descending AC. I would enjoy reading the study that proves it.

Try reading the thread.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729209That's still an entirely superfluous extra step that doesn't actually do anything. It's only there to make the process more complicated with absolutely no gameplay payoff. So why is it there?

Because some people like it better.

Personally. It reduces the complexity of one of the other steps. You are stating it adds complexity, but I find it can actually reduce complexity.

QuoteSecondly, how exactly do you find descending AC easier? That means comparing two variable values as opposed to comparing one variable value to a static value (ascending AC). Yes you're dealing with smaller numbers, but you're either operating on both sides of the equation, or taking the extra step of cross referencing on a chart.

The number of comparisons isn't what slows me down, it is the difficulty if each one. I would rather have two steps with small numbers than one step with a big number. And cross referencing on a chart is not at all difficult for me. I much prefer that to adding BAB to the die roll against AC.

QuoteLet me ask you this: you presumably play 2nd edition as your edition of choice, and you think that Thac0 and descending AC are just hunky-dory as far as game mechanics go. So can you name one mechanic in AD&D 2nd edition that you consider to be a bad rule and why?

I play both 2E as well as 3E (and 1E). There are mechanics I consider bad, but not going to answer this question because you are an SA poster and I do not believe it is asked in good faith.

I should add, I did consider Thac0 bad for years, until I sat down and actually used it again. Until then I would have agreed with your points. But sitting down and returning to the 2e system I found thac0 easier than BAB from 3E. I also liked the tighter numbers which are harder to achieve without something like thac0 or matrices (unless you mess with the scale----interested to see how next handles that though, since BAB with tighter numbers would interest me).

Quote from: CRKrueger;729181Hmm, two things about this.

First, in the AD&D example, there is no reason to have 1 and 3 be separate steps.
Step 1 the player determines his total roll
Step 2, the GM takes that number, and cross references level vs. ac.  The comparison of which is higher is the same comparison as that in 3e, the only difference is the monster stat block in 3e says AC:25 and that's it.  So step 2 is faster in 3e, but not by a large margin with a screen.  A player has his Thaco written out on the sheet, and the GM tells him the AC, then we're talking fractions of a second difference.

That's still an entire extra operation devoted to deriving the target number from a creature's AC and the attacker's level. Even if it's a relatively small amount of work, it is an extra layer of complexity that does nothing but add more work for it's own sake.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729181Second, the much larger difference I think is the difference in getting the totals in 3e vs. 1e.  Conditions, Feats, Counter-Feats, there are a ton of situational modifiers (such as stat mods) that vary quite dramatically from round to round in 3e, where 1e tends to be a smaller base to which is applied a single digit modifier.

Poison, debilitating spells, tactical modifiers for facing, all are much more complex in 3e.

Those are completely separate rules. I'm talking about the basic attack resolution in AD&D vs. 3E, which is more efficient and intuitive.

What you listed is a prime example of how 3E can have a few superior rules, without being an entirely superior game altogether.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729181So to sum up, 4 steps vs. 3 steps is only when the steps are defined specifically to give 1e the higher number, and even if there are less steps in 3e, if the main step for each player is much more complex, then you're not saving time, you're losing it.

I don't actually think it is more complex. All of the math is front loaded on one side, even if the modifiers themselves are more and bigger while the other side are static, objective values like AC, or spell save DC.

If you want to see how this works out on a much smaller scale, check out Mazes & Minotaurs or D&D Next.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729212I play both 2E as well as 3E (and 1E). There are mechanics I consider bad, but not going to answer this question because you are an SA poster and I do not believe it is asked in good faith.

That is a very convenient excuse.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729213Even if it's a relatively small amount of work, it is an extra layer of complexity that does nothing but add more work for it's own sake.

Actually, it reduces complexity by subsuming a (potentially substantial) part of the calculation process into the matrix.

In any case, it's a calculation you make for the first roll, and it doesn't change much since there tend to be fewer conditions which vary from round to round in pre-3e D&D.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729214That is a very convenient excuse.

No , it isn't. I was just telling someone on another board what I would change in 2e, and I have mentioned such things here as well. But these were all with posters after real discussion. you post on Grognardtxt, which devotes a quarter of its efforts to reposting 'grog quotes' from therpgsite. So it shouldn't be a surprise if people are reluctant to answer your questions.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729128I'm not arguing that attack resolution in AD&D isn't easy, simply that 3rd edition attack resolution is easier.

1e:  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.

you guys are being trolled by SA now.  Any and all counterpoints are being ignored in hopes someone responds with an off the rails response so he can post it at grog.text.

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.

OD&D:  Player tells referee what he rolled, referee cross indexes level of player vs AC of monster on chart, beer and bratwurst all around.

Ascending armor class and attack bonus was apparently first used in Gamma World 4th edition, around 1990. It very easily could have been in 2e...

Quote from: JeremyR;729234Ascending armor class and attack bonus was apparently first used in Gamma World 4th edition, around 1990. It very easily could have been in 2e...

My understanding is they considered using it, but didn't do so because they wanted it to be backwards compatible with 1E.