Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821To 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 descending 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 an't hear you"?

Ascending AC isn't inherently better for all outcome desires. In OD&D magical shields do not automatically stack with magic armor. Only if the magic of the shield exceeds the magic of the armor does the shield magical bonus count ( and a 50% chance at that).

Ascending AC doesn't consider the plateau of the value of 20 repeated six times on the attack matrix making modifiers of a certain range meaningless in the overall hit probability calculation. If you have an AC of -1 and I need a 20 to hit you, then if your AC was -7 I would still need a 20. Furthermore if I was using a +3 sword then I would hit either of those armor classes on a 17+.

If such things are not valued in your chosen playstyle then use your ascending AC and game the fuck on. They are of value in my choice of playstyle so I will use the charts.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821To 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 descending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

Actually you're missing one other cold, hard, unassailable fact - that unless a player has either 1. Memorized his BAB or 2. Writes it down, he needs to look up BAB as well, it is dependent upon class and level.

I will give you this - Ascending AC is more efficient.  However, the actual raw gains in time assuming that the character writes down his "To Hit" information are very small.

It's similar to the Roll-Over, Roll-Under comparison.  Looking at it mathematically, Roll-Over is undoubtedly more efficient because it carries less operations.  However, everyone's mind deals with calculations differently and for some, simply making a numerical comparison (ie. is A higher then B) seems the most natural to them.

So "most efficient" when we're dealing with a fraction of a second or 1 second advantage isn't enough to outweigh how a person deals with numbers, and when looking at the complexity of the rest of a game, such as the difference between AD&D and 3e, it becomes really an insiginificant rounding error's worth of difference.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729829Question?

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.

Not the mention his complete failure to actually cite evidence of even the supposedly 'objective' portions of his complaint, relying ultimately on that old canard about 'addition is faster than subtraction,' something that isn't even true for 3 year olds and I've yet to see a single person provide actual evidence of in almost 20 years of seeing gamers parrot it as if it were unassailable truth.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729824There haven't been any strong counterpoints - only dunder-headed tenacity and contrariness.

You have missed quite a few solid points. That you choose to dismiss them as "dunder-headed" just highlights your own tenacity and contrariness.

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

No. I responded to your points initially. When it became clear you were not acknowledging valid rebuttals, I took your SA ties into account. It may seem unfair to you, but it is common sense. Grognard.txt spends a quarter of its time posting things from this site with the intent to mock them. As a member of that forum, people here are naturally going to be suspicious of you and weigh that when reading your posts. There is also the fact that you used a thread about edition warring to edition war. So it seemed like a classic derailment attempt.

I am happy to exchange ideas with your and debate, but only going to spend so much time and effort on it.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that descending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

I'll repeat: you don't actually play games, do you?

I see we're back to the "THAC0 is just as easy as BAB" argument.

Let's see, I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare to AC, or I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare it to (THAC0 - AC).  I wonder which one is easier and more intuitive?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821To 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 descending 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"?

You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729858You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

I see we're back on the "One die roll mechanic to rule them all" argument. You're just as fucking stupid as he is and are ASSuming AD&D = D&D 3rd edition. They're not the same game, so THAC0 vs. BAB isn't even a real argument to begin with.

Calling anything remotely subjective a "cold, hard fact" is about about dishonest as it gets.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729857I see we're back to the "THAC0 is just as easy as BAB" argument.

Let's see, I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare to AC, or I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare it to (THAC0 - AC).  I wonder which one is easier and more intuitive?

By the way, i acknowledged that BAB is more intuitive and efficient for most people and therefore a good deaign choice for d20 and for D&D going forward. I was just pointing out that some of us find thac0 and matrices easier in practice (especially if you have charts) and that there is the advantage it confers of backwards compatibility with older material. There is also the specific problem in d20 of the numbers getting a bit out of control, which is harder to reign in with BAB if you want attacks to improve as you level and still have the scope of AD&D (because those numbers were imbedded in your thac0 score or in the matrices before). The issue i took with gizmo's claim is the suggestion that it can be viewed as objectively superior in isolation. To me that doesn't hold if i can think of instances where it would be better to employ thac0 or matrices (i.e. A game designed to be compatible with the old D&D modules and supplements, a game meant to appeal to people who happen to prefer matrices or thac0 trackers, etc).

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729858You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

I do not believe anyone has claimed it is better than BAB, only that it does have some benefits and that some people (definitley a minority) do find it easier. That isn't exaclty a radical claim. It acknowledges that BAB for the wider audience was a good move, a positive devlelopment in the game. It just points out some people still prefer using a chart or thac0 score because it works better for them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729131In general, all things being equal, ascending AC is objectively more intuitive than something like THAC0 or the attack matrix.  We know this because ascending math is more intuitive than descending math.

That being said, more intuitive does not mean objectively better.  It all depends on what your preferences are.  When you're dealing with a game, the only thing that is objectively better is the thing that helps the player enjoy the game more.  For some, that's ascending AC.  For others, it's an attack matrix.

I'm going to repeat this, and hope that by some strange miracle, certain people don't continue to ignore it and actually think about it.

Quote from: Brad;729860I see we're back on the "One die roll mechanic to rule them all" argument. You're just as fucking stupid as he is and are ASSuming AD&D = D&D 3rd edition. They're not the same game, so THAC0 vs. BAB isn't even a real argument to begin with.

Calling anything remotely subjective a "cold, hard fact" is about about dishonest as it gets.

Subjective: your preferences.

Objective: THAC0 is less intuitive (lower AC = better?), is more convoluted (+1 armor reduces AC?), and requires an additional step (THAC0 - AC = target number).

Just so that Sommerjon feels vindicated in his signature - "Frankly, who gives a fuck?" :idunno:

Some like vanilla, some like chilli chicken. Some like Pink, some like Pink Floyd. Some even like both.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729863I do not believe anyone has claimed it is better than BAB

No, but Gizmoduck definitely claimed BAB is objectively better than THAC0. It's a different mechanic and gives you different information. People who cannot comprehend that the information provided by THAC0 differs from that provided by BAB probably have never actually played the game they're talking about. So the phrase "in actual play" is a fucking joke coming from their mouths. I wouldn't have one issue with, "I hate THAC0 and for me BAB is way better". That's a perfectly legitimate statement to make. The issue is simply saying THAC0 is a complete waste of time and a useless mechanic; it's not. It is different. That's it.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729865Subjective: your preferences.

Objective: THAC0 is less intuitive (lower AC = better?), is more convoluted (+1 armor reduces AC?), and requires an additional step (THAC0 - AC = target number).

It's not less intuitive if you play wargames. Hence, it has nothing to do with intuition, by definition. Gooby pls, learn to word. Also, there aren't additional steps. That is just some bullshit someone magically came up with.