So, an anti anti edition warrior warrior?

Quote from: Old Geezer;730124So, an anti anti edition warrior warrior?

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.

That is not accurate.

Descending AC:

• You take the number the players gives you
• You cross reference the targets AC with the players level on a chart
• You compare the players result with the target number to determine success/failure

Step two can either happen before or after the attack roll, but it does have to happen.

versus:

Ascending AC

• You take the number that the player gives you
• You compare the player's result with the target number to determine success/failure.

You will notice that an entire step is missing from this process. That's because the target number in 3E is directly stated in the monster stats under "armor" class. In your example, the target number is arrived at by the extraneous step of cross referencing on a chart.

Now can you explain where this extra step adds value to the process?

Quote from: Omega;730014Just 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.

That is not accurate. People on the pro-descending AC argument keep forgetting the the target number to-hit in AD&D is derived, rather than stated.

With descending AC there are at lease three distinct operations:

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Derive target number, either through cross referencing on a chart or through a Thac0 calculation
• Compare result to target number

Ascending AC only has two distinct operations

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Compare result to a target number

Anyway you look at it, deriving the target number is an extra step. An extra step that doesn't add anything to gameplay, like say a hit location system would.

As for the incessant bonus juggling, this is a disingenuous argument.

• First, bonus stacking is merely an appendage to the rule of basic attack resolution, which is what this argument is about.
  
• Second, most bonuses in 3E are front loaded right on the character sheet and don't change from round-to-round. The exceptions are circumstantial modifiers and those from bolstering/debilitating spells.
  
• Third, circumstantial modifiers and bolstering/debilitating spells exist in AD&D as well as 3E.
  

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.

Do you ever even try to make a cogent point, or do you just troll every argument you don't agree with.

Seriously, you're only arguments thus far has been this:

*scoff* "This guy! Amiright? Eh? Ehhh?"

And this:

"Can't hear you! LALALALALA"

But whatever. Here is an objective fact for you:

Attack rolls in D&D, classic and modern, are both designed to perform the exact same function: determine success of attacks on a binary pass/fail basis.

Here is another objective fact:

Attacks against ascending AC take two distinct operations to resolve.

Attacks against descending AC take three distinct operations to resolve.

These are objective facts, and not matters of opinion. If you can't agree with this, then you are either lying or insane.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730039No. 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.

So...a character of X-level needs a 20 to hit an AC of -7, while a creature of Y-HD might only need a 17?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729962I 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.

Like I said, one inferior rule does not invalidate the entire game. It's perfectly fine for people to enjoy classic D&D more than modern D&D. Both permutations are package deals and you accept them for what they are warts and all, because the whole of the package is ultimately more fun for you. I get that, and I'm not arguing against that.

All I'm arguing is that between two systems that are designed to perform the exact same function, one does the job faster and easier than the other, and suddenly people are acting like I pissed on their favorite bible.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730143That is not accurate. People on the pro-descending AC argument keep forgetting the the target number to-hit in AD&D is derived, rather than stated.

With descending AC there are at lease three distinct operations:

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Derive target number, either through cross referencing on a chart or through a Thac0 calculation
• Compare result to target number

Ascending AC only has two distinct operations

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Compare result to a target number

Anyway you look at it, deriving the target number is an extra step. An extra step that doesn't add anything to gameplay, like say a hit location system would.

As for the incessant bonus juggling, this is a disingenuous argument.

• First, bonus stacking is merely an appendage to the rule of basic attack resolution, which is what this argument is about.
  
• Second, most bonuses in 3E are front loaded right on the character sheet and don't change from round-to-round. The exceptions are circumstantial modifiers and those from bolstering/debilitating spells.
  
• Third, circumstantial modifiers and bolstering/debilitating spells exist in AD&D as well as 3E.
  

Yah riiight.
No. WRONG!

AD&D
A: GM states target AC.
B: Player refferences chart for number to =/>
C: Player rolls. Its a hit or a miss.
Possibly with a D: add bonus, which tends to be static so once you know it, you know it.

BAB
A: Roll attack
B: add static bonuses:
C: Add bonuses that change from round to round.
D: GM applies bonuses to target number because they get them too sometimes and they too can change from round to round
E: GM states target number. (This really should be first.) Hit or miss.

THAC0
A: THAC0 minus target AC
B: Add bonuses which like in AD&D tend to be relatively unchanging.

I may not like THAC0 overly. It just does not click for me. BUT as a game designer I know it is about as simple as it gets if you can do basic math in your head. And becomes absurdly simple if converted to a chart for quick glance. AD&D and 2nd ed are just that easy since they work at a glance at a table.

Back on subject.
Gizmo here exemplafies my previous example of edition warriors who set up on others a reflex negative reaction because hes trolling like there is no tomorrow.

This is truly the shiniest of all hamster wheels.

OD&D:

Player rolls d20, adds any appropriate bonus.
Player tells number to referee.
Referee looks number up on chart and informs player if she hit.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730159OD&D:

Player rolls d20, adds any appropriate bonus.
Player tells number to referee.
Referee looks number up on chart and informs player if she hit.

A&B are one step really.

and thats how I GMed AD&D early on when I was the only one GMing and it was easier to just have everyone roll and then call hit/miss.

Quote from: Imp;730158This is truly the shiniest of all hamster wheels.

That's great, I'm going to have to steal it at some point.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730134

Look, I've been waiting to make that joke since the thread started.

Quote from: Omega;730156Yah riiight.
No. WRONG!

AD&D
A: GM states target AC.
B: Player refferences chart for number to =/>
C: Player rolls. Its a hit or a miss.
Possibly with a D: add bonus, which tends to be static so once you know it, you know it.

BAB
A: Roll attack
B: add static bonuses:
C: Add bonuses that change from round to round.
D: GM applies bonuses to target number because they get them too sometimes and they too can change from round to round
E: GM states target number. (This really should be first.) Hit or miss.

THAC0
A: THAC0 minus target AC
B: Add bonuses which like in AD&D tend to be relatively unchanging.

I may not like THAC0 overly. It just does not click for me. BUT as a game designer I know it is about as simple as it gets if you can do basic math in your head. And becomes absurdly simple if converted to a chart for quick glance. AD&D and 2nd ed are just that easy since they work at a glance at a table.

Back on subject.
Gizmo here exemplafies my previous example of edition warriors who set up on others a reflex negative reaction because hes trolling like there is no tomorrow.

That is complete bullshit.

Firstly, you are artificially separating one function into two.

Secondly, you are overestimating the amount of bonus yoyo-ing involved with 3E, and ignoring the fact that classic D&D also has circumstantial modifiers.

Thirdly, this is not an edition war. It's about one rule. I'm not advocating one edition over another, just one singular rule.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730144Attacks against ascending AC take two distinct operations to resolve.
Attacks against descending AC take three distinct operations to resolve.

These are objective facts, and not matters of opinion.

Let's assume everyone currently in this thread agreed to this.

Where do you go from here?  Is that it?  2 vs. 3 was all you were going for, or are you going to draw a further conclusion?