Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;452837I just hate looking up the chart again if you close the book. I'm fine either way.

So, don't leave the relevant portion of the chart in the book! Official D&D and AD&D character record sheets included spaces to write that down. Also, the matrices were commonly on the DM's screen.

For that matter, you can calculate rolls in C&C (or 2e or 3e or 4e) the first time they're needed and write them down so at least you won't have to do it again during the present fight.

-----

OD&D fighter levels 4-6 (from the actual table in Volume 1):
AC: 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
d20 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08

+1 for strength (Supp. I), +1 for magic:
AC: 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
d20 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06

plus weapon vs AC for sword (Supp. I):
AC: 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
d20 15 13 11 10 09 08 07 05
d20 10 10 09 09 if foe dismounted and prone


If a target is in plate & shield (AC 2) but each has +1 magic, then that's -2 to the roll: hit on 17+.

What "d20 system" does is require one to add another math factor for class and level. In old D&D, that's already included in the numbers on the level/hit dice vs. AC matrices. Those numbers equal "ascending AC" minus "Base Attack Bonus".

Old D&D saves one step. That's all there is to it, not a big deal. It would work the same with ACs of 1 through 8, or with actual armor types listed such as "mail and shield".

The 9 to 2 range is presumably a legacy from an abandoned rule in which it had some special use (maybe with 2d6). Nobody found it worth the trouble to go through and rewrite all the monsters and what not. It didn't break the new system, and people already had dungeon levels stocked and so on.

-----

(Supplement I added the rule that armor and shield magics 'stack'. It also included a chart extending 'AC' -- now decoupled from actual classes of armor -- past 2 on down to -8. I find the latter especially cumbersome when using the weapon vs. armor factors. Those are the same kind of trouble if you plug them into 3e.)

Quote from: jgants;452825I think descending AC was fine back for the chart days, myself.

I don't think AC really reached "bad design" stage until the introduction of negative AC combined with THAC0.  To me, that was when the whole thing just got stupid.

That's what I meant with "looking at ACs as armour types, kind of like a wargame, rather than raw numbers" and "THAC0 is a reference for the DM, period." It's about using the charts from the DM's side of the screen. The players don't deal with mental calculus "to hit" bullshit, except for adding this or that mod derived from a magic weapon or stat. If you start considering ACs as raw numbers and using THAC0 for mental calculus in the game, it becomes counter-intuitive BS. Add gonzo magic items and the negative ACs they bring on top of it, and you've got a recipe for "WTF" reactions around the game table, or on game forums for that matter.

Hence, no "THAC0 chart" with all ACs calculations on character sheets in my 1e games. Just listen to the descriptions of the dudes you fight, tell me what your character does, and roll your d20 if need be. I'll tell you what happens.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;452837I just hate looking up the chart again if you close the book. I'm fine either way.

That's why you got stuff like tables gathered in an appendix in the back of the book to photocopy, DM screens, reference sheets and the like. Now with PDFs and the whole shebang, you just print the tables, keep a few sheets with you as you run the game or stapple them to your screen or whatnot, and you're done. Not to mention that in practice you get to know the numbers instinctively after a few sessions.

Quote from: BenoistIf you start considering ACs as raw numbers and using THAC0 for mental calculus in the game, it becomes counter-intuitive BS.

For some people, yeah. Those I actually know have the same problem with 3e and 4e, though.

THAC0 17, AC 4. Roll 1d20, add 4, hit on total of 17+ (13+ on dice).

AC 15, BAB +2. Roll 1d20, add 2, hit on total of 15+ (13+ on dice).

As the saying goes, it's just "six of one, half a dozen of another".

Quote from: BenoistJust listen to the descriptions of the dudes you fight, tell me what your character does, and roll your d20 if need be. I'll tell you what happens.

Same here, by preference. The added burden on the DM makes efficient methods only the more important, at least if one values the fast action possible in old D&D.

This is one reason I tend not to use weapon vs. armor type modifiers. It's one more thing to figure. I tried the 1st ed. AD&D version recently, in circumstances in which it was necessary for me to do all the work, not just for monsters but for several characters. Ugh.

It can be more of a drag than other things because it varies so much: from weapon to weapon and target to target, those possibly changing from round to round.

It just isn't worth it to me. The distinctions to which it draws so much attention are not the ones to which I want to spend my time and energy paying attention. YMMV.

In the 1E AD&D days, I had several photocopies of the to-hit combat table pages.  Depending on the game, sometimes I also had photocopies of the weapons vs. AC adjustment tables.

If I had continued playing in the 2E AD&D era, I certainly would have made several photocopies of the to-hit combat tables.

Either way armor still makes you harder to hit which was always an abstraction of arguable merit.

It seems more out of place in a complex game like 3rd or 4th edition than basic or Advanced 1e where large miniatures battles are implicit in the rules.  not explicit but why do you think you have 100 followers and there's 200+ orcs appearing?

Quote from: David Johansen;452965Either way armor still makes you harder to hit which was always an abstraction of arguable merit.

What's the alternative?  Armor which soaks up damage?

Quote from: David Johansen;452965Either way armor still makes you harder to hit which was always an abstraction of arguable merit.

I'll argue that one merit is one less thing to calculate.

Four attacks against figure X? No problem. With dice of matching colors, I can toss 4d20 and 4d6 in a single handful. Miss, miss, hit, hit, 4 plus 3 is 7 points. Done.

In a game like Runequest, we've got to subtract armor from each hit's damage -- which may result in no damage being scored after all.

Why no damage? Because you were so much harder to hit -- to stab or slash your flesh, or even smash your bones -- that your armor took it all.

At the end of the fight, you have still taken X points of damage on average.

"Six of one..." !

Quote from: Phillip;452950Same here, by preference. The added burden on the DM makes efficient methods only the more important, at least if one values the fast action possible in old D&D.

The fastest method I used back in the 1E AD&D era, was to just write down the to-hit numbers each individual player had to roll in order to hit a particular monster which I had prepared in advanced for several encounters.  (Also I would write down the to-hit numbers the monsters had to roll in order to hit a particular player).

It saved time every round during combat, from having to do table lookups.

On AC:

I think the argument is a tempest in a teapot.  For me, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.  I have a mild preference for the traditional approach, but I don't have a problem with an attack bonus and ascending AC values.  The way I look at it, the math is the same.

On C&C:

I've made some detailed comments on C&C in the past.  That's still where I'm at with it.  I liked it a lot a first, but after running it for a while found more and more that bugged me (almost always related to the SIEGE engine), and eventually realized that TSR D&D suits me better.  I wouldn't turn down a game of C&C, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a D&D-type RPG.

Photocopier's a good idea these days. When I was a kid, I didn't have one, or a DM screen (I found out about the existence of DM screens sometime in the mid-90's and it blew my mind). We did the writing down thing with varying levels of success.

There was one guy in my group who could not for the life of him either write it down nor remember it nor do maths nor remember any other rule (my childhood best friend Erik). Thus began the policy of resolving all fights in game with fights out of game, as I've mentioned elsewhere. So descending AC does have its downsides, kinda.

Quote from: ggroy;452972The fastest method I used back in the 1E AD&D era, was to just write down the to-hit numbers each individual player had to roll in order to hit a particular monster which I had prepared in advanced for several encounters.  (Also I would write down the to-hit numbers the monsters had to roll in order to hit a particular player).

It saved time every round during combat, from having to do table lookups.

Long story short, that was A LOT of work for 6 characters versus a dungeon level with a number of monsters likewise using human type arms and armor (as opposed to fang and hide).

There was enough for my taste in just getting "nominal AC" (e.g., -2 or -3) for characters in usual stance, plus without shield and without dexterity. Remember to lose the shield's magic bonus, right?

Add in a panoply of weapons, and you've got two or more different chances to hit for the same attacker versus the same target. Then you've got the same attacker versus different targets. The +/- values for each weapon depend not on "nominal" but on actual AC. The base chance to hit depends not on actual but on "nominal" AC.

As I wrote, it just wasn't worth it to me.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;452989Photocopier's a good idea these days. When I was a kid, I didn't have one, or a DM screen (I found out about the existence of DM screens sometime in the mid-90's and it blew my mind). We did the writing down thing with varying levels of success.

There was one guy in my group who could not for the life of him either write it down nor remember it nor do maths nor remember any other rule (my childhood best friend Erik). Thus began the policy of resolving all fights in game with fights out of game, as I've mentioned elsewhere. So descending AC does have its downsides, kinda.

This was "old school" by our standards at the time ('94, age 11-12) because we had previously been using this method in the interstitial period between Erik declaring those flippy paper randomiser things "gay" and me buying a full set of D&D dice sometime around '93 (which I still have). I think I've rolled an actual Palladium attack roll like, twice in my life, despite playing TMNT for over a year.

Playing with miniatures at a friend's house, we used to have combats settled by his cat.

Another reminiscence: Usually, just one guy had the rule book for a game. That's why he was the referee. The rest of us were spending our $12 a pop or whatever on other games to add to our collective repertoire.

AC, DC, C&C, whatever your Highway to Hell, the main thing is that the G.O.D. has it together.

I'm sorry I can't think of anything really good or really bad to say about C&C. The mechanical differences from, say, Labyrinth Lord seem to me to be in pretty piddling details.

A n00b's larger-order considerations might get shaped by the text -- but an old hand is probably already inclined to run the game in WotC style or 2e style or old Blackmoor-Greyhawk style or whatever his or her own style is.

Quote from: Phillip;453001Playing with miniatures at a friend's house, we used to have combats settled by his cat.

Another reminiscence: Usually, just one guy had the rule book for a game. That's why he was the referee. The rest of us were spending our $12 a pop or whatever on other games to add to our collective repertoire.

The guy who had the Rules Cyclopedia aka the DM wouldn't let me read it for the first six months he had it, so I would just make up rules for whatever I wanted to do, flip my flippy paper thing until I got a number and ask him if it worked.

My response to discovering that there were more than 8 numbers required to play the game was to commission an artisan (my buddy Adam) to make me a flipper with numbers higher than 8 (I recall "72" was one of them). He betrayed me and created one of his own for his Chaotic halfling rogue with a yet higher number on it - 112! For a while, that halfling was unstoppable.

And so began the tale of John the Fighter, Half-Werebear, Half-Weretiger, Half-Wereshark, and Half-Werewolf (I got ahold of the supplement on making therianthrope PCs which was literally the only RC D&D rules I'd read for most of the time I was playing it) and eventual Therianthrope Polymath Immortal after I declared I wanted to be an immortal and flipped an "8" (the highest of all possible legitimate flips, a sign of rectitude and suitability for high office).