Quote from: StormBringer;518762"Tell me how awesome scaling AC with level is".

I did that, but it caused a collective grogneurism.

Quote from: StormBringer;518762You really should have named this thread "Tell me how awesome scaling AC with level is".

I wanted to see if anyone could provide a solid argument against it.  It appears not.

Quote from: Aos;518765I did that, but it caused a collective grogneurism.

*grumble grumble*

Quote from: B.T.;518767I wanted to see if anyone could provide a solid argument against it.  It appears not.

I got one for you: it's redundant and obfuscates the real math behind the game. If you have attacks that scale and AC that scales, that's really no different from scaling attacks by the difference between those two modifiers. So in fact you're doing the same thing in both cases, just separating the modifiers artificially. It's much better, easier to comprehend, to simplify the whole thing and have the math show at one end of the equation instead of both ends.

My urge to troll over the last couple of days is getting out of hand.

Quote from: B.T.;518767I wanted to see if anyone could provide a solid argument against it.  It appears not.

No, it only appears that way to you because you refuse to see the inherent problems with what you want to do.  I would guess you feel right at home asking what game system would work best for a Quackpunk 1811 game with elements of Cthulhu and then rejecting every single suggestion with ever more ridiculous reasons.

Quote from: StormBringer;518773No, it only appears that way to you because you refuse to see the inherent problems with what you want to do.

When those answers are (a) always fighting orcs (wrong) and (b) THAC0 is great (fuck you), there's no real discussion to be had.

Care to answer my previous post, BT?

Quote from: Benoist;518801Care to answer my previous post, BT?

No, as it was trolling.

Quote from: B.T.;518803No, as it was trolling.

Er? No, really. I swear to God. It was not trolling. I was dead serious.

Quote from: B.T.;518803No, as it was trolling.

Er? No, really. I swear to God. It was not trolling. I was dead serious.

Statistically, whether you scale the numbers on the two sides of the attack bonus (one modifier, +"A") v. AC (another modifier, +"B") equation or combine these modifiers to affect only one side of the equation (the attack bonus, +["A" minus "B"], versus the AC, which remains static) works exactly the same. If you have a choice between these two possibilities, with them being statistically equal, it makes no sense to obfuscate and complicate the math of the game by scaling both attacks and AC. I'll go for static ACs and scaled attack bonus instead.

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

No. You're still painfully, stupidly wrong about this. So I'll correct you once again.

There are two ways to achieve "always fighting orcs":

(1) You never improve and your opponents never improve, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

(2) You improve and all your opponents improve at the same rate, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

The only way to avoid "always fighting orcs" is if you improve (e.g., stuff scales with level) but at least some of your opponents don't.

Quote from: Benoist;518771I got one for you: it's redundant and obfuscates the real math behind the game. If you have attacks that scale and AC that scales, that's really no different from scaling attacks by the difference between those two modifiers. So in fact you're doing the same thing in both cases, just separating the modifiers artificially. It's much better, easier to comprehend, to simplify the whole thing and have the math show at one end of the equation instead of both ends.

That's only true if you're exclusively fighting "level appropriate" encounters. I know you don't play like that, Benoist.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518827That's only true if you're exclusively fighting "level appropriate" encounters. I know you don't play like that, Benoist.

Well no. In my example, always fighting level appropriate encounters would be like "A" (attack mod.) being always strictly equal to "B" (AC mod.), in which case the total attack bonus in my latter proposition ["A" minus "B"] would flatline throughout the levels, which doesn't have to be the case, does it?

And even if ["A" minus "B"] flatlined throughout levels, equating it to "always fighting orcs" is based on the notion that everything else is basically equal and the same throughout the game: the static AC and damage dealt by all creatures is exactly the same for all creatures regardless of equipment, magical properties, racial capabilities and whatnot, their Hit Points and Saves and HDs are all the same, and so on. Likewise for PC capabilities, perks acquired along levels (like say, abilities that make you attack better, or a magical sword or whatnot), damage output, etc etc. All these are variables which could be acted upon so that in effect, you don't always fight orcs.

But that wasn't my point. My point is that adding modifiers on two sides of the equation is more complicated, convoluted, harder to control with all the other moving parts of the game and obfuscates the math compared to putting all the same modifiers on just one side of the equation. So static AC and scaled attack bonuses make the most sense to me, on a practical point of view.

Quote from: B.T.;518796When those answers are (a) always fighting orcs (wrong) and (b) THAC0 is great (fuck you), there's no real discussion to be had.

Then you need to take up your argument over a)  with reality, because increasing all the numbers simultaneously means nothing really changes.  You can make a big show about demons having a tail and horns, so it's totally different than a dragon, who is a slightly darker shade of red, but if the odds have remained the same since first level, you aren't playing an improved character.  You are playing the exact same character with a shinier sword.  Hell, you proved my point for me:

Quote from: B.T.;518644...a baubau is CR 7 with 19 AC and a succubus is CR 7 with 20 AC.  Are they "the same"?

Yes, they are the same.  You proved it with the numbers.  Like I explained exhaustively before, you can't have hit points, AC, attacks and damage all scale equally or you are on a pretty treadmill always fighting orcs.  If the player's AC bonus scales with the monster's level, you will never get off that treadmill.

As for b), I defy you to find anywhere where I say THAC0 is great.  It would help your cause immensely to make some kind of attempt at a good faith discussion, and that usually starts with at least a fundamental grasp of what other people are saying.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518827No. You're still painfully, stupidly wrong about this. So I'll correct you once again.

Didn't you embarrass yourself enough the last time and slink away from the conversation?

QuoteThere are two ways to achieve "always fighting orcs":

(1) You never improve and your opponents never improve, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

(2) You improve and all your opponents improve at the same rate, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

Point out where anything I said contradicts this.  Bonus points if you use #2 to do so, because that is exactly what I have been saying.
Addendum:  You don't get to claim the only valid definition.

QuoteThe only way to avoid "always fighting orcs" is if you improve (e.g., stuff scales with level) but at least some of your opponents don't.

I wonder where I heard that before...

Oh, yeah, I remember now.  It was the first fucking comment in the thread:

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

I see two options here:
1) Instead of rushing to get your rocks off by 'winning the interwebz', you might want to work on the reading comprehension just a touch.  If you want to present a smarter argument, it helps to actually have a smarter argument.

2) Read a book.  Try looking outside of your little bubble once in a while and actually explore other ideas.  I promise your world will not collapse.  Instead of linking to nothing but your own blog in a conversation, try finding something that isn't your blog that supports your contention or the point you are making.  Solipsism seems like a bulwark so you can fluff your ego thinking you are always right, but I swear, it's actually a very weak position to argue from.

QuoteThat's only true if you're exclusively fighting "level appropriate" encounters. I know you don't play like that, Benoist.

Or, the encounters that are comprised of "opponents" who are "scaled" to the character's "level" as "appropriate" is like "always fighting orcs", as implied by the CR system and rather more explicit in 4e.

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

I wish I could have a level of insight like that.