Quote from: B.T.;518644I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense.  THAC0 scales by level; is a wizard the same as a fighter in combat?

You're talking about an increase. This is not the same as when I talk of scaling.

Remember, infinity chasing infinity? Yeah, that's scaling.

It's about when everything attempts to keep up with each other, a.k.a parity. Increases in that situation don't mean anything because other things will come in its place to keep on par. That's scaling.

And to avoid ambiguity, to the dictionary! These are the definitions I'm using:

Scaling
verb [ trans. ]
represent in proportional dimensions; reduce or increase in size according to a common scale : [as adj. ] ( scaled) scaled plans of the house.
• [ intrans. ] (of a quantity or property) be variable according to a particular scale.

Parity
noun
the state or condition of being equal, esp. regarding status or pay

Because I want increases to mean something I explicitly do not want things to perpetually equal out, with the only meaningful change being different monster/task skins.

When I am talking about AC scaling, I mean that it should increase based on a set level-dependent formula in the same way that 3e saving throws do.

Refresh my memory (I don't have 3e on hand): isn't Saving Throw progression by level simply a gradual increase? Roughly the same as THAC0 2e and Saving Throws in 1e(?) and 2e?

If so, it seems counter-productive to add that atop everything else because you already have a mechanism to make larger jumps in AC called Armor. Further, adding AC to the list of things that increase per level just increases the range THAC0 has to chase, eventually nullifying the point of the d20 die as randomizer.

A fixed progression chasing a static bonuses readily purchasable at 1st lvl is doable. It's experience gradually inching over a modular barrier erectable from the start.

However a fixed progression chasing another fixed progression ends up with the problem outlined above. It's experience trying to inch over a modular barrier that also increases by inches each level of experience. Eventually the modular aspect will take a backseat (because of its fixed valued nature in the face of infinity) and the two increasing values will chase each other until the system gives out or boredom ensues.

Again, I should relate here at one time I was deeply enamored with AD&D 3e upon release. However the more I experienced the system and questioned my dissatisfaction with changes I earnestly wanted from 1e & 2e, the more I came to look under the hood and try to find why I liked what was before and didn't like what I so desperately wanted. In this case the nature of competing values perpetually chasing each other without limit, either explicit or implicit, ended up showing me why I was so frustrated with getting what I wanted.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518669Refresh my memory (I don't have 3e on hand): isn't Saving Throw progression by level simply a gradual increase? Roughly the same as THAC0 2e and Saving Throws in 1e(?) and 2e?

3e saving throws come in two varieties: "good" saves that equal 2 + half your level, and "poor" saves that equal a third of your level.  Personally, I prefer the 2e system (with a static save DC) but it doesn't work in the 3e system where you add attribute modifiers to your saving throws.

QuoteIf so, it seems counter-productive to add that atop everything else because you already have a mechanism to make larger jumps in AC called Armor.

With regard to 3e: armor stops mattering at higher levels because of the ridiculously high attack bonuses of monsters.  Your first attack is basically a guaranteed hit (first two if you're getting bonus attacks due to haste or similar abilities), and your second attack has a high probability of hitting.  Your third and fourth attacks don't much matter because their attack bonus is so far below everything else.

I don't know how 2e handled this.

QuoteFurther, adding AC to the list of things that increase per level just increases the range THAC0 has to chase, eventually nullifying the point of the d20 die as randomizer.

No, not at all.  You can limit the increases to AC so that the two don't scale evenly.  The d20 is actually "nullified as randomizer" in systems with fixed AC, where the fighter can automatically hit opponents with his high attack bonus.

QuoteA fixed progression chasing a static bonuses readily purchasable at 1st lvl is doable. It's experience gradually inching over a modular barrier erectable from the start.

However a fixed progression chasing another fixed progression ends up with the problem outlined above. It's experience trying to inch over a modular barrier that also increases by inches each level of experience. Eventually the modular aspect will take a backseat (because of its fixed valued nature in the face of infinity) and the two increasing values will chase each other until the system gives out or boredom ensues.

This makes no sense whatsoever.  The purpose of scaling AC by formula is threefold.  First, it represents characters getting better at defending themselves as they advance.  Second, it ensures characters are not entirely helpless without their equipment.  Third, it gives the DM a guideline for creating his own monsters to ensure that they appropriately challenge the party without carelessly slapping +5 armor on the monster or throwing +10 natural armor on it or randomly setting its AC to -1.  (In before any of these are decried as bad things.)

QuoteAgain, I should relate here at one time I was deeply enamored with AD&D 3e upon release. However the more I experienced the system and questioned my dissatisfaction with changes I earnestly wanted from 1e & 2e, the more I came to look under the hood and try to find why I liked what was before and didn't like what I so desperately wanted. In this case the nature of competing values perpetually chasing each other without limit, either explicit or implicit, ended up showing me why I was so frustrated with getting what I wanted.

AC didn't increase with level in 3e.  You just don't like 3e.  The fact that you're complaining about high-level monsters having high AC to match the fighter's high attack bonus is full-on retarded because 2e did the exact same thing.  (Hint: compare a dragon's AC to that of an orc.)  What you're annoyed about is clearly the optimization culture that 3e fomented, where you're constantly striving for every +1 you can muster to get the advantage over your enemy.  And that's fine because I also despise it, but I realize that it has less to do with scaling AC/saving throws/save DCs and more to do with the number of options presented to the players (feats, magic items, wealth-by-level, ability score boosts, etc.).

Quote from: Opaopajr;518654I just realized this example of duel to touch is pretty fair right off the bat and needs no real change. I'm using 2e from familiarity sake -- however, I'm adding no specialization or other greater finagling:

1st lvl fighter, THAC0 20, AC 10, 1 atk/round.

10th lvl fighter, THAC0 11, AC 10, technically 3/2 atk/rnd (but just one for the first round, so whatever).

1st lvl fighter has to roll (THAC0 20 - AC 10 =) 10+, a 55% chance to hit.

10th lvl fighter has to roll (THAC0 11 - AC 10 =) 1+, a 95% chance to hit. (due to 20 always hit, 1 always miss, up to DM discretion)

Then, since the 10th lvl fighter is gonna win in the first round, barring catastrophic failure, this averages out quite well.

The only chance a 1st lvl character has is to win a contested roll (the d10 initiative) AND land his first (and likely last) blow -- otherwise he is almost assured a loss. Considering novices do get lucky blows vs. pros at times, I'm OK with this. I don't have time to crunch it through Any Dice, but this isn't a 55% chance for the 1st lvl fighter to win the duel. Because of needing to beat initiative, the nature of the tide of battle as the PHB states, it significantly reduces this from a 55% chance of victory.

Throw in anything else, like specialization, parry, etc. from core, or (god help us,) anything from optional supplements, and this meager possibility for the 1st lvl fighter goes to essentially nil. Which isn't something I exactly want, now that I come to think of it...

So yeah, now that I've decided to bother crunching this, I'm OK with D&D even for dueling! Thanks!

You missed the key point... the 1st level guy has exactly the same chance of winning the battle on round 1 if he is fighting a 1st level guy, a 10th level guy, a 100th level guy, or indeed using RAW a 3 year old girl.

He has 27.5% chance to win initiative and hit his opponent.
If you think you could go to the olympics and win slightly over 1 in 4 of your bouts then you should enter

That is my point.

The scene where the student challenges the master and then tries to hit him whilst the master moves round the training room evading each blow through the slightest moves until eventually landing his own touch is iconic. From Zorro, to the Count of Monte Chirsto, to Highlander, to every Jacky Chan film ever made, in fact every film or book where a rookie gets trained by a master.

Now I have no issue with you not caring about it and deciding not to use the rules that way , of course its your game. I am just poining out a possible limitation of the RAW.

I should also add that not having AC scale with level (thus being equipment-dependent) does have some benefits.  In a system where AC is entirely level-dependent, you can't have creatures with high AC without creatures that are high level.  In contrast, in D&D, you can easily give low-level creatures a high AC by means of equipment--in Pathfinder, for example, you can throw on banded mail and a heavy steel shield to give a character 20 AC at level 1.  It might not seem that impressive, but it's kind of nice that you can deck out an entire regiment of warriors for a few thousand gold and give them a decent chance to survive a few rounds of combat.

Ugh, hate breaking down quotes in a back and forth. Things get all cluttered...

Quote from: B.T.;518673With regard to 3e: armor stops mattering at higher levels because of the ridiculously high attack bonuses of monsters.  Your first attack is basically a guaranteed hit (first two if you're getting bonus attacks due to haste or similar abilities), and your second attack has a high probability of hitting.  Your third and fourth attacks don't much matter because their attack bonus is so far below everything else.

That's an issue of level scaling and not putting a reasonable cap on game scope. Admittedly 2e had similar problems as people could have levels beyond 20 -- and increase their THAC0 accordingly as well. But at that point you're minor deities and the game's scope really cannot handle that in a meaningful manner. Throw in 20 always meant success and 1 always meant failure and it helps mitigate what in all likelihood will end up being a clown show regardless. I think D&D designers should've just had the guts and said that beyond a certain level is beyond the game's scope.

Well, they probably did that with Human longevity being so short, level progression being more measured, and insisting strict time records being kept. But a lot of tables ignored such recommendations. So at that point you're kinda asking for it... But that's another discussion, isn't it?

Quote from: B.T.;518673No, not at all.  You can limit the increases to AC so that the two don't scale evenly.  The d20 is actually "nullified as randomizer" in systems with fixed AC, where the fighter can automatically hit opponents with his high attack bonus.

Infinity does not care about evenly scaling. Whether you count by ones, twos or 10s, infinity's end result is that eventually in competition with itself numbers become irrelevant. Since limits is no factor in infinite level scaling it is only a matter of choosing time and place within the progression to see where they are in relation. However, since RPG games are about not keeping characters evenly within strictly equivalent time and place progression the advantage of pacing becomes rendered meaningless.

Now the system may try to favor one scale's progression over the other, as you offer. But the end result is infinity will eventually overwhelm their system as people will find how to buff out their time and place location by system manipulation. People will find a way to select a place upon infinity that does not maintain this deliberate progression parity.

This seems confusing so let me elaborate. i.e. BAB increases by 2, AC increases by 1. This goes on forever. Naturally BAB outpaces AC if you keep at a comparatively equivalent parity place within the progression (BAB 10, AC 5; BAB 70, AC 35). The thing is no one ever selects their AC or BAB in accordance to such pairings. They will always be selected irrespective of comparatively equivalent place in sequence (BAB 70s will not always encounter AC 35s). Thus your pacing sequence becomes a nominal effect; in truth you have the entirety of either infinity to place your BAB or AC depending upon your build manipulation. You may select/build up to BAB 70, but what is stopping your AC opponent from selecting/building up to 110?

Quote from: B.T.;518673This makes no sense whatsoever.  The purpose of scaling AC by formula is threefold.  First, it represents characters getting better at defending themselves as they advance.

Setting fluff that is currently not represented in a To-Hit roll manner because combat is deliberately abstracted and Hit Points is there to do this very job.

Quote from: B.T.;518673Second, it ensures characters are not entirely helpless without their equipment.

They are already not helpless. Note: Hit Points. Further note: Dex AC modifier and Full Parry. Additional resources are available in supplement form.

Quote from: B.T.;518673Third, it gives the DM a guideline for creating his own monsters to ensure that they appropriately challenge the party without carelessly slapping +5 armor on the monster or throwing +10 natural armor on it or randomly setting its AC to -1.  (In before any of these are decried as bad things.)

Appropriately challenge the party? Carelessly [statting up] a monster? Are these complaints about Balance and Poor GMing to be rectified by rules adjuncts? Guidelines for GM monster creation fine, but come now, we both know rules can never fix these things.

Quote from: B.T.;518673AC didn't increase with level in 3e.  You just don't like 3e.  The fact that you're complaining about high-level monsters having high AC to match the fighter's high attack bonus is full-on retarded because 2e did the exact same thing.  (Hint: compare a dragon's AC to that of an orc.)  What you're annoyed about is clearly the optimization culture that 3e fomented, where you're constantly striving for every +1 you can muster to get the advantage over your enemy.  And that's fine because I also despise it, but I realize that it has less to do with scaling AC/saving throws/save DCs and more to do with the number of options presented to the players (feats, magic items, wealth-by-level, ability score boosts, etc.).

AC didn't increase with level in 3e, this I know. But, like with many other problems I'm sadly familiar with (*cough* skills, i.e. Diplomacy), I know why certain solutions which were already enacted won't be productive if expanded upon other areas. (There was a cap on placing more NWPs for a +1 increase in one NWP skill. You could only have a +16 in any skill. Now NWPs were hard to get, but I thought this was unnecessary at first. Now after seeing the result of lifting the cap in 3e I am thoroughly convinced my previous negative assessment about NWP cap was wrong.) We don't need to make the same mistakes to learn from them.

And yes, I don't like 3e. I like saying that by the way. Thanks, I always enjoy indulging in that opportunity.

By the way, I'm not complaining about high lvl monsters having high AC. That's just observing the extremes of a finite spectrum. There was a de facto AC of -10 in the MM and the end result is people tended to play with that framework in mind. And that's wonderful stuff because it gives workable parameters to the game's scope.

I'm saying having a scaling AC progression (i.o.w. no cap) to achieve a sort of parity solution to BAB -- or other problems -- is not going to be productive because we've already seen in other areas how it is unproductive. Systems with finite parameters cannot contain infinity in a meaningful way. And infinity trying to contain infinity eventually becomes an aimless exercise, as neither has a hope to contain the other. Eventually it devolves into skillful justification to achieve your desired positioning (which directly correlates to your optimization culture comment). So why are we still riding this carousel?

Quote from: jibbajibba;518690He has 27.5% chance to win initiative and hit his opponent.
If you think you could go to the olympics and win slightly over 1 in 4 of your bouts then you should enter

That is my point.

Oh no, I get that point. It's just I am okay with a larger element of luck factoring into the equation. For me 27.5% is fine for me in a game where properly simulating a duel is not a game priority. Yup, it's not represented in RAW. So what? It provides a smallish number I can live with.

Now you want a lower number that better represents your feelings about how the duel should be simulated. Well, you could implement any of the GM rulings I offered (full Parry, Parry as counterstrike, and HP % target), but that requires going beyond RAW and making a judgment call. Thankfully this is an RPG and those are (were?) usually welcomed. Or you could select a game better designed to simulate that.

Or instead of a ruling you could add a progression to AC subsystem that could complicate the game further and create greater problems than that one situation. Not the choice I would make, as I don't prioritize dueling, and do value keeping power spectrums contained. But hey, more power to you if it makes you happy.

On 2E THAC0, if there was a question...
 
THAC0 starts at 20 for 1-1 HD, 1+ is 19 and each 2 HD lowers it an additional 2.
Consequently a monster of 15+ Hit Dice has a THAC0 of 5 (so equivalent to a +15 attack bonus in 3E).
Looking at the Monster Manual and other places there a couple of monsters that break this...the Tarrasque has a -5 THAC0 (i.e the equivalent of +25 to hit in 3.0), the Dragon of Tyr has -3...but generally it tops out at 5.
 
Gargantua (Godzilla) are 50 HD and THAC0 5, Zarratan are island sized (up to 70 HD) and are THAC0 5. Monsters generally also don't have Strength scores/gain to hit adjustments from Strength, though there might be exceptions. There is one creature (the lesser death) that never misses and so doesn't have a THAC0.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518701Oh no, I get that point. It's just I am okay with a larger element of luck factoring into the equation. For me 27.5% is fine for me in a game where properly simulating a duel is not a game priority. Yup, it's not represented in RAW. So what? It provides a smallish number I can live with.

Now you want a lower number that better represents your feelings about how the duel should be simulated. Well, you could implement any of the GM rulings I offered (full Parry, Parry as counterstrike, and HP % target), but that requires going beyond RAW and making a judgment call. Thankfully this is an RPG and those are (were?) usually welcomed. Or you could select a game better designed to simulate that.

Or instead of a ruling you could add a progression to AC subsystem that could complicate the game further and create greater problems than that one situation. Not the choice I would make, as I don't prioritize dueling, and do value keeping power spectrums contained. But hey, more power to you if it makes you happy.

I don't think improving AC with level does complicate things though, in actual play. Say you go with simple make AC bonus = thaco bous so a 10th level fighter is on +5 then the fighter AC at 10th level in no armour is AC 5
that is it... then the game plays no need for extra rules of any description.

Not so very complex...

Hit Points, Armor Class, damage, number of attacks and attack bonus all contribute to the same thing: who will win a given fight.

In theory they represent different things, but there's enough "oh but this can represent fighting skill and luck as well as actual armor" that they actually overlap.

So I think if you look at whether AC or attack bonus or both should go up, you're looking at a higher level of detail than the simulation actually has (despite its claims to the contrary).

So the answer is probably that you should figure out what you want to happen at the levels you care about first, then derive stats that give that result, not start with the stats as they are. In other words don't start with "should AC go up with level?". Start with "Should ten first-level Fighters beat a beholder? How long should the fight last? What about one tenth-level Fighter?".

These sort of problems seem to always be about high level characters. Which makes sense to me, given that the inventors of D&D seem to have cared about/often played low-level characters and extrapolated high-level stats without too much testing.

Quote from: Age of Fable;518711Hit Points, Armor Class, damage, number of attacks and attack bonus all contribute to the same thing: who will win a given fight.

In theory they represent different things, but there's enough "oh but this can represent fighting skill and luck as well as actual armor" that they actually overlap.

So I think if you look at whether AC or attack bonus or both should go up, you're looking at a higher level of detail than the simulation actually has (despite its claims to the contrary).

So the answer is probably that you should figure out what you want to happen at the levels you care about first, then derive stats that give that result, not start with the stats as they are. In other words don't start with "should AC go up with level?". Start with "Should ten first-level Fighters beat a beholder? How long should the fight last? What about one tenth-level Fighter?".

These sort of problems seem to always be about high level characters. Which makes sense to me, given that the inventors of D&D seem to have cared about/often played low-level characters and extrapolated high-level stats without too much testing.

Lot of truth to the bolded bit.

Quote from: Age of Fable;518711These sort of problems seem to always be about high level characters. Which makes sense to me, given that the inventors of D&D seem to have cared about/often played low-level characters and extrapolated high-level stats without too much testing.

I think this just re-inforces the idea that high level play was really never meant to be the same as low level play.  Dungeon crawling and even some hex crawling give way to courtly intrigues, back room dealings, and weeks of planning to take out a high level monster like a dragon and haul the gold back to civilization.  Details of combat in high level play were not important, because any glitches that would come up could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

But if B.T. insists on a bonus for AC by level, try this:  Rename Base Attack Bonus to Base Combat Bonus.  Use the same numbers for attack rolls and AC, allowing protection from one attack until multiple bonuses appear on the BaB table. So a BaB of +4 provides a +4 to hit, and a +4 to AC.  Then allow the lower bonuses for second, third and fourth attacks against that character.  Hence, a 15th level Fighter would have an AC bonus of +15 on the first attack, +10 on the second attack, and +5 on the third attack; if it is being treated as something of an active skill, a character can only defend against a certain number of attacks each round.  If you want to boost Fighters, only allow the AC bonuses for them.  If that turns out to be too much bookkeeping, and you would prefer it to be more of a passive ability, just total the bonuses for a given level and apply that to their AC.  That same 15th level Fighter would then have just a static +30 to their AC against all attacks.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518699Infinity does not care about evenly scaling. Whether you count by ones, twos or 10s, infinity's end result is that eventually in competition with itself numbers become irrelevant. Since limits is no factor in infinite level scaling it is only a matter of choosing time and place within the progression to see where they are in relation. However, since RPG games are about not keeping characters evenly within strictly equivalent time and place progression the advantage of pacing becomes rendered meaningless.

Now the system may try to favor one scale's progression over the other, as you offer. But the end result is infinity will eventually overwhelm their system as people will find how to buff out their time and place location by system manipulation. People will find a way to select a place upon infinity that does not maintain this deliberate progression parity.

This seems confusing so let me elaborate. i.e. BAB increases by 2, AC increases by 1. This goes on forever. Naturally BAB outpaces AC if you keep at a comparatively equivalent parity place within the progression (BAB 10, AC 5; BAB 70, AC 35). The thing is no one ever selects their AC or BAB in accordance to such pairings. They will always be selected irrespective of comparatively equivalent place in sequence (BAB 70s will not always encounter AC 35s). Thus your pacing sequence becomes a nominal effect; in truth you have the entirety of either infinity to place your BAB or AC depending upon your build manipulation. You may select/build up to BAB 70, but what is stopping your AC opponent from selecting/building up to 110?

You keep writing big walls of text about INFINITY SCALING, which is ridiculous hyperbole.  Even in an open-ended system like 3e, there is a soft cap on how high attack/AC will go (fighters will generally cap out around +37 to attack rolls).  That being said, you can simply institute level and stat caps.  So let's say we make stats stop at around 30 in 3e, making the maximum bonus to attack rolls and AC +10.  There.

QuoteSetting fluff that is currently not represented in a To-Hit roll manner because combat is deliberately abstracted and Hit Points is there to do this very job.

QuoteThey are already not helpless. Note: Hit Points. Further note: Dex AC modifier and Full Parry. Additional resources are available in supplement form.

QuoteAppropriately challenge the party? Carelessly [statting up] a monster? Are these complaints about Balance and Poor GMing to be rectified by rules adjuncts? Guidelines for GM monster creation fine, but come now, we both know rules can never fix these things.

First of all, I don't like that a level 20 fighter is as easy to hit as a level 1 fighter when he's not wearing armor.  It seems to me that the attack roll should be harder even if he's not wearing armor.  Second of all, while the fighter isn't technically helpless, he's going to die in short order when wearing something other than his magical fullplate.  I prefer a system that would give him slightly better odds without it.  Third of all, the "hurrrrr just need a good DM" argument is fucking retarded.

QuoteAC didn't increase with level in 3e, this I know. But, like with many other problems I'm sadly familiar with (*cough* skills, i.e. Diplomacy), I know why certain solutions which were already enacted won't be productive if expanded upon other areas. (There was a cap on placing more NWPs for a +1 increase in one NWP skill. You could only have a +16 in any skill. Now NWPs were hard to get, but I thought this was unnecessary at first. Now after seeing the result of lifting the cap in 3e I am thoroughly convinced my previous negative assessment about NWP cap was wrong.) We don't need to make the same mistakes to learn from them.

And yes, I don't like 3e. I like saying that by the way. Thanks, I always enjoy indulging in that opportunity.

By the way, I'm not complaining about high lvl monsters having high AC. That's just observing the extremes of a finite spectrum. There was a de facto AC of -10 in the MM and the end result is people tended to play with that framework in mind. And that's wonderful stuff because it gives workable parameters to the game's scope.

I'm saying having a scaling AC progression (i.o.w. no cap) to achieve a sort of parity solution to BAB -- or other problems -- is not going to be productive because we've already seen in other areas how it is unproductive. Systems with finite parameters cannot contain infinity in a meaningful way. And infinity trying to contain infinity eventually becomes an aimless exercise, as neither has a hope to contain the other. Eventually it devolves into skillful justification to achieve your desired positioning (which directly correlates to your optimization culture comment). So why are we still riding this carousel?

No, you've made declarations about how it doesn't work because INFINITE SCALING, which is really stupid.  If you create a system where your AC is 10 + your level, you have a scaling AC system.  Is that system INFINITE SCALING?  No, not at all, but you seem to be under the false impression that it's going to lead to monsters with 800 AC or something equally dumb.

This whole thing is spurred by the nonsense of "durrr THAC0 best system evar" when THAC0 is really fucking stupid.  You want to roll high on your attack roll to hit a low AC, and you are better protected with lower numbers, and bonuses to your AC actually subtract from your AC.  The most counter-intuitive piece of shit I've ever seen.  Ascending AC?  Everyone gets it because it makes sense.

FOR YET ANOTHER FUCKING TIME, allow me to explain how this would work in 3e.  You have THAC20.  THAC20 is the number you need to roll on your d20 to hit an AC of 20.  You create your faggy little chart matrix because you want to hide the math from the players behind a multilayer smokescreen of bullshit, probably as part of a DM autofellator so that players can't figure out what the fuck is going on.  This chart has AC values ranging from 10 to 30 on it.

A fighter has a THAC20 of 19 at level.  He has a THAC20 of 14 at level 5.  He has a THAC20 of 0 at level 20.  Ascending AC is fully limited.

NOW TO MOVE BACK TO THE FUCKING ISSUE OF SCALING AC: In the THAC20 system, you can get up to +10 AC from your armor and shields.  You also add half your level to your AC, making it a scaling system.  Here is your AC formula:

10 + half your level + your armor.

The level cap is 20, so your AC maxes out at 10 + 10 + 10 or 30.  AC scales, it is fully limited, there is no INFINITY CHASING INFINITY.

Quote from: B.T.;518760You keep writing big walls of text about INFINITY SCALING, which is ridiculous hyperbole.



NOW TO MOVE BACK TO THE FUCKING ISSUE OF SCALING AC: In the THAC20 system, you can get up to +10 AC from your armor and shields.  You also add half your level to your AC, making it a scaling system.  Here is your AC formula:

10 + half your level + your armor.

The level cap is 20, so your AC maxes out at 10 + 10 + 10 or 30.  AC scales, it is fully limited, there is no INFINITY CHASING INFINITY.

You really should have named this thread "Tell me how awesome scaling AC with level is".