Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
AD&D players and referees, what do you think of ascending AC?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9272188" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p><em><span style="font-size: 12px">Note: preemptively stating that all of this is opinion.</span></em></p><p></p><p>I think overall this is true.</p><p></p><p>The discrepancy increases the less theoretical you are speaking and the more of the nuances of the AD&D game you add. If you pretty much had your to-hit table (or ThAC0) and the enemy had their AC, I think the two options would be neigh interchangeable. The instant the game had "plus" 1 - 5 be a benefit to both armor's armoring and weapons' to-hit, a system with a positive-is-better attack and armor system seems to become more beneficial. Once you add in all the different places* where situational bonuses and penalties start to appear and you have to figure out what the +1 or -4 is applied to the attack roll or to the defense (and if you actually applied a -1x to the number for armor, because it was a +2 bonus to AC, not adding 2 to your to AC), then it really starts to be lopsided towards positive on both sides.</p><p><em>*vision, elevation, facing, or heaven forfend the weapon vs armor table (where every time we had to mouth 'picks are great vs plate, scimitars against bare flesh' to remember if a + was good for the attacker or the defender).</em></p><p></p><p>That said (and to finally address your point), while I think the case for ascending is strong, the overall effect is not. We all made descending work, many of us when we were 8-, 10-, 12-years-old. It wasn't hard, but it was a persistent minor burden we all put up with because that's the system we had. If TSR had put out an alternate Ascending version of the game(s)* along with the alternate language versions, I would have snapped them up in a minute.</p><p><em>*AD&D, but also 2e and the basic/classic line. </em></p><p></p><p><em><span style="font-size: 10px">Quote edited for brevity.</span></em></p><p></p><p>Personally, for a long time I've felt that the splitting out of the 'dungeon-crawling adventurer non-combat skills' into a separate class was the primordial mistake in all this. I wish that, instead of introducing the thief class in Supplement I, Gary had introduced 'the thief rules' -- something where either everyone, or just a Fighting Man* (and the different abilities could be split between those two categories) could do climbing and hiding and detecting traps. Some of them would require 'armor no heavier than _____' to succeed**. Barring that, the Thief class should have just been a variant of the Fighting Man/Fighter class, with access to less armor, but getting the thief ability package alongside fighter hp, saves, and combat options. That (fighter offense, but lessened armor) would make them an interesting complement to the cleric, who got fighter-like armor, but inferior weapons.</p><p><em>*possibly 'and any future class which does not derive a significant portion of its power from the casting of spells' with some kind of rules for what that meant. </em></p><p><em>**or take off gauntlets or helmet to do, giving more reason for the 'attacking un-helmeted characters' rules to exist.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9272188, member: 6799660"] [I][SIZE=3]Note: preemptively stating that all of this is opinion.[/SIZE][/I] I think overall this is true. The discrepancy increases the less theoretical you are speaking and the more of the nuances of the AD&D game you add. If you pretty much had your to-hit table (or ThAC0) and the enemy had their AC, I think the two options would be neigh interchangeable. The instant the game had "plus" 1 - 5 be a benefit to both armor's armoring and weapons' to-hit, a system with a positive-is-better attack and armor system seems to become more beneficial. Once you add in all the different places* where situational bonuses and penalties start to appear and you have to figure out what the +1 or -4 is applied to the attack roll or to the defense (and if you actually applied a -1x to the number for armor, because it was a +2 bonus to AC, not adding 2 to your to AC), then it really starts to be lopsided towards positive on both sides. [I]*vision, elevation, facing, or heaven forfend the weapon vs armor table (where every time we had to mouth 'picks are great vs plate, scimitars against bare flesh' to remember if a + was good for the attacker or the defender).[/I] That said (and to finally address your point), while I think the case for ascending is strong, the overall effect is not. We all made descending work, many of us when we were 8-, 10-, 12-years-old. It wasn't hard, but it was a persistent minor burden we all put up with because that's the system we had. If TSR had put out an alternate Ascending version of the game(s)* along with the alternate language versions, I would have snapped them up in a minute. [I]*AD&D, but also 2e and the basic/classic line. [/I] [I][SIZE=2]Quote edited for brevity.[/SIZE][/I] Personally, for a long time I've felt that the splitting out of the 'dungeon-crawling adventurer non-combat skills' into a separate class was the primordial mistake in all this. I wish that, instead of introducing the thief class in Supplement I, Gary had introduced 'the thief rules' -- something where either everyone, or just a Fighting Man* (and the different abilities could be split between those two categories) could do climbing and hiding and detecting traps. Some of them would require 'armor no heavier than _____' to succeed**. Barring that, the Thief class should have just been a variant of the Fighting Man/Fighter class, with access to less armor, but getting the thief ability package alongside fighter hp, saves, and combat options. That (fighter offense, but lessened armor) would make them an interesting complement to the cleric, who got fighter-like armor, but inferior weapons. [I]*possibly 'and any future class which does not derive a significant portion of its power from the casting of spells' with some kind of rules for what that meant. **or take off gauntlets or helmet to do, giving more reason for the 'attacking un-helmeted characters' rules to exist.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
AD&D players and referees, what do you think of ascending AC?
Top