tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post5651675248174988181..comments2024-03-27T03:57:15.522-04:00Comments on Hidden in Shadows: Armor Class Numbers?DHBoggshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-81401350725122974562015-08-27T12:50:48.110-04:002015-08-27T12:50:48.110-04:00I think the civil war ironclads game was called, &...I think the civil war ironclads game was called, "Don't Give Up the Ship."<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10752432270719576499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-79712755847718293582014-12-12T05:05:25.121-05:002014-12-12T05:05:25.121-05:00We've all heard the "ascending AC makes m...We've all heard the "ascending AC makes more sense" story so many times. The truth is that it doesn't really matter how AC is defined if all we care about is a way to differentiate weaker from stronger armor. We could use "armor type L, C, P, L+S, C+S, P+S" or whatnot, as long as there was a table somewhere that somebody designed to express the basic "to hit" mechanic in those terms.<br /><br />Now obviously it's nicer to have a more abstract mechanic, one that applies, for example, to monsters that don't actually wear armor as well. Hence numbers instead of weird letters. The tables as well as the monster stat blocks become simpler: It doesn't matter whether something has AC 4 because it's wearing "chain and shield" or because it's "smallish and quickish" as it were, in the end both are equally hard to hit (within the limited confines of the game anyway).<br /><br />If you're with me so far, see if you can't go the last step. What we're really after is a simpler, faster way of doing things. And the question becomes "well, given the confines of the other pieces of D&D, what's the fastest/easiest/most convenient way to decide between a hit or a miss" and nothing else. And it turns out that descending AC actually provides that way: d20 + level + AC + mods ≥ 20 That's Delta's Target 20 mechanic, and it works so well precisely because it's using descending AC. You can find out more about it here: http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-best-combat-algorithm.html As far as I am concerned, this mechanic is totally worth the "price" of having descending AC in the game.Peter Fröhlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03688076015831464616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-41135701483499030502014-04-21T04:21:38.538-04:002014-04-21T04:21:38.538-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13941378168594760022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-56409592917830457512013-10-13T17:37:36.483-04:002013-10-13T17:37:36.483-04:00Sorry to be commenting on this old post, but I'...Sorry to be commenting on this old post, but I've been researching Chainmail and it's use exclusively with OD&D for all combat resolutions. This all started recently as a query on ODD74 forum found here: http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9364/cm-translation-od<br />Eventually, I found my way to your blog. Anyway, I thought you might find it interesting that the 3rd ed. of Chainmail does indeed use ascending AC. You can find it present in the "Individual Fires with Missiles" table where it is an ascending rating from 1 to 8 that corresponds to the "Man-to-Man Melee Table" on the same page. So, it seems Gygax did use AAC prior to OD&D being published. Why he changed it is another question all together.<br /><br />Hope you see this comment and thanks for your research into these subjects. I've found them insightful.<br />dervishdelverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13803513672258666141noreply@blogger.com