Page 1 of 1

THAC20..sort of. Armor = AC instead of bonus

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:49 pm
by Dristram
One concept I liked in AD&D was armor equating to a base AC instead of just a bonus like in 3e. What I did like in 3e was the upward movement. So, I'm seriously thinking of combining the two and implimenting a sort of To Hit AC 20 house rule in my game and I'd like to get some feedback.

[quote]Code:


You may notice no shield is listed. Shields still give a bonus to AC.

I'm also looking into implimenting a weapon vs. ac chart where certain weapons are better used against certain armors which are represented by an AC number.

Thoughts?

(interesting, the formatting didn't come out right) :(

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:55 pm
by Orpheus
*sniff*I still like THAC0.

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:44 pm
by Veritas
Is this just an asthetics thing? I'm not sure I see the difference (although the table does bring out the nostalgia in me. heh).

As for the formatting, unfortunately, the code of these forums ignores it when you insert a lot of spaces (in order to have the AC numbers line up in your table there). You need to use the code tags (between Quote and List). Then you can use spacing and so forth.

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:58 pm
by Dristram
Veritas wrote:
Is this just an asthetics thing? I'm not sure I see the difference (although the table does bring out the nostalgia in me. heh).
Thanks! I adjusted my table.

It is part an asthtics thing because of nostalgia, and part attaching armors to an armor class number. Magic like mage armor, stone skin, and bracers of armor will have an ac rating like armor. I really don't know what it is, but I like this better than a bonus. Besides, there will no longer be any confusion if something stacks with armor for AC. If it gives an AC rating, it doesn't.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:17 am
by phadeout
Dristram wrote:
Besides, there will no longer be any confusion if something stacks with armor for AC. If it gives an AC rating, it doesn't.

This is something I can definetly agree with. Saves the confusion.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:59 am
by Philotomy Jurament
Orpheus wrote:
*sniff*I still like THAC0.

I have mixed feelings about it. I like the way C&C does it, but I've also played some B/X, lately, and I liked that just fine, too.

One of the more interesting arguments for the old system was presented by T. Foster on the K&K forums:
Quote:
I like negative ACs because of their symbolic aesthetic value -- the best AC you can ever get via physical protection is 0 (this, of course, isn't literally true, because Dex adjustments can give you a negative AC, but its generally true enough) so a negative AC necessarily represents something magical and supernatural, something heroic, something impossible. This is an important distinction in my mind, and I like that it has a tangible/visual signifier attached to it -- AC 2 vs. AC -2 are conceptually different, and you can see this immediately at a glance -- a positive AC represents physical defense; a negative AC represents something special. AC 18 vs. AC 22 doesn't have the same significance, the "magic" has been taken away and replaced by bland formulae.

While it's not an airtight argument, I see his point.