On the Virtues of Descending AC

-

 I know, I know. Addition is easier than substraction, what kind of backwards grognard do you have to be to like descending AC in 2024? I get all that. But hear me out for a moment. My argument is that whilst ascending AC may be marginally easier to calculate to begin with, descending AC offers something different - A more intuitive appreciation of what the numbers mean and how they are bounded.

AD&D Armors

We'll start at the very beginning. Before that, even. An early draft for the first version of D&D:


Target20 was basically the original conception. Deduct AC from 20 and you have your attack target roll. Which is of course also how one converts descending AC to ascending. One wonders why they didn't just include this explanation to begin with, alongside a +to hit modifier, instead if messing with THAC0.

The math in the draft is a bit off, but it suggests another, even more intuitive, layer. If we stipulate that one must exceed the AC and not just meet it, it means that a regular character striking AC 2, plate mail and shield, has a 2-in-20 chance of hitting. Even though no published D&D has actually followed this math, I find this explanation a really good intuitive measure of armor.

Another thing to appreciate in this conception is that armor class is a "class". In the same way that travel fares have classes. Travelling first class is better than travelling third class. AC1, first class armor, is better than AC3, third class armor.

And with this in mind, we also get an intuitive appreciation of how far Armor Classes ought to span. 

AC 2 is achievable with Plate Mail and Shield. This "second class" armor was the lowest boundary in the original three booklets, as "Monsters and Treasures" have no critters with less than AC2 either, though magical armor could take it even lower. But essentially, "First class" armor was not even in scope for the original game. The intended range was 9 to 2. 8 Increments.

Even though the OD&D intended range was even more modest  than it needed to be, descending to AC us an intuitive understanding of the range of numbers we're operating with that is not evident in ascending AC. As we approach AC 0, we approach the bounds of reasonable armor classes.

In Greyhawk, for the first time, we see negative numbers. Dragons can go to -2. in B/X, a few critters (gold dragons, dragon turtles) go to -2. But very very few are at 0 or less. Once you get into negative numbers, you know you are truly dealing with something superhuman and/or supernatural. Essentially, game breaking armor classes.

I would argue AD&D unfortunately jumped the shark on this a bit. Extending unarmed to AC 10 may be a slightly more pleasing number, but the hit bonuses (notably fighter advancing it at every level, magic armor and weapons going all the way to +5) are not well aligned to the natural boundaries of descending AC. 

If your 14th level fighter has +20 to hit (+14 from level, +4 from magic weapon, +1 from STR. Not unreasonable assumptions at this level), then we start at negative numbers to make even mild challenges to hit. With percentile strength and a +5 weapon instead, it would cap at +22 to hit.

Conversely in B/X, a 14th fighter would be capped at a max of +15 to hit (+9 from level, +3 from STR 18, +3 max bonus from magical weapon). Still a bit high honestly, but this at least represents the maximum possible score in the game as written for B/X. at level 20 in AD&D, it caps at +26. That's a cap difference of 11. More than the full range of Armor Class as originally intended. An absolutely massive difference. 

Once you are in these numbers where negative AC becomes the baseline for any half decent foe, it ought to tell you that the numbers are getting too high. And if you are doing this with any kind of regularity, you really ought to be using ascending AC. 

Descending AC however, gives us a baseline, that tells us not to go there very often, that we are essentially stretching the numbers beyond their intended limits.  If you encounter negative AC, you know shit has hit the fan beyond peak human capacity. It tells us that this is an extraordinary encounter. 

And also informs GMs and game designers of the range of numbers the game wants to handle. I'd say to hit bonuses from level should also cap at +9 for sane numbers. similar to the OD&D start for unarmed AC. This is nearly what we get in B/X (caps at +10 for a 13th level fighter). And I'd cap AC at -2. That's 3 increments away from AC 1, our 'realistic' first class armor baseline. 3 increments is also the difference between AC 5 chain and AC 2 plate+shield, which is about as far as I can meaningfully stretch conceptualization of being that hard to hit, and keeps AC somewhat within similar bounds to the hit bonus.

The thing about this range is that the numbers are sane and somewhat bounded to a realistic range of 'hitability'. I don't think D&D was originally intended to emulate critters that are harder to hit than Erol Flynn dancing around in plate Mail and a shield (AC1), as evidenced by how AC2 is actually the lowest given for critters in the first three booklets. 

Most demons have negative AC in AD&D

Nor was it a game in need of emulating characters who can hit foes substantially harder to hit than that. But that is what happens in AD&D with its higher bonuses that goes off into mythic ranges and even more so in later editions, where the numbers truly begin to take off and we are now emulating true superheroes.

I don't expect D&D mechanics to be realistic, per se. But I do expect them to be somehow tied to some kind of real world measure, that gives you an idea of what it means in the world. And AD&D sort of lost sight of this measure, whilst later editions have simply jettisoned it altogether. 

I mean, what does -8 AC even mean? It's 10 increments removed from plate Mail and shield, whilst plate and shield is only 7 increments removed from being unarmed. How do you take the measure of that? And our 14th level fighter from above still hits that AC with greater ease than a 1st level fighter hits an unarmed foe. The numbers simply are no longer sane.

What it tells me is that classic D&D (including OD&D) remains the gold standard when it comes to the math of the game. Your mileage may vary.

Comments

  1. Anonymous23 July 2024 at 13:10

    Yes and no. ;)
    First off, ODD also went in the same direction, only further with the whole Immortals thing. And ADD in its initial version assumed that most adventurers retire at levels 9-10 as they get their own castles and domains. In practice, most ADD adventures were for levels 5-7 or so.
    In addition, plate mail as depicted models the best armors available for High Middle Ages setting. Knight and Reiter armors of 16th century were stronger - the notorious full plate is based on them - and early adventures by Gygax and Arneson both already included sources of exotic technology and/or materials. As did fantasy novels which were the inspiration. Of course, these should remain exotic, one-off things. But there's nothing wrong in rules being able to represent them.
    In other words, while I agree with your statement that most adventures should be somewhere in 'sane' range, the power creep that we were witness to was not a result of the rules being applicable beyond that range.
    And while there's nothing wrong with systems and genres where there are hard limits to what is achievable - I like old World of Darkness - the initial vision of Gygax and Arneson seems to be more of that of soft limits, with most adventurers just dying or retiring long before reaching 'insane' levels. But this, of course, depended on DM's performance.. ;)
    Mike

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Top 6 most viewed posts in the last 12 months

The Difficult-to-Believe Case of Zak Smith's Innocence

-
I honestly did not imagine myself to be writing a piece like this on this blog. But I feel morally obligated to do so, given that I previously wrote a piece based on the firm assumption of his guilt . Yesterday,  Jeff Rients shared a link to an article based on an upcoming research paper  by Dr. Clio Weisman. I'd encourage anyone who has, or has had, some interest in the OSR community and/or held some sort of opinion on the case of Zak Smith, to read it after reading this one. tl;dr - The article is about the utterly bizarre lying, harassing and slandering behaviour that has somehow become prevalent in certain sectors of the Rennaisance-Formerly-Known-as-OSR. And Zak Smith sat at the heart of it, as its principal recipient. Dr. Weisman thus chose him as her case study.  Long story short, Dr. Weisman lays out a meticulous and researched case that shows Smith to be targeted by OSR trolls for many years with a series of slanderous harassment campaigns, and also to be th...
Read more

The 3 Mile Hex - The Natural Unit for Exploration

-
Image
There will be interludes between the AD&D Appraisal series, to keep my own writing motivation going. I was going to do a 3-mile hex post outlining the virtues of it, but turns out Silverarm did that already and stole all my points  (even down to the "Outdoor Survival also uses 3 miles") and added more points I wasn't aware of myself. So go read that excellent piece and come back here. What I instead want to talk about is how the 3 mile hex is a very close fit to our natural sense of distance and visualisation and how the that makes the 3-mile hex the perfect blend between immersion and usable game artifact and how to actually bring that into your game.  Minaria hexmap. Scale: 1 hex = 50 miles. Not what we're going for here. A while back, Noisms contemplated the difficulty of creating a sense of wonder in journeys . The difficulty with journeys in RPGs is the scale of it. It becomes too big, and thus too abstract, to visualize, to immerse oneself into.  I tried, un...
Read more

In Praise of "Black Box" D&D

-
Image
when it comes to non-Advanced D&D, The internet, and in particular the OSR blogosphere, has deserved praise galore for the B/X sets for D&D. And whilst not quite as enthusiastic, the Mentzer editions for those Basic and Expert sets also get plenty of praise for its art and way of introducing the game. The Holmes set also has its fair of passionate fans. And of course the original brown booklets themselves. Of newer releases, the Rules Cyclopedia also has a large following of fans. One release that hardly ever gets a mention is the 1991 'black box', by Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning. Actually, the Rules Cyclopedia was published as a sort of companion to this set. Together  they represents the fifth and final edition of non-advanced D&D. "The New Easy to Master Dungeons & Dragons Game" also labelled "Classic Dungeons & Dragons" It's short, 64 page booklet, so much the same as its predecessors, comes with a simple dungeon m...
Read more

Addendum: Why "Roll under" Ability checks really are the best of checks

-
Image
My recent meditations on roll under ability checks and rant against the D20 unified mechanic has generated a bit of commentary and further clarified my own thinking on the matter. This post is an addendum to my  Using Ability Checks in B/X  article, seeking to further explicate why the "Roll Under" ability check truly is the best of ability checks. Earlier today, during my delvings into the blogosphere, I came across this box from  Quarrel & Fable , a Fighting Fantasy spinoff: First thing that struck me was how similar it was to my proposed resolution for Ability Checks . And secondly, it combined those thoughts with my memories of the old Fighting Fantasy  [FF] gamebooks and set my mind spinning into that cross section and how much I always liked the elegant simplicity of the FF mechanic. The best part about doing a post involving Fighting Fantasy is the chance to showcase some of the brilliant art in the gamebooks Now, I've given reasons already in prev...
Read more

How Difficulty Class and the D20 engine ruined roleplaying

-
Image
It seemed revolutionary at the time. 3e came out and made a unified mechanic. Roll 1d20 against a target number to see if you succeed. In combat, AC is the target number. For everything else, it's a Difficulty Class [DC]. That's it.  Some of those DCs are calculated as a function of level, opposing ability score etc. But what we also got from this system was a way of ad hoc determining the difficulty of something and then simply saying "roll against that target number to succeed".  In its core form, this is wonderfully simple and intuitive. All you need to internalise is the size of the numbers on a d20 in relation to overall difficulty and then you can resolve basically anything with it. The part about size of numbers has proven to be a bit of an achilles heel for d20 over the years, but that is a different point I will address further below. No, the real point here is that there's an unintended side effect to DCs as a unified mechanic. There are other downsides ...
Read more

The Fighter Across All Editions of TSR D&D

-
Image
Ok, it's time to get back to elf-games. And why not look at the class that is simultaneously the most beloved and under-appreciated class in the history of D&D? I was going to include assessments of WotC fighters too, but honestly, they end up being so different, and embedded into different systems, that it's like comparing apples and oranges. I would still like to look at the 3e fighter, as that has at least a little continuity with TSR D&D but I think that's for a different post on why feats aren't so bad after all and have a place in all versions of D&D... Moving ON , let's dig in: OD&D : Fighting-Men, as they are called. They get d6 hit die like everyone else, but they start at HD 1+1 and gain more HD as they level than clerics or magic-users (at level 10, the fighter has 10+1, cleric 7+2 and and magic-user 7). They have no armor or weapon restrictions. For weapons, this only matters in regards to which weapons are typically magical (swords, figh...
Read more