2e to 3e ability score changes were a bad decision.

[Leress]

(did i remember CR right? challenge rating? or was it ECL, effective character level...?)

Assuming you were being serious and not trolling, you got it right. CR = enemies, ECL = players.

Actually it's more like he knows very little about 3rd.

[shadzar]

Therefore you have to tell your DM the roll and your THACO. The DM must then end up doing math.

With the 3E/4E system, you give the DM one number and he compares it to the monster's AC directly.

I have already disproved that since ALL 3 systems you tell the DM what AC you hit....

THAC0 - (die roll + modifiers) = AC hit

the DM needs only compare ACs in either BAB or THAC0.

[tzor]

THACO is two operations (subtraction and addition) versus 1. To make matters worse it increases the amount of information you must tell your DM, because the player doesn't know the monsters AC. Therefore you have to tell your DM the roll and your THACO. The DM must then end up doing math.

Not in practice. If your THAC0 is (for example) 15 and you roll a 16 (after all the modifications) you do the final math and say "I hit AC -1." Fuck what Zeb wrote, that's what everyone I knew did.

We generally used: AC = THAC0 - (DIE + Modifiers)

Zeb's formula is: AC = (THAC0 - Modifiers) - DIE

[shadzar]

THACO is two operations (subtraction and addition) versus 1. To make matters worse it increases the amount of information you must tell your DM, because the player doesn't know the monsters AC. Therefore you have to tell your DM the roll and your THACO. The DM must then end up doing math.

Not in practice. If your THAC0 is (for example) 15 and you roll a 16 (after all the modifications) you do the final math and say "I hit AC -1." Fuck what Zeb wrote, that's what everyone I knew did.

We generally used: AC = THAC0 - (DIE + Modifiers)

Zeb's formula is: AC = (THAC0 - Modifiers) - DIE

EXACTLY!

now try to get the two that think grossly otherwise (desdan and fbmf) to understand this.

[PoliteNewb]

so first you lose your bracers as they ARE ARMOR, or lose both your cloak and ring....

Say what? Where is it defined that bracers are armor? Book and page number, please.

I think it's pretty clear they are NOT armor, based on, oh, every NPC wizard in the entire game who wears bracers.

Wizards cannot wear any armor...

So either bracers are armor (in which case wizards can't wear them, and almost every NPC wizard I ever saw was breaking the rules, or they're NOT armor, and his example works fine. Hell, do you want me to go find examples of NPC wizards in TSR 2E products who combine bracers with cloaks and rings?

What kind of crack have you been smoking?

magic items arent just given out on a whim save for required ones for monsters that need +X to hit...

Actually, in the days before wealth by level, that's EXACTLY how magic items were given out. Again, take a look at the magic items in TSR published modules and scenarios. I think one of our parties had TWO defender swords, both foundin published adventures.

Also it is pretty easy to go past the -10 AC from just the DMG alone

Ring of Protection +6
Cloak of protetion +5
Bracers of Defense AC 2
Dusty rose Ioun Stone +1
+4 Defender Sword

That right there can be -14 AC -15 if I have a +5 Defender.

It's even easier. At high levels (say, 9th and up) just about every warrior we ever played in 2E got himself a suit of dragonskin armor (as defined in the MM, it grants an AC of 4 less than the dragon the skin came from). That'll give you a base of -2 to -5, depending on what you can kill and skin (higher if you can nail yourself a great wyrm Shadow Dragon). And that's NON-magical armor (you can, of course, have the dragonskin enchanted if you know a friendly wizard).

So how about...

Dragonskin armor (from a Very Old red, let's say...giving AC -4)
Ring +3 (3 more)
Cloak of the Bat (2 more)
Boots of Speed (2 more)
17 Dex (3 more)
Shield +3 (4 more)
Defender Sword (4 more)

There ya go...AC of -22. And those aren't maximum items (you could have a more powerful ring, cloak, shield, and Defender, and you could have higher Dex and have killed a better dragon). If you maxed everything, you could conceivably have an AC of -40 or so.

By the book.

[shadzar]

so first you lose your bracers as they ARE ARMOR, or lose both your cloak and ring....

Say what? Where is it defined that bracers are armor? Book and page number, please.

I think it's pretty clear they are NOT armor, based on, oh, every NPC wizard in the entire game who wears bracers.

Wizards cannot wear any armor...

So either bracers are armor (in which case wizards can't wear them, and almost every NPC wizard I ever saw was breaking the rules, or they're NOT armor, and his example works fine. Hell, do you want me to go find examples of NPC wizards in TSR 2E products who combine bracers with cloaks and rings?

What kind of crack have you been smoking?

magic items arent just given out on a whim save for required ones for monsters that need +X to hit...

Actually, in the days before wealth by level, that's EXACTLY how magic items were given out. Again, take a look at the magic items in TSR published modules and scenarios. I think one of our parties had TWO defender swords, both foundin published adventures.

show the NPC wizards in the PHB or DMG?

published adventures, like campaign settings, while "official" are jsut a set of houserules applied to a specific case.

maybe i got confused on the bracers cause i dont really use them....gloves and bracers dont mix, belts and girdles dont mix?

but the point still remains to your nonsense that was cut....

hand picking the most ludicrous items and claiming that that is the baseline is a very weak argument.

YES treasure CAN be chosen directly by the DM, or rolled for on the tables, but when chosen there had to be a reason. IF your DM gave out "uber-loot" then his reason was he wanted you to have it or you wanted it; while others placed treasure based on SoD.

it wasnt on a whim in either case.

you can be stupid and try to claim that inclusion of EVERY magic item of the best type for all players is what is always done or the baseline, but you are only deluding yourself.

hmmm.. why not jsut go by the book and use my own favorite phrase against me? "the rules are only guidelines", and say that the DM can make a cock ring AC -10000 for his pet NPC since the DM can create artifacts. because you arent really trying to disprove me, and the fact a DM can create outlandish things, does NOT prove the system doesnt have and claims a specific range, AND that some people.....actually liked that finite range! ~LE GASP!~

again NO range is presented in 3.x or 4.x for AC to have any assumed limit such as 2nd....

was it BECMI or 1st that had the range of -5 ~ 10 AC?

[Leress]

No one ever claimed it was the base line. The argument was can you go outside the RNG of AC in 2nd the answer is yes you can.

[shadzar]

and my claim was that there was one to begin with, while not was specified or even assumed with 3.x and up....

which gives reason to the way ability scores changed....

[Psychic Robot]

stop arguing with shadzar

getting a headache from this shit.

[Maxus]

A friend of mine asked me to send him threads inflicted with unfortunate amounts of Shadzar.

Highlight reel of comments:

Still reading that thread just.....
......Fucking Hell.
This isn't even normal Shadzar.
This is insane troll logic.
This is global warming is caused by a lack of pirates insane.
---------------------------
His argument with FBMF is like trying to argue that the sky is red using incorrect data gathered from the diet of the common cow.
-----------------------------
He's actually trying to argue that d=st is equal to t=d/s. He is also trying to prove that in algebra, and not 2e, -5=5.

[Kobajagrande]

Shadzar pwns you all with the power of LOGIC!

...Or something similar.

[RadiantPhoenix]

He is also trying to prove that in algebra, and not 2e, -5=5.

I think I might be able to do this one.

[shadzar]

He is also trying to prove that in algebra, and not 2e, -5=5.

I think I might be able to do this one.

its called an absolute value, which is what movement in AC represents...

when you move 5 spaces in a single direction on a number line, it doesnt matter which direction you are moving, because it will remain constant that you moved 5 spaces.

but people think a number line is childish and cant help them understand the relationships and would rather bitch over Dave's design...while others really dont care, because it is a construct of the game and for the game, and once you understand that lower AC being better is just how it is.

people are trying to rationalize it and cant, so come to the conclusion that descending AC being better isnt rational.

with that in mind, how many people really ask, why you move clockwise in most boardgames like monopoly, sorry, parcheesi, etc? why not move around the board counterclockwise? only monopoly has a real reason to move this way to make your journey around the board one where you have to make decisions, if not using deed auctioning. but if you auction a deed when it is first landed on, the direction you go makes no difference, as long as you go that direction for the duration of the game.

krynn has 3 moons. why? cause that is the way it was designed. dont like it, then you have 2 options:

1. dont play it
2. change it yourself

you dont have the option of:

* bitch about it, because you just cant "get it".

thus is true of THAC0 and the AC range. you get the same options. sadly, and a good chance to laugh at ignorant people that read the 2nd edition PHB, is the ones who cant get that what Zeb says to do with the math IS impossible because the AC isnt given to the players, and then you get all those years of the players thinking some super critical element was hidden in the MM and DMG from the players, so more crap had to be put in the PHB, and you get the avalanche of problems from it.

again, leading to the reason for why even the ability score modifiers have changed in the WotC editions.

fear of the DM, leading to a need of "transparency" when there is nothing stopping a player from buying their own DMG or MM. but when they metagame with info in there that their characters wouldnt have, then the problems during gameplay arise. as has been seen,a nd why things the players didnt need to create their characters or to play them, werent put into the PHB in the first place. information overload to the players HAS caused players to dawdle during play trying to figure out what they CAN do, rather than just trying to do something...which lead to Monte Cook and his system master system, 3.0.

back to the topic of the quoted post, for those wanting to learn something a pipe | is the notation used from a keyboard that denotes an absolute value as expresed with the number line movements, so |-5| means the absolute value of negative five, and absolute values are ALWAYS positive. take a middle school math clas if you need help understanding this. ergo:

|-5| = 5
|+5| = 5

again THAC0 problems people had is due to a failure of their understanding and comprehension of math.

[tzor]

He is also trying to prove that in algebra, and not 2e, -5=5.

I think I might be able to do this one.

Personally speaking, I'll like to be able to prove -INF = +INF

[CatharzGodfoot]

so first you lose your bracers as they ARE ARMOR, or lose both your cloak and ring....

Say what? Where is it defined that bracers are armor? Book and page number, please.

I think it's pretty clear they are NOT armor, based on, oh, every NPC wizard in the entire game who wears bracers.

Wizards cannot wear any armor...

So either bracers are armor (in which case wizards can't wear them, and almost every NPC wizard I ever saw was breaking the rules, or they're NOT armor, and his example works fine. Hell, do you want me to go find examples of NPC wizards in TSR 2E products who combine bracers with cloaks and rings?

What kind of crack have you been smoking?

magic items arent just given out on a whim save for required ones for monsters that need +X to hit...

Actually, in the days before wealth by level, that's EXACTLY how magic items were given out. Again, take a look at the magic items in TSR published modules and scenarios. I think one of our parties had TWO defender swords, both foundin published adventures.

Also it is pretty easy to go past the -10 AC from just the DMG alone

Ring of Protection +6
Cloak of protetion +5
Bracers of Defense AC 2
Dusty rose Ioun Stone +1
+4 Defender Sword

That right there can be -14 AC -15 if I have a +5 Defender.

It's even easier. At high levels (say, 9th and up) just about every warrior we ever played in 2E got himself a suit of dragonskin armor (as defined in the MM, it grants an AC of 4 less than the dragon the skin came from). That'll give you a base of -2 to -5, depending on what you can kill and skin (higher if you can nail yourself a great wyrm Shadow Dragon). And that's NON-magical armor (you can, of course, have the dragonskin enchanted if you know a friendly wizard).

So how about...

Dragonskin armor (from a Very Old red, let's say...giving AC -4)
Ring +3 (3 more)
Cloak of the Bat (2 more)
Boots of Speed (2 more)
17 Dex (3 more)
Shield +3 (4 more)
Defender Sword (4 more)

There ya go...AC of -22. And those aren't maximum items (you could have a more powerful ring, cloak, shield, and Defender, and you could have higher Dex and have killed a better dragon). If you maxed everything, you could conceivably have an AC of -40 or so.

By the book.

In 2e, you could surround yourself in a cloud of dusty rose ioun stones and put multiple rings of protection on all your fingers. There is no 'maxing out' beyond how many gems can float around you at the proper distance and how many rings you can jam onto your anatomy.

[shadzar]

In 2e, you could surround yourself in a cloud of dusty rose ioun stones and put multiple rings of protection on all your fingers. There is no 'maxing out' beyond how many gems can float around you at the proper distance and how many rings you can jam onto your anatomy.

yes you can make a cockring of protection if you want, and that goes for EVERY edition....otherwise see the description of a ring or ioun stones for how they were made to be used.... like i said you could have ANY AC, but it was assumed that most things would fall within the parameters of -10 ~ 10.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Personally speaking, I'll like to be able to prove -INF = +INF

Because I think this is probably not related to this thread...