incredibly confused +1 AC adds reduces my Armor Class?
Gustx8
Member Posts: 47
I get that a negative Armor class is better and the worst is 10. So why do items that are +1 AC reduce my overall Armor class. This is so confusing. I see an item that a merchant is selling that is 8 AC does that reduce my overall Armor class by 8?
2
Comments
Then every PLUS or bonus is actually a good thing. So an item with +1AC is making your armor class one BETTER. Since the AC got better it is one less.
So with armor that sets AC to 8 and a ring with +1 AC. Your base would be 8 and you'd get 1 AC bonus, making your total 7.
Did that make it make more sense?
It would be more clear if it was a "AC bonus 1" and not "+1 AC".
What other equipment do you have? Bracers of armour don't stack with any other armour you're wearing.
Base AC is 10. You can modify this while bare-naked with Dexterity, so a character with 18 dexterity would start out with an AC of 6.
Armor with a listed AC sets your base AC to that level. So, an armor with an AC of 8 would drop your AC down to 8. If it was already 6 thanks to the dexterity in the above example, the armor would drop down to 4.
Bracers with an AC value operate the same way as armor, and they don't stack with armor. Bracers with AC 8 give you the same effect as armor with AC 8, and equipping both at the same time serves no purpose. Bracers of AC are typically only useful for mages/sorcerers/bards, since those classes can't equip typical armor.
A +1 or greater value on armor is always a POSITIVE bonus. Think of the +X as being simply an indicator of how magical the armor is, rather than a mathematical expression that will impact your AC. So, if a typical suit of plate mail has an AC of 3, a suit of plate mail +1 would have an AC of 2, which is better.
Other positive influences on your AC, like a ring of +1 AC, will LOWER your AC. This is a good thing, as you already know.
It's confusing, and you'll have to take some time to get used to it. Just remember that when something sets your AC, you want it to be as low as possible, and when something adds or subtracts from your AC, you want it to add.
Edit for clarity: Dexterity still modifies your AC regardless of what you're wearing. I might have implied above that it only works while not wearing armor.
They are ment to be worn without armor or magical bonused items.
Therefore, if you had no armor or magical AC enhancing equipment on, your base AC would be dropped to 8 then your DEX bonus gets added.
Most armor that has a + modifier will already be accounted for in its description's AC entry.
If the description is neutral and just says +/-x to THAC0/saves/AC, you can assume it's normally good.
Anything called a penalty regardless of being + or - is bad.
e.g. the Barbarian rage description:
Can Rage once per day for every 4 levels (starts at 1st level with one use). Rage gives them +4 to constitution and strength for 5 rounds. Gives a -2 armor class penalty and +2 to saves vs. magic (for 5 rounds). Rage also gives immunity to all charm, hold, fear, maze, confusion and level-drain spells.
Thus the -2AC is a penalty (bad) and the +2 to saves is good.
Base THAC0 - Modifiers = Your actual THAC0
The attack is a d20 + targets AC (add a negative number and it subtracts)
You need to reach above your THAC0 with that roll to hit.
But yea, Bracers will essentially count as an armor of what AC it says on it's name, Bracers of AC 8 is a leather armor that goes in your gloves slot and if you wear any better actual armor it doesn't do anything.
In third edition, it's a simple case of bigger=better. My massive AC is higher than your less-massive attack bonus, so I'm safe, etc. etc.
Its one thing to have a favorite system, obviously many folks here prefer 3E, I have no problem with that. But objecting to the "complexity" of 2E seems a little silly when we look at all the mountains of rules we use for any edition of D&D. Anyone here can grasp the mechanics of any rule set, and unless everyone is ready to concede that I'm smarter than the rest of you I refuse to believe there's anything about 2E that should go over anyone's head.
And I would say it is needlessly complicated, seeing as how 3E managed to acomplish the same things (i.e. hit rolls, AC, saving throws) with a more straight forward and intuitive system. It may seem simple to you seeing as how you've been using it for 30 years, but I can assure that when I first started playing DnD based video games, it took me a fraction of the time to fully understand 3E as it did for me to understand 2E. I'm not saying that understanding 2E is terribly difficult, I'm just saying it's more difficult than it needs to be.
The system in 3E had exactly the same results but was set up to be much more straighfoward.
Again, I have no problem with anyone having a favorite rule set. But complaining 2E is too complicated rubs me wrong. I got my start playing real war games, and any version of D&D is simple.
2nd
I start with AC 10. Then I get an armor that sets my AC to 4. I then subtract my bonus from dex of 3. I then subtract my +2 protection ring. I now have an AC of -1.
You then have a thac0 of 15 and you are trained with the weapon used therefor you get a -2 to that value. That gives you a modified thac0 of 13. You then roll a d20 and subtract that from 13. If that value is -1 or lower then you hit. (this example isn't even taking into account different bonuses and penalties of armor that could change your AC depending on which weapon the opponent uses)
3rd
I start with AC 10. I then add my dex modifier. I then add my armor bonus. I then add my +2 from a protection ring giving me an AC of 21.
You then have a bonus to hit of +5 and you have a feat that gives you +1 and it is a magical weapon of +1 add that together for a +7 and add a roll of a d20. If it is 21 or higher then you hit.
These examples are not limited to AC/thac0. They are also present when it comes to saving throws and the like.
I'm not saying that 3rd is better than 2nd. I'm simply stating that 3rd is a hell of a lot more intuitive. The fact that you yourself is able to do it with 30 years of experience doesn't mean that it isn't hard for new players. I for one felt completely lost when I used 2nd's combat system but understood 3rd's combat system a lot better (except for grapple.... wth?).
Looking back I actually enjoyed 2nd a lot because of the very strong flavour it had. 3rd simplified the rules a lot but it lost some of it's magic. Whether that was because of growing up or if it really did have less flavour I can't be sure of though.
Armor, shield, natural, dodge, deflection. Like in 2nd edition, none of it stacks, except for dodge. You can only have one bonus of each type.
The fact that you can get new players to understand the system isn't a good selling point when it comes to simplicity. A good selling point is how easy it is to make people understand. I know plenty of people that played 2nd for a while without fully understanding even relatively important and basic things such as thac0 and saving throws.
Whether or not you care about simplicity is another matter. I for one think that simplicity has value. The amount of value is debateable and really is subjective.
Again, I have nothing against you or anyone else preferring 3E, but I think all the differences are about taste; neither rule set is objectively simpler or better than the other.
I for one started out with playing 2E and I thought it very confusing. I played it for a year and never really got the hang of it. When 3E came out I learned most of the system quite quickly.
I'll grant you that 3E has more options for the characters than 2E and that does add some complexity but 3E is built around a less confusing principle of bigger is always better. (a part from creature size which isn't always the case :P)
I agree that introducing new players to the experience is exactly the issue that matters. All I said was that it wasn't whether or not you can, but how easy it is.
I have some older friends that had played 2E for a lot of years before 3E came out and they all swore that they would never change to 3E but they have all agreed that 3E is more simple to understand. The arguements they use are: We have so many books for 2E or we think the flavour is better.
Personally I play whatever system the group wants to play (with a very few exceptions) but I do have a favourite (pathfinder).
3E made a clean break with earlier versions of D&D, maintaining some of the stylistic cues and, maybe, some of the overall character, but it is a different game. As a completely new game, it was able to implement a number of mechanics in a more consistent and arguably intuitive manner, though the difference between 2E and 3E hit roll systems is often greatly exaggerated.
Point being: 3E was only able to accomplish the same thing because it was working with a simpler problem: build a new self-contained system rather than evolve an existing system in a way that is both familiar to players or and compatible with materials from the existing game.