low numbers better?

Orie

i have just started and i have a character that has a -1 to dex and a AC of 10 so this means in at an AC of 9 correct which is better because im harder to hit correct? sorry im new to this and i've been hardwired with DnD 3.5 and pathfinder rules so its a bit hard to understand also is there a log in this game that shows how combat plays out?

CaptRory

Yes, generally lower nummbers are better.

Every character has a THAC0: To Hit Armor Class 0. Its the roll you need to hit someone whose armor class is 0. The lower your THAC0 the easier it is to hit someone in combat because it means you don't need good rolls on the dice. Your armor class works the same way. If your AC is -2 people trying to hit you need to roll two under thir THAC0 to hit you.

If your THAC0 is 10. And your target has an AC of -2. You need to roll a 12 or better to hit them. If one's AC is so low they can't be hit (like if you wear the boots of avoidance, cloak of displacement, and girdle of piercing and get like a -13 ac towards ranged attacks) you'll only be hit on a natural 20.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Orie

thanks yes i have a fighter with a 7 AC with modifiers added

franco

Yes. Lower numbers are better. A simple way to look at Armor is right on your Inventory page. You will have a certain AC when your character's armor isn't equipped. When you equip your armor to have more protection, notice that the AC goes down.

A normal man with no armor is assumed to have AC 10. If he has good Dexteriry, his armor class would be a little lower. With decent armor, his AC tends to drop much further. He becomes much harder to hit.

When you go to purchase equipment you can check the actual affect on armor class from type of armor that is on sale. Right-click on the type of armor in the shopkeeper's inventory. The stronger, more expensive armors, will decrease the AC most.

Awong124

D&D creators changed it for 3rd edition and made it so that higher numbers are better, which I think is more intuitive. I can't think of a good reason why they implemented this format for 2nd edition. But BG is mostly based on 2E, so you don't have to worry about the 3E stuff. If you go and play Icewind Dale 2 or Temple of Elemental Evil, those are based on 3E so higher numbers will be better in those games.

smeagolheart

I think the reason they did it is because it makes sense somewhat when you are rolling dice.

An AC of 7 needs a higher roll on the 20 sided dice or whatever to hit than a AC of 10.

It is pretty bassackwards and a temporary solution that works ok within a small range or numbers; they realized that and changed it for 3e

Awong124

But the dice rolling works the same way the other way around too. In 3E's format you still need a higher dice roll to hit higher AC. It will always be as such as long as THAC0/ToHit and AC go in the same direction.

atcDave

The backwards armor class has a long history from miniatures combat going way back. Way before there was 2E, there was 1E, plain old D&D, and Chainmail. For those of us with extensive war gaming and miniatures experience 2E has always been the height of simplicity.

But to the OP, just remember 20 Thaco and 10 armor class are your starting points. Penalties can make things worse, but generally you will only get better than those bases. Your front liners (warriors and maybe clerics) should get below zero armor classes pretty early on. And your warrior's Thacos should get down to around ten, by the end of the game. For rear rank characters (especially mages), none of these numbers really matter too much, those characters won't be carrying much of the load in combat anyway.

mashedtaters

Here's something that has always made me giggle, no matter how many times I see it. To give due credit, here's a link to the artist's website. http://www.deviantart.com/art/BG-Armour-Class-102351534