Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

(Optional) 3E Style AC

nbnmarenbnmare Member Posts: 15
edited November 2014 in Feature Requests
One aspect of 2nd Edition I've never really liked is its AC/THAC0 system, and from on-line experience I know I'm not along in this opinion. I would imagine it could be very confusing to new players who've never experienced 2E before - in fact, I know it can be since the original Eye of the Beholder left me wondering why leather armor offered better protection than scale mail for quite some time. (EoB - now there's a game that needs an Enhanced Edition!)

What would be great would be if we could have an option ala IWD's 3E Sneak Attack (cheers for that BTW) to switch between the default system and that used in 3E and later editions. In other words, AC would begin at 0 and armor and bonuses would increase the number rather than decrease it. Any written reference to THAC0 would be changed to attack rolls instead; many kits, spells, items, etc already use this wording anyway. Gameplay would remain exactly the same, it would only be the presentation that changed.

For reference, here's how the AC for the games' non-magical armor would look:

Leather Armor: AC 2
Studded Leather Armor: AC 3
Hide Armor: AC 4
Chainmail Armor: AC 5
Splintmail Armor: AC 6
Plate Mail: AC 7
Full Plate Mail: AC 9

Post edited by nbnmare on
TheGraveDiggerRAM021

Comments

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,238
    edited October 2014
    No way.

    1) Like it or not this is a 2e game, and in 2e a lower AC = a lower chance to get hit.

    2) The amount of work necessary to do this would be obscene.

    3) It would break all sorts of mods.

    4) It would actually be a pretty reasonable request in ~2011 while the EEs were still being conceived and developed. But to make such a drastic change now, mid-stream, would be 10x more confusing to thousands upon players than you already are.

    5) Fact is, all of this stuff is arbitrary. You only find declining AC confusing because you happened to first experience a system that is completely opposite. (Really it's WotC's fault for making such a 180.) I find positive AC to be confusing because I first used a system with declining AC. Neither of us is 'right.'

    I mean in Mario Bros. you get smaller when you're hit, and then die on the second hit. In Zelda you have 3 hearts and you lose them half a heart at a time (think about that got a minute, it makes zero sense). In BG you have d4, d6, d8, or d10 hit dice. A gazillion other games have a gazillion other systems. You learn the system for each game. This is no different.

    Wigglesmeaglothsarevok57
  • nbnmarenbnmare Member Posts: 15
    edited October 2014

    No way.

    2) The amount of work necessary to do this would be obscene.

    3) It would break all sorts of mods.

    Why and how? Like I said this would only be a change of presentation. I fail to see how flipping a few numbers around would take a huge amount of time and effort - especially as it's already been achieved in the engine (see IWD 2).

    I'd imagine that the Backstab -> Sneak Attack option would have required far more work than this would take.

    You only find declining AC confusing because you happened to first experience a system that is completely opposite.

    Not so. Like I said, I was first exposed to this system with Eye of the Beholder 1 - which was released way back in 1991. I believe that was the first RPG I'd ever played.

    And besides, that was one of my points in favor of this requests - most people who've never played an IE game before would also have never experienced 2E or older editions before; either they'd only have experience of later D&D editions/Pathfinder, other RPGs, or no RPG experience at all.

    EDIT: From the tone of your post, I'm wondering if you missed the highlighted word in the following sentence: "What would be great would be if we could have an option ala IWD's 3E Sneak Attack"

    Post edited by nbnmare on
    RAM021
  • WigglesWiggles Member Posts: 571
    Really the developers have more pressing issues now with maintaining three games and working on Adventure Y. Would I like them to make optional big changes to the games if they're just sitting on their hands? Yes. But realistically they don't have the time or resources to change the way the games have been for already 15 years now. Also the mods that are already released would likely not work anymore. Honestly, and I'm trying to sound rude here, your best bet is to have someone mod it.

    GodKaiserHell
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    No. This is a 2e game that uses 2e rules. Get over it.

    nbnmareGodKaiserHell
  • nbnmarenbnmare Member Posts: 15
    edited October 2014
    Wiggles said:

    Also the mods that are already released would likely not work anymore.

    I'd really like to understand why mods would not work simply due to a presentation change? It's like claiming a text document will become unreadable if I highlight the chapter names in bold instead of underlining them.
    Honestly, and I'm trying to sound rude here, your best bet is to have someone mod it.
    I've actually implemented a number of features from later editions of D&D into my games (the ability score modifier system used in all editions from 3E onwards for example), but unfortunately this isn't something which can be modded. So if I could do it, I would do it. But I can't, so I won't :). Although, if Overhaul would be willing to make the necessary changes so that modders can do this themselves I would be more than content!
    meagloth said:

    No. This is a 2e game that uses 2e rules. Get over it.

    Oh dear. I guess Overhaul had better go back and remove the 3E Sneak Attack option from IWD:EE, and take out the 3E sorcerer, monk, and barbarian classes that are in the game while they're at it!

    RAM021
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    Have patience. IWDII:EE will be coming soon. ;)

    RAM021
  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336
    These forums make me sigh... If a respected member had suggested this as an "OPTIONAL" rule, people would have been all over it with the likes and agrees.

    Anything that makes the game easier to understand and more consistent is a good thing. Imagine a new player finishing IWD:EE first, and then giving BG:EE a try... he's gonna think his game is bugged/broken.

    Yeah, it's probably too much hassle to change... but mostly because of the annoying way item descriptions work.

    typo_tillyRAM021
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    That's not it, in my opinion, @TheGraveDigger‌.

    The game is an ADnD game. I think 3E rules are far more intuitive but IWDEE is still ADnD despite some 3E stuff.

    And really, this change is pointless. Just reverse them and done.

    Personally, I am waiting for IWDII EE, with it's 3E rules.

  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    Archaos said:

    Have patience. IWDII:EE will be coming soon. ;)

    No it won't. They retired the infinity engine. There was a tweet.

  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    meagloth said:


    No it won't. They retired the infinity engine. There was a tweet.

    Where's that tweet?

    GodKaiserHellRAM021
  • SapphireIce101SapphireIce101 Member Posts: 866
    edited November 2014
    Well, the whole conversation about retiring the Infinity Engine starts on page 12 of the All you wanted to know about Adventure Y thread.

    http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/26673/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-adventure-y/p12

    However, nobody ever links said tweet.

    Oh, and later on they do say that after Adventure Y they do plan on using a more modern engine for other projects.

    GodKaiserHell
  • FranpaFranpa Member Posts: 636
    I too suggested doing something to make Armour Class more intuitive but it also didn't see much favour from other members of the community :/

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,238
    edited November 2014
    I was the first negative response, and I apologize because I didn't mean to kick up a poopstorm. But if you look at what I bolded in my post you will see that I didn't really attack the idea (having an option to flip the AC values would be lovely) but rather I attacked the feasibility of the idea. I stand by that and I encourage any who like the idea not to get your hopes up.

    If you have any idea of how and where and how often those values get displayed, and how many of them are interdependent with other information displays, and the thought about trying to facilitate a simple toggle to switch back and forth, your brain would turn to mush. If this was feasible a mod for it would have been released years ago. It would be an utterly monumental task. Not nearly worth the effort, I'm afraid.

    If the devs have access to some kind of shortcut, then great. But knowing what I know about this game's structure, I'd say don't hold your breath.

    Finally there is also point 3, this would break mods. Yes, even an option/toggle would break mods. And to me the wealth of mods are part of what make this such a great game.

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
Sign In or Register to comment.