Armour class: The nitty-gritty
Alonso
Member Posts: 806
Disclaimer: Funny mix of ranting and genuine questions ahead. Even I cannot clearly tell which parts are ranting and which genuine questions.
As I was reviewing the armour sets I have collected troughout the game, trying to decide which ones to keep and which ones to sell, I became so confused with all the numbers and modifiers. I know the basic idea: The lower the AC, the harder you are to hit. However, the specific details are so confusing.
I attach a saved game that contains several confusing details:
My bard (charname) isn't wearing anything that improves his AC. Still, he has a -2 modifier to his AC vs. missiles. Where does this come from?
Minsc is wearing:
A red dragon scale: AC -1, -4 vs. slashing, -2 vs. piercing and missile. The Destroyer of the hills: AC +4 vs. crushing attacks. As a result, his AC is -3. However, he has modifiers for all four types of damage: crushing, slashing, piercing and missile. So what does the -3 mean? Vs. what does he have AC -3?
Keldorn is wearing the Firecam Armour, AC 0, and nothing else that affects his AC. However, he has bonuses to his AC vs. slashing, piercing and missile. Where do these come from?
Apart from that, the descriptions of the items seem wrong. The descriptions of shields, for instance, say their ability (weird that a shield has an ability, but that's a different story) is AC +1, when it really is AC -1.
Finally, what does the word "modifier" exactly mean? The Destroyer of the hills modifies the AC vs. crushing. The Ring of the princes modifies the AC in general. Why is only the former listed under modifiers?
As I was reviewing the armour sets I have collected troughout the game, trying to decide which ones to keep and which ones to sell, I became so confused with all the numbers and modifiers. I know the basic idea: The lower the AC, the harder you are to hit. However, the specific details are so confusing.
I attach a saved game that contains several confusing details:
My bard (charname) isn't wearing anything that improves his AC. Still, he has a -2 modifier to his AC vs. missiles. Where does this come from?
Minsc is wearing:
A red dragon scale: AC -1, -4 vs. slashing, -2 vs. piercing and missile. The Destroyer of the hills: AC +4 vs. crushing attacks. As a result, his AC is -3. However, he has modifiers for all four types of damage: crushing, slashing, piercing and missile. So what does the -3 mean? Vs. what does he have AC -3?
Keldorn is wearing the Firecam Armour, AC 0, and nothing else that affects his AC. However, he has bonuses to his AC vs. slashing, piercing and missile. Where do these come from?
Apart from that, the descriptions of the items seem wrong. The descriptions of shields, for instance, say their ability (weird that a shield has an ability, but that's a different story) is AC +1, when it really is AC -1.
Finally, what does the word "modifier" exactly mean? The Destroyer of the hills modifies the AC vs. crushing. The Ring of the princes modifies the AC in general. Why is only the former listed under modifiers?
1
Comments
Beamdog adopted a convention of "+" always meaning bonus, and "-" always meaning penalty, even though THAC0, AC, and saves are all better when they're lower. I think this still hasn't been 100% uniformly applied, but it's a lot more consistent than it used to be.
Have a fighter with thac0 15 attack the red dragon scale. Said fighter is proficient with all weapons and has no str bonus. Okay? With a sword (slashing) he faces an ac of -4, therefore needs 15-(-4)=19 roll on a d20 to hit. Very tough. With a dagger (piercing) he faces an ac of -2, therefore needs 15-(-2)=17 to hit. A bit better. With a mace (crushing) he faces an ac of -1, so needs 15-(-1)=16 to hit:mace is easier to hurt someone in platemail!
However if you also have the girdle of bluntness, that adds +4 ac vs crushing, said armor's crushing ac becomse -5! Even harder to hit than the sword! 15-(-5)=20! Our fighter needs a roll of 20, ie:critical hit to hurt the platemail+girdle combo.
In item descriptions, bonuses are with +, a ring of protection says it gives ac+1 bonus. Don't look at the plus, look at the word 'Bonus'. Thus, a bonus is a good thing, it lowers your ac, because lower ac is better. Ditto for saves, a ring offers +1 to all saves. Thus if your save vs death is 10, it becomes 9. You need to roll a 9, instead of 10, to make a save with the ring.
Some spells offer a save with + bonus to save. This is different term wise. A chromatic orb, adds +6 to the roll save of the target, making it easier for the target to save. A chaos has save at -4 penalty, making it tougher for the target to roll a succesful save.
Say, you have a save vs spells of 12. If you are hit by a chromatic orb and roll a 10, with +6 inherent bonus of the spell, your roll becomes 16. 16 is bigger than your save 12, so you save. Only if you roll 5 or lower, you fail your save vs chromatic orb.
If you are hit by chaos, and roll a 13. 13-5=9, it is lower than your base save, you fail and get confused. Wİth a base save vs spell of 12, you need to roll 16 or better to save vs chaos.
Note that specialist mages also add another -2 to target's save vs spells of their chosen school. Thus, an enchanter's chaos is even harder to resist, with -6 penalty to the save roll!
When an item is intended to adjust armor class, its uses a (+) for bonus's and (-) for penalties.
Specific AC types (Slashing, Piercing, Missile, Crushing) cannot actually be "Set" to a value like generic AC, only incremented/decremented, so they do not always display as expected. The Modifiers section represent the cumulative adjustments to each of the 4 specific AC types (Slashing, Piercing, Missile, Crushing), regardless of where the modifier comes from. Add these values to your generic AC to get the final values of each.
The things that bypass the -20 AC cap include:
1. Damage-specific modifiers (Golden Girdle, Boots of Avoidance, Potion of Absorption, full plate mail side bonuses)
2. Single-weapon style AC bonuses
3. Protection from evil bonus
4. Improved Invisibility bonus
Exactly! Which is a long way of saying he doesn't have a -3 AC at all. It doesn't make sense that his AC stat says "-3" when he just doesn't have that AC. Redmined here. No, it doesn't. If you wear, say, plate mail and nothing else, your AC is 0 vs. slashing and 3 vs. crushing, piercing and missile. However, the modifiers section says "-3 vs. slashing". That's not an adjustment. That -3 doesn't adjust anything.
Wouldn't it make a bit more sense that the Modifiers section listed, uh, let me think... modifiers? I mean, seriously, I laughed so much when I read in the v2.2 notes "The AC heading is now organized more intuitively".
Nope. I even cast a (successful) Dispel Magic on the group beforehand just in case.
Off topic note: I love 2E because it brings great childhood memories. I find it way too nerdy, but for me that's part of its charm.
If totally unequipped than it is either a weapon style or your dex that is giving you this modifier.
Remove the weapon just in case it is equipped and then what happens to do modifier?
If you still can't figure it out - open EEkeeper and check resistances tab and see what is there.
Thac0 − AC = roll needed to hit
and
AC - attack bonus = roll needed to hit
are exactly the same. There just isn't those nice moments where you have a negative Thac0 where from you deduct another negative number that is enemies AC. Also 3rd edition version can put it like this
You hit if:
AC =< roll + attack bonus
and you have defenders variables on one side and attackers on the other without having to deduct anything. Compared how it would have worked in 2nd edition
You hit if:
− AC =< roll - Thac0
where you have not one but 2 additive inverse.
EDIT: Didn't remember this: have you checked with EE Keeper or NearInfinity or something that you don't have any strange effects on your character(s). I just cleared a few these today but I run a heavily modded game.
And then you don't get things like the negative bonuses with armor class either. You find armor that is -4 to slashing. So that's a good thing right? As mentioned, there are times when it's described one way and the other in Baldur's Gate. Just makes more sense to give positive bonuses. +4 vs slashing in 3E would be a better armor. I'm not saying it's harder or something, I like things to be sensible and as a mod maker and coder yourself I would think you'd agree logically laying out things is nice. Sure 2E's way can make sense. Maybe it's a kind of glass half empty vs glass half full type thing too.
Another thing I really liked in 3E is multiclassing and class restrictions being a lot looser. Halflings could be paladins and things like that. You could take a couple classes of fighter a few mage a few cleric on the same guy. I'm not sure what you feel are cheesy additions, maybe you are talking about Pen and Paper but mainly I'm going off my experience with Neverwinter Nights. After the campaigns did nothing for me, I played online worlds back in the day and had a blast.
I still love some classic 2E and Baldur's Gate especially but I feel you lose a lot of freedom you gain in 3E.
Understanding it doesn't require anything: intuitively, it makes sense that plate mail would be better against slashing weapons than blunt weapons, so one would assume that the AC vs. slashing was a bonus, not a penalty.
Here is the table from the original game Manual:
AC matters very little after TOB. You're better off using resistance to damage, resistance to magic, etc for protection. By then, your mages and sorcerers will be able to cast the massive spells to strike first, and your warriors should be at least partially resistant to damage, and have access to the hardiness feats, which makes all the difference in the world.
AC modifiers work the same way. You have a base AC that covers everything (the kitchen), and then in certain situations (inside the refrigerator) the AC changes. That's a modifier. And I dunno, it seems to me like that's how the game presents it. It gives you an armor class, and then it says "vs. slashing, your AC is 3 points lower than that". There are probably clearer ways to convey that information, but I'm just not seeing how the information the game presents is in any way wrong here.
Logically a set of leather armor protects less well against blunt weapons - its after all leather when compared to lets say chain mail. So a modifier adds or subtracts to your AC to the type of damage you are facing while wearing a certain type of armor.
So if you have lets say a modifier of -2 vs missile weapons, means that when monsters have to hit you with missile weapons and your base is AC 0 then your AC against missile weapons is AC -2.
That's all a modifier really is - it helps or hinders your AC.
Another simple example would be to make a monk - when he reaches level 3 or something like that he gets a modifier vs missile weapons giving the character a bonus to AC vs missile weapons. So if the character had a normal AC of 6 then with his modifier vs missiles would mean that when facing a missile attack his AC would be 4.
Still confused then think of it as a magical weapon bonus given the right situation. Daystar is a +2 weapon but it is +4 vs evil creatures. When wielding this sword against non-evil things Daystar would act as a mere +2 weapon but when faced with an evil monster its modifiers kicks in making it a +4 weapon.
Yes, some armor/items will provide multiple modifiers depending on the damage it is facing.
------------------------------------------------
My half a cent about AC - comparing 2nd ed vs 3rd ed.
In 2nd edition rules generally -20 was the max you could reach. There was a maximum defense that armor could provide to you - generally it should not be possible to reach more than -20. Yes going up makes more sense since you are adding things like armor to your body but if you think about it is about the damage you are receiving - so a negative armor class means you are taking less damage and therefore harder to hit.
In 3rd edition rules - your AC was positive meaning it could continue to go up and up. Which for me made sense but was also a bit strange. Could you get AC to 50+ or 100 or some crazy number. But the real oddity of 3rd edition was that a high dex gave you better AC then full plate armor. Another oddity was that AC totally unclothed was still 10 and moved up from that - wouldn't it make more sense to be naked and have a AC 0 and then putting on clothes and armor make it better.
But seriously, I think the 10 naked AC was like well, you are not immobile even naked you have *some* ability to evade attacks or to resist blows you can't evade. Your skin and skeleton and clothing provide protection. Maybe 0 would be like if you were unconscious or paralyzed.
I think the high Dex being better than plate armor is mostly only a thing if you get the really really high Dex going on. And a super high Dex like that I guess you are so quick it's really really tough to hit you. Like Yoda bouncing around in the prequels.
I'm assuming that was meant to be "after the start of TOB" though. :P
A modifier, to be precise, is "a person or thing that modifies" (Collins dictionary). For instance, the ring of the Princes is a modifier, a thing that modifies your AC by -1.
My point is that a section called "Modifiers" should display a list of modifiers, like the ring of the Princes. Alternatively, there could be a section called, say, Bonuses, which lists (obviously) bonuses, like the -1 bonus to AC provided by the ring of the Princes. What doesn't make sense is to have a section called modifiers which lists things which are not modifiers.