|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jun 3, 2015 8:25:47 GMT -5
Do you have a limit to how good AC's will get in your game. In the original booklets the best you could get is 2 as there was no Dex bonus for high AC. While magic armor doesn't change the AC number it just modifies the attack roll. The highest bonus in Monsters and Treasure is +2 so effectively the best AC is 0. Do you cap AC? Do you have negative AC in your games?
I don't have negative AC in my games and I normally don't hand out very much magic. I'm currently thinking of capping magical pluses depending on the armor type:
Armor Max Bonus
Leather +5
Chain +4
Plate +2
Using this no AC would drop below 0 even when employing a shield. Magic shield and armor magic bonus wouldn't stack the player would use whichever plus gave the better bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2015 8:43:25 GMT -5
The highest bonus in Monsters and Treasure is +2 so effectively the best AC is 0. Do you mean the Displacer Cloak's "+2 to defense" or something else? FWIW, the Ring of Protection "serves as +1 armor would, giving this bonus to defensive capabilities" which kinda implies the Displacer Cloak's "defense" should likewise serve as +2 armor would, i.e., adjusting the attack roll. For me AC 2 is the best AC there is, because that is as low as the attack matrices go. BTB, all magical armor is assumed to be plate, so the maximum bonus for other armor types would be 0. However, in my game I have allowed a coat of Elvish mail +2 to enter play (which a 3rd level fighter won from the Elves in an archery contest). Also BTB, magical shield and magical armor don't stack (M&T p31) but it seems it's very common practice that they are stacked (possibly this is from later rules?). |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jun 3, 2015 8:57:12 GMT -5
The highest bonus in Monsters and Treasure is +2 so effectively the best AC is 0. Do you mean the Displacer Cloak's "+2 to defense" or something else? FWIW, the Ring of Protection "serves as +1 armor would, giving this bonus to defensive capabilities" which kinda implies the Displacer Cloak's "defense" should likewise serve as +2 armor would, i.e., adjusting the attack roll. For me AC 2 is the best AC there is, because that is as low as the attack matrices go. BTB, all magical armor is assumed to be plate, so the maximum bonus for other armor types would be 0. However, in my game I have allowed a coat of Elvish mail +2 to enter play (which a 3rd level fighter won from the Elves in an archery contest). Also BTB, magical shield and magical armor don't stack (M&T p31) but it seems it's very common practice that they are stacked (possibly this is from later rules?). I'd have to double check but I don't remember magic armor only being restricted to plate. The armor stacking bonus started in Greyhawk. I know from 1st ed onward it did. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jun 3, 2015 9:46:30 GMT -5
There are few enough magical protections available, that I see no reason not to let AC stack indefinitely.
A good way of limiting the amount of magical protection is to cross off magic items off the list after they have been rolled up.
That way players won't end up with a dozen rings of protection.
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jun 3, 2015 10:55:41 GMT -5
Great discussion topic!!
These days, I'm trying real hard to manage this the OD&D way as opposed to the AD&D way. So, armor class remains 2 at best but magic and other factors reduce an opponent's attack roll. And I'm inclined to let bonuses in that regard stack. Why?
The combat matrices.
Monsters don't seem to start out with great attack rolls... If I recall right, for the first half-dozen or so hit dice they attack around as good as the fighter does. But after that, what I see, is monsters beginning to out class the fighters pretty quickly in terms of being able to hit the better armor classes. I'm not sure I'm against, or for this phenomenon yet. But it's there.
So, I'm all for magical bonuses stacking in an effort to help players against relatively better attack rolls. But this of course means that they've got to get out there and adventure, and find the stuff!!
I'd probably go as-written here; Any house-rules I add would be indirect ones like allowing research of non-OD&D spells like shield, or magic items like bracers of defense.
And what of intelligent shields?
"You've found Haden's wall, a shield of legendry ... Its +1/+3 vs magical and enchanted creatures, is lawful, and paralises the above foes that could have hit the weilder but missed for the extra bonus against them"
Edit: I don't think I'd stack bonuses to AC that are generally of the same type.
Example: I would only apply the higher bonuses of two rings of protection, but would apply all the bonuses from a single ring of protection, a magic shield, and say, a cloak of displacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 3, 2015 17:15:23 GMT -5
bestialwarlust, okay, so I feel stupid. What do you mean that the "highest bonus" to AC in M&T is +2? There is the +3 shield, right? Or is that not what you are talking about and I am showing my ignorance and missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2015 17:17:40 GMT -5
I'd have to double check but I don't remember magic armor only being restricted to plate. See the armor table in Greyhawk, p15. |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jun 3, 2015 18:09:12 GMT -5
tetramorph, I believe bestialwarlust means the highest AC, not bonus, is 2 in the old game. This is due to how the bonus to armor works (not adding to AC, subtracting to the roll to hit it) and the best armor being Plate and Shield at AC 2. But you're right; OD&D has bonuses to armor better than +2
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 3, 2015 18:14:24 GMT -5
Thanks, merctime, I am there now. bestialwarlust, I see where you are going and I like the deadliness factor. My limit would be that magical armor cannot stack. But I would give the FM the full benefits if he found a +3 shield (so, doing it "wrong," AC -1). |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jun 3, 2015 19:36:39 GMT -5
Thanks, merctime, I am there now. bestialwarlust, I see where you are going and I like the deadliness factor. My limit would be that magical armor cannot stack. But I would give the FM the full benefits if he found a +3 shield (so, doing it "wrong," AC -1). Well there really is no wrong way. I'm just curious to see how others handle it. My personal preference is keeping the AC limited so players no longer feel like it's an arms race. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 3, 2015 20:23:31 GMT -5
bestialwarlust, I read you and I like it. My players don't know it's an arms-race because (for whatever reason, blessedly, I guess I am lucky) they never look at the rules books! If they got a +3 shield they would just say, "wow! cool." And think they were lucky. And they would be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jun 3, 2015 20:51:17 GMT -5
bestialwarlust, I read you and I like it. My players don't know it's an arms-race because (for whatever reason, blessedly, I guess I am lucky) they never look at the rules books! If they got a +3 shield they would just say, "wow! cool." And think they were lucky. And they would be right. My main group and I have been gaming since the early 90's we did a lot of 1st/2 ed with some b/x so they got used to the arms race. Another group I game with I'm going to try and get them to try OD&D. One of the players in the group is old enough to have started with the white box. They do a lot of Pathfinder so are kind of used to a d&d superhero's version as I call it. Nothing wrong with that but I'd like to try and get them to see that you can have just as much fun without all of the rules fiddling and mastering. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 5, 2015 7:11:42 GMT -5
All I can tell you is that bitd starting in 1975 before we used Greyhawk we never did it by the book, our AC tables went into negative numbers, but we never wrote it down we always did it in our head. The other thing we always did is that both defensive and offensive bonuses stacked. I still run it that way to this day, having never done it any other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jun 6, 2015 6:41:18 GMT -5
My group also had home-brew combat tables that went deep into the negatives, but I cannot recall if that was pre- or post-Greyhawk supplement. I'm pretty sure we always modified AC instead of dice rolls.
I flipped the AC over early on, probably before 1980, because negative AC always seemed wonky to me. Not as elegant as the current AAC method, but it worked for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jun 6, 2015 7:23:34 GMT -5
Not as elegant as the current AAC method, but it worked for us. Blasphemer! All AC must descend!   |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jun 7, 2015 9:28:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Jun 7, 2015 14:42:16 GMT -5
A good way of limiting the amount of magical protection is to cross off magic items off the list after they have been rolled up. I never thought of doing this but it's a great idea that fits because it is simple and easy to implement. |
|
