Armour Class discussion, was Re: [CF-Devel] Crossfire's Speeds and weapons

[Rick Tanner]

Traditionally AC has has been calculated on the basis of 20, counting
downwards.  However the current trend is going the opposite.  AD&D 3rd
Edition starts at 10 and goes upward.  This system is now the new standard
for the D20 Open Gaming license as well.  The reason is for simplicity,
all you have to remember is higher numbers are better.  Like what DNH
suggests.

If AC needs to be renamed, then perhaps calling it Defense Rating or
Defense Class ?

Another note, if AC is changed to "bigger is better," would changes to the
WC (displayed in the client) need to be changed as well?  Again, it goes
to the non-THAC0 system that 3rd edition now uses.  If your WC + d20 is
greater than opponents AC, then you hit.

Let the discussion continue =)

On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Erik Gjertsen wrote:

>
     
      On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 
      
      dnh at hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au
      
       wrote:
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      > * Change AC so that the displayer AC (in the client) is (AC - 20) x -1.
     
     >
     
      > This will then mean the overall Armour Class a player has is give as zero
     
     >
     
      > then increases as more AC is gained. Although I know it has been a
     
     >
     
      > tradition to have it going 20 then decreasing, I would like to make it so
     
     >
     
      > that all numbers are -> Bigger = Better. (On this theme we recently
     
     >
     
      > changed it so that higher values of hunger are better, it used to be that
     
     >
     
      > hunger -1 is good.. but this seemed alittle out of place).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      I mostly agree on your proposals, but I don't like this one... Armour
     
     >
     
      class has always been calculated with a basis of 20, counting downwards
     
     >
     
      when adding armour. This is so in AD&D, this is also so for most all RPGs
     
     >
     
      and MUDs.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Call me conservative, but I'd really hate to see that change. If you chose
     
     >
     
      to do this, you should really call it something else, since AC (or Armour
     
     >
     
      Class) is a very old RPG term, and would confuse a lot of people if not
     
     >
     
      used as it should be.