Soft casters like the paladin and ranger are also good ways to get used to the new-old casting style, since they don’t have the finnicky extra bits the wizards and clerics get.

]]>Don’t be such a damn hipster. THAC0 vs. AC isn’t like comparing Eric Clapton vs. Jeff Beck era Yardbirds, It’s a question of superior engineering. First of all, the purpose of an attack roll is to determine a binary outcome: hit or miss, by rolling a die and comparing the result to a target number. This involves a procedure composed of separate operations:

Descending AC:

*Player declares their intention to attack

*DM derives the target number (1E=crossreferencing values on the combat matrix; 2E=subtracting targets Armor Class from the attackers THAC0)

*Player rolls a d20, adding any relevant modifiers, and compares the result to the target number

*If the result is =/> target number, attack succeeds and player rolls damage; if the result is <target number, the attack fails.

Ascending AC: *Player declares their intention to attack *Player rolls a d20, adding any relevant modifiers, and compares the result to the target number (in this case, the target’s AC) *If the result is =/> target number, attack succeeds and player rolls damage; if the result is <target number, the attack fails.

The key difference here is that in systems with ascending AC (5E, 4E, 3E), the to-hit target number of a target is simply stated as the target’s AC. In descending AC systems (BECMI/RC, 1E, 2E) the target number is derived using target’s AC as part of the calculation or reference value.

So given that the purpose and output of the two systems are identical (determine hit or miss), and that one system accomplishes this goal using less operations than the other (ascending AC), and is therefore a superior system from an engineering standpoint.

One may prefer descending AC out of sentiment, but this is not a rational position.

Also, descending AC has certain intuitive problems as well, such as magical +1 armor DECREASING the wearer’s AC.