Dungeons & Dragons Question

[Nick]

I'm playing in Icewind Dale II and noticed, that armour class of characters is positive, while in AD&D 2 it was negative. Is this one of the new additions of AD&D 3.5, on rules of which ID 2 based?

[Toxik]

Originally posted by Nick@Dec 27 2005, 10:53 PM
I'm playing in Icewind Dale II and noticed, that armour class of characters is positive, while in AD&D 2 it was negative. Is this one of the new additions of AD&D 3.5, on rules of which ID 2 based?
IM not 100 percent sure but it has both positiva and negative armour class-the lee the better

[Tulac]

Originally posted by Nick@Dec 27 2005, 10:53 PM
I'm playing in Icewind Dale II and noticed, that armour class of characters is positive, while in AD&D 2 it was negative. Is this one of the new additions of AD&D 3.5, on rules of which ID 2 based?
It's the 3rd edition rule...
the point is if let's say the character has 14 (10base+4armor) you have to roll a d20(+ your bonuses) and if the rolled number with added bonuses is greater than the AC, it's a hit...
No more THAC0

[Nikson]

The 2nd edition AC rules were terrible, and confusing for non-/new players. The 3rd edition cumulative AC rules make much more sense: the higher the AC number, the higher your attack roll has to be to get through.

[Eva02Soul]

Yeah, they stripped down a lot of the clutter for 3rd Edition, but still made monks a completely overpowering class. I don't know if that was changed in 3.5, but I don't really care. I love monks.

[Nick]

Originally posted by Tulac+Dec 27 2005, 09:58 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tulac @ Dec 27 2005, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Nick@Dec 27 2005, 10:53 PM
I'm playing in Icewind Dale II and noticed, that armour class of characters is positive, while in AD&D 2 it was negative. Is this one of the new additions of AD&D 3.5, on rules of which ID 2 based?
It's the 3rd edition rule...
the point is if let's say the character has 14 (10base+4armor) you have to roll a d20(+ your bonuses) and if the rolled number with added bonuses is greater than the AC, it's a hit...
No more THAC0 [/b][/quote]
What about impossible throws (when armour class 20+)? It is still 20 is hit and 1 - miss?

[Tulac]

Yes it is...

[Eva02Soul]

20+ isn't impossible. You apply stats modifiers and attack bonuses to your rolls, plus the BAB for your class. 20 can end up being considered quite low for an AC

[Eagle of Fire]

In the old versions (which I used to play), both positive and negative AC were possible. In fact, the lower you got the better it was. It was also possible to have an ac of 0, which was not bad.

[punch999]

I still prefer version 2.0 though it has so many choices and isn't as limiting as ver 3.0 and 3.5

[Havell]

Version 3.5 is my favourite becuase of the feats and prestige classes. Mostly the feats, they rule.

[Nick]

Originally posted by punch@Dec 28 2005, 04:09 PM
I still prefer version 2.0 though it has so many choices and isn't as limiting as ver 3.0 and 3.5
Well, while I was reading Player's Handbook for AD&D 2, I gained an opinion, that most of the rules can be modified by Game Master.

[Nick]

Originally posted by Eva02Soul@Dec 28 2005, 11:55 AM
20+ isn't impossible. You apply stats modifiers and attack bonuses to your rolls, plus the BAB for your class. 20 can end up being considered quite low for an AC
I meant, if you have to roll more than 20 to hit. If you have armour class -10 and attacker has THAC0 12.

[Galadrin]

Yes, a natural 20 is still considered an automatic hit (though a GM can rule that a natural is a 30, and a natural 1 a -10... or anything else for that matter). And as much as I love monks, in 3.5 especially the Barbarian is the most overpowering class. Raging power attack with a two handed weapon is a horrific sight considering you double the power attack damage.

[Tulac]

2nd edition is much better for pen&paper while the 3rd and 3.5 editions are better for computer games. The point in 3rd edition is that you can roll for everything, and there's very little need of any roleplaying, it's too much hack and slash IMO...

[Yobor]

I agree totally with Tulac. 3.5 and 3 work better in theory, but a lot of the time players get bogged down with everything thye have to pay attention to. In 2nd edition it was much simpler, and there was more roleplaying, and the DM had more choice.