Locked AC question for defense

2 minutes ago, Pali said:

It looks like he edited my quoted post.  I wrote "Go with what the coders tell you."  His quote of my post reads "Go with what the others tell you."

I saw that he edited your quoted post, which is why I posted his and yours for comparison.  What I meant by "I'm not sure what was edited in Foxx's post" is that his post shows it was edited after publication.   While he could have gone back in and changed "coders" to read "others" after the publication, he could just have easily corrected a typo or added another line in the main body of his work, too.

I meant that I think that is what he edited - if I remember his post correctly from when it first went up, the quote was accurate originally.  Then again, I was also fairly intoxicated at the time, and it's just about bedtime now, so... not exactly my most reliable moment for remembering things. ;)

To @Magick: Question everything. Even the so called experts.

Always try to get a second opinion, without revealing the first, to avoid bias, then confront with first.

Trusting experts is an **appeal to authority **fallacy.

Back to the topic.

I can't say exactly what is now, only Morl can. But I have some understanding how it was 10 years ago.

AC protects you in two ways.

1. If your opponent may fail to pass an armor check and do "miss" zero damage.

2. Your armor reduced X% amount of meele damage based on your AC.

In the Old days, before the sea drank Atlantis, the fail check was an THAC0 roll based on his Hitroll, his Class (THAC0), if he was dual wielding and your AC value. Meele classes like warriors get better chance to not miss than mages like Clerics. Stacking high AC was quite effective to trigger this in the past, and still is at low levels vs mobs. This roll mechanics were very complex.

The armor reduction was a very simple thing like    damage reduction % =  AC / X , where X is a hard coded value. This is why AC gets better the higher you get, just like saves. Each point is worth more reduction. But good luck squeezing those extra points.

That was in the old days. Now Morl changed stuff. I suspect THAC check has been extremely overhauled, and so have the classes THAC0 values. I think he said that now 800 AC is equals to 600 AC , or something of the sort. Still 600 AC is still a pretty huge damage reduction, probably around 1/3 , from my practical testing less than 1 year ago.

The only thing that players need to take into account is that the higher the AC the better it is. And that if you are missing regularly, them your hitroll is crap.

Some might be interested in knowing the exact values for evaluating the best point in the AC vs HP relationship, but such is to complex and draining to take in account when choosing gear.

Also @Gaunticles, if the AC check comes before of after defenses is moth because the order has no impact. Just like defenses order.

But I think Lloth is right, it checks AC first, then defenses.

Another thing that is worth knowing regarding AC, is that only melee attacks and SOME skills check vs it. For example, throw doesn't appears to check AC for damage reduction.

21 minutes ago, mya said:

To @Magick: Question everything. Even the so called experts.

Always try to get a second opinion, without revealing the first, to avoid bias, then confront with first.

Trusting experts is an **appeal to authority **fallacy.

That is the exact opposite of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Quote

Appeal to Authority

(also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

...

Exception: Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

5 minutes ago, Magick said:

That is the exact opposite of the appeal to authority fallacy.

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, popularized by John Locke as the argumentum ad verecundiam[note 1], is a form of argument in which expert opinion supports the argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is most often used in a cogent form.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Just because an expert says something about something in his field, it does not makes it true. It has an high probability of being true, but isn't prof.

I will give you an example:

"The church, an expert in the creation of the world, says that the earth is flat."

The only prof of the earth being flat is the word of the church.

"The flat earth society says that the earth is flat, because the size of the sun change in this photograph is incompatible with round earth theory." https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/introduction-to-the-flat-earth-how-it-works-and-why-we-believe-it/

They say something, but offer prof. You don't argue based on what they say but on the prof they presented.

"The earth is round because NASA an expert says so."

"The earth is round because NASA has taken photos of space and they show a round earth."

Notice the difference?

Wikipedia?  Really?

Alright.  Wikipedia it is.  

Same article:

"Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth."

-The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Bradley Dowden

"Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them."

-The "Fallacies" entry by Hans Hansen in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Valid forms

The valid form of argument is one in which a recognized and knowledgeable authority on the relevant subject is appealed to by citing a statement by that authority. This is a form of inductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not logically certain, but likely. Examples include following the treatments prescribed by a medical doctor, or citing a respected author to establish claims of fact in a written work.

Fallacious forms

When misused, the argument typically forms an informal fallacy. This form of the argument occurs when the presumed authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as being an expert in the wrong subject or is giving views from one side of an active controversy. Some examples of this are citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology; an Olympic athlete's endorsement of a product they do not use; or a long retired professor's claims about a current debate in their field. This forms an informal fallacy because the first proposition is untrue.

An argument from authority says that an authority is likely to be true and not certain, yes.  But the fallacy is about someone that cites an authority or that the authority is out of their field of expertise.

"For example, saying 'There is no God, because Stephen Hawking said so and is a knowledgeable physicist' is an appeal to a misleading authority as Hawking's qualifications in physics do not automatically make his argument correct..."

-http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Can't believe I have to close this thread. Kinda laughing right now.