|
AAC
Jun 17, 2015 15:29:54 GMT -6
Post by gallowglacht on Jun 17, 2015 15:29:54 GMT -6
So I'm thinking ascending armour class might be handy for Delving Deeper. Not the published version obviously, but for my own games. That way Normal Type hit rolls with no modifiers are simply a straight d20 roll targeting AC. Quick and easy visual for my more casual players. I can just throw down hand-fulls of d20's of different colours (Red vs Jenny, Blue vs Brian) all dramatically in the open.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
AAC
Jun 17, 2015 17:37:34 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 17, 2015 17:37:34 GMT -6
I'm generally not into AAC myself, but do whatever works for you! Depending on what you're aiming for, normal combat might be made more "dramatic" (or perhaps more "distinct" from fantastic combat, if you prefer) by dispensing with d20s altogether. See what happens when you throw out a handful of six-siders instead. This can help to emphasise the brutality of normal combat, if that's what you're looking for? It can also speed play along, which can be good when you're dealing with lots of normals. Let us know how it goes
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 17, 2015 18:28:41 GMT -6
Should work just fine. I like AAC and don't really see much difference between descending and ascending. They are just two different ways of looking at the same numbers. Here's an annotated DD combat chart that I made for someone on G+: The only place it breaks down is the repeating "2s" for high HD monsters versus unarmored opponents, but if you keep a "1" as always a miss no matter what the attack bonus it will work out the same. You can simplify it further by having the Monster's Hit Dice = Attack Bonus. Old TSR modules are easy to run with AAC. Just subtract the AC listed from 19 to get the number required to hit, and then add attack bonus to the roll to-hit. An Ogre with AC5 requires a 14 to be hit by 1st level non-fighter (who have an attack bonus of zero). Fighters/Higher level characters would add their attack bonus to their roll to try for this number.
|
|
|
AAC
Jun 18, 2015 4:57:03 GMT -6
Zenopus likes this
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 18, 2015 4:57:03 GMT -6
AC versus AAC is sometimes a hot topic, although it mystifies me as to why. I know that I've used a "big is better" style armor rating in my home game since the 1970's and have liked it better than the BTB way becasue the descending model just always felt weird to me.
I'd say feel free to use whichever method feels more "right" to you.
----------
Zenopus: I like your chart. That's exactly the way I think of AAC, but I can't recall seeing anyone explain it visually as well as you did.
|
|
|
AAC
Jun 18, 2015 14:39:38 GMT -6
Post by mgtremaine on Jun 18, 2015 14:39:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gallowglacht on Jun 18, 2015 14:50:52 GMT -6
I seem to have gotten off lighter...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 18, 2015 16:00:16 GMT -6
There's nothing inherently "wrong" with AAC; like zenopus just posted, it's all just numbers delivering the same outcome. I guess the two draws of AC over AAC for me are 1) all the original D&D material is written that way, and 2) that's the way I first learned it. Either will work just fine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
AAC
Dec 17, 2015 5:16:29 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 5:16:29 GMT -6
I often ditch AC all together, and just use the target to hit each armour at first level, and give bonuses to the roll as appropriate to the class. So this just ends up with a big attack matrix, because when I do that, I always include the 'weapons vs ac' modifiers from greyhawk.
One thing that always annoyed me about armor class is that there is no 'first class', no AC1.
But for a game which is trying to be a very straight forward re-presentation of 0e, then I'd argue against innovation. The players can houserule that in at the table.
|
|