|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 19, 2015 17:42:42 GMT -6
This has been done to death, but I put together a few tables for my upcoming OD&D campaign. My players are used to ascending AC, so I thought this may be easier for them. I've tried to match Men & Magic exactly (where possible) but between the level brackets I've had to interpret it. Hopefully these are useful. Colour Version
Printer Friendly
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 18:48:16 GMT -6
If your players have any idea what AC or the hit tables are, you're not playing OD&D.
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you rolled. I'll tell you if you hit." -- Dave Arneson
|
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 19, 2015 22:06:59 GMT -6
If your players have any idea what AC or the hit tables are, you're not playing OD&D. "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you rolled. I'll tell you if you hit." -- Dave Arneson That's an unfortunately narrow definition of OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 20, 2015 4:31:12 GMT -6
If your players have any idea what AC or the hit tables are, you're not playing OD&D. "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you rolled. I'll tell you if you hit." -- Dave Arneson That's an unfortunately narrow definition of OD&D. I'm not sure if it's narrow or not, but it is somewhat unrealistic. Once combat is underway, players quickly figure out how to bracket the numbers and narrow down to if a 12 hits but an 11 misses (or whatever) then they know the AC of the critter. This has no bearing on whether the AC counts up or down, it's just the way players think. I find that the first time my players encounter something I let its AC (or AAC) be a surprise, then once they figure out the number I let them know in the future what it is because it saves me time during combat. On the other hand, I often steal monsters from various books more-or-less at random so one orc might be from M&T while the next comes from the RC or 2E Monster Manual. This means that not all monsters of a given type have exactly the same number of hit dice, same AC, or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 20, 2015 4:36:19 GMT -6
I put together a few tables for my upcoming OD&D campaign. My players are used to ascending AC, so I thought this may be easier for them. I've tried to match Men & Magic exactly (where possible) but between the level brackets I've had to interpret it. I like your tables, but they seem a little odd to me because I always used 10 as "no armor" so my numbers differ from yours by one. (E.g. I have +0, +2, +5... whereas your charts read +1, +3, +6...) I'd say that this looks like a really useful resource for your players.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 20, 2015 8:44:13 GMT -6
That's an unfortunately narrow definition of OD&D. I'm not sure if it's narrow or not, but it is somewhat unrealistic. Once combat is underway, players quickly figure out how to bracket the numbers and narrow down to if a 12 hits but an 11 misses (or whatever) then they know the AC of the critter. This has no bearing on whether the AC counts up or down, it's just the way players think. He didn't say "if your players have any idea what the AC of a monster is"; he said "if your players have any idea what AC... [is]." Players don't need to know there is a term "armor class." Sure, they'll figure out what they need to hit a particular critter, but they won't derive the existence of armor class from it. Now, I agree this is unrealistic, because most players have heard the terms. Gronan can't, for instance, ever PLAY original D&D by this restriction, because he has an idea of what AC and the hit tables are. Better to say something like, "If your players pay attention to armor class or hit tables, you're not playing original D&D." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 11:51:22 GMT -6
You guys must have way more ambitious players... We can't be arsed to bother deriving AC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 12:33:30 GMT -6
I like your tables, but they seem a little odd to me because I always used 10 as "no armor" so my numbers differ from yours by one. (E.g. I have +0, +2, +5... whereas your charts read +1, +3, +6...) It looks like he's just adding 10 to the armor class values from Chainmail which go from 1 to 8. |
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 20, 2015 13:51:35 GMT -6
I like your tables, but they seem a little odd to me because I always used 10 as "no armor" so my numbers differ from yours by one. (E.g. I have +0, +2, +5... whereas your charts read +1, +3, +6...) It looks like he's just adding 10 to the armor class values from Chainmail which go from 1 to 8. All I've done is invert the Men & Magic tables. 10 would be a more logical starting point (it's what most ascending AC/retroclone systems use) but it was easier to simply flip things. At 1st level there's a base 55% chance to hit AC9. My attack bonuses reflect the same probabilities, scaled by class and level. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 20, 2015 23:11:26 GMT -6
For monsters, it's a lot faster & simpler to just use HD = Attack Bonus (with less than 1 HD = no attack bonus). The purpose of using AAC is to avoid using tables, so why spend time looking at a table to convert 2 HD to Attack Bonus of +3? A 5% difference from the original for certain HDs is not going to make much of a difference to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 21, 2015 4:06:52 GMT -6
For monsters, it's a lot faster & simpler to just use HD = Attack Bonus (with less than 1 HD = no attack bonus). The purpose of using AAC is to avoid using tables, so why spend time looking at a table to convert 2 HD to Attack Bonus of +3? A 5% difference from the original for certain HDs is not going to make much of a difference to the game. I suppose the question is whether a person is trying to make the game simpler without changing the probabilities or whether it's okay to tweak things mathematically. For characters it's easy enough to have a chart of how their attack bonus goes up with level, and for monsters I can just instert an extra column in my statblock that gives their bonus to-hit as well. Not much extra data. On the other hand, for a long time it bothered me that "hit dice" and "fighting capability" were different for some classes at some levels but the same for others. (Basically it's the cleric who differs.) I've often thought that it makes sense to keep those two numbers the same so you have one fewer number to record, but I can't decide if I like changing things just for simplicity. As you noted, in the long run it probably doesn't matter much which way one does it. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 21, 2015 7:24:34 GMT -6
That's an unfortunately narrow definition of OD&D. I'm not sure if it's narrow or not, but it is somewhat unrealistic. Having run the Majestic Wilderlands for 30 years using the same rules over multiple campaigns*. If something can memorized about the rules it will be. * AD&D to late 80s * GURPS from the late 80s to 2009 * Swords & Wizardry (OD&D) plus house rules to date. So I try to run the campaign where it doesn't matter if the player knows that Bagada is AC 4 and is able fire 20 foot Cone of Retching. Knowing the creature's capabilities doesn't solve the problem at hand and the unknown surprise is why is the creature there in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 21, 2015 7:31:36 GMT -6
On the other hand, for a long time it bothered me that "hit dice" and "fighting capability" were different for some classes at some levels but the same for others. (Basically it's the cleric who differs.) I've often thought that it makes sense to keep those two numbers the same so you have one fewer number to record, but I can't decide if I like changing things just for simplicity. As you noted, in the long run it probably doesn't matter much which way one does it. Since 2009 I been refining my take on Swords & Wizardry with the Majestic Wilderlands. I found what important for OD&D is that the range remains close not the progression. The range being what characters start out with and what they end up with. For me if the math work the same using Ascending AC and a to hit bonus is still playing OD&D. It just a different presentation that works for some and not for others. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 21, 2015 23:58:22 GMT -6
Rastus, I believe you and your company can rock AC, ascending or descending, as you like. Nonetheless, it's worth reiterating some of the argument for descending AC. The problem with ascending AC is inherent of the concept, not the content. - Armor class really is a class: AC 3 means a type of armor with strengths and weaknesses vs. particular weapons.
AC 18 is more of an index, it just means 'higher number'. There is nothing intuitive about it. - Ascending AC is an attempt to 'evolve' away from the use of tables to a more 'intuitive' concept of AC born around the idea that 'the greater the number the better'. Yet, the emphasis on tables and thus the referee makes it difficult to think of the game in terms of numbers or stacking - lending greatly to the suspension of disbelief and forgetting one is playing a game.
- This preoccupation with the 'higher number' is conceptually related to the 'metagaming', munchkin mentality that found its stride in the era of 3E design culture emphasizing 'rules mastery',regardless of whether or not one chooses to subtract dexterity modifiers or magical adjustments from the 'to hit' die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 22, 2015 3:45:01 GMT -6
Unfortunately, I think we're moving away from "does anyone find the Rastus handout useful" into "let's argue over AC versus AAC" and hopefully we can avoid totally derailing the thread. I happen to disagree with the claim that AAC isn't intuitive, and I'll say that I created something similar to AAC in the 1970's and have used it in my home game for decades (I did it because I did find "higher is better" was more intuitive) but that is my personal experinece and clearly Sepulchre's isn't the same as mine. This is an old debate and, frankly, we won't "solve" it here since both sides are so passionate about being "correct" on the matter. This preoccupation with the 'higher number' is conceptually related to the 'metagaming', munchkin mentality that found its stride during the 3E era of game design and 'rules mastery'... I agree with this statement the most of the three. The problem is that AAC was introduced to the public at the same time as an edition that excessively rewarded power gaming, so the two tend to be linked together -- but they don't need to be. The key is to find players who are more interested in the game than the numbers. One neat thing about 5E is that they scaled the numbers back a lot -- you still have an element of power gaming but the numbers are capped at lower values. And I think that OD&D does a pretty decent job of minimalizing the power gamer becasue (1) it didn't have many bonuses to stack, and (2) the emphasis is on DM rulings instead of players becoming rules lawyers. See Gronan's FKR thread for some philosophy discussion on this point. The closer you go to Genesis (e.g. White Box, compared to WB + Supplements) the more you find that numbers are scaled back. With the introduction of paladins, exceptional strength, inflated bonuses on weapons and armor, and so on, I suppose one could argue that Greyhawk Supplement I created the first power gamers.  Now I'm the one guilty of derailing Rastus' thread.  I like his doccument in organization and in philosophy and think it's a great resource for his players. |
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Aug 22, 2015 8:17:16 GMT -6
Good document. I still prefer no attack modifier at level 1, and AC starting at 10. ;p
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 22, 2015 8:49:59 GMT -6
I can't be bothered to deal with all those +bonuses and numbers up in the teens.
Its easier to ask...
Q: "What armor are you wearing?" A: "Chainmail, shield, and a ring of protection."
Q: "What level is your dwarf?" A: "4th level."
...than to do the math.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Aug 22, 2015 12:46:05 GMT -6
I like that the table starts with an Attack Bonus of +1 because to me an "Attack Bonus" of +0 would be an oxymoron. So this touch reflects careful thought and good game design, IMO. As a player of OD&D, I had no problem with descending AC or with the DM telling me if I hit a monster or not. However, from the standpoint of game design, I have to admit that this kind of approach will be easier for the players to handle.
|
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 22, 2015 16:00:11 GMT -6
For monsters, it's a lot faster & simpler to just use HD = Attack Bonus (with less than 1 HD = no attack bonus). The purpose of using AAC is to avoid using tables, so why spend time looking at a table to convert 2 HD to Attack Bonus of +3? A 5% difference from the original for certain HDs is not going to make much of a difference to the game. You're right, that's probably faster and simpler, but I wanted to reflect the Men & Magic tables as accurately as possible. During the game I may just use your idea however  |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 22, 2015 17:17:18 GMT -6
I have to agree with Gronan. Whenever I’ve run OD&D, we just used “Chain + Shield” style nomenclature, and the players never noted their own AC number, let alone knew what anyone else’s was.
Sure, in the course of a long combat you could theoretically notice that you hit on a 13 and miss on a 12, but could you, from that single piece of data, reconstruct your whole “To Hit” table, and what your enemy’s AC is? More to the point, who would, and why the hell? It has never happened in all my games (in AD&D as well as OD&D, BTW).
We’ve probably moved past this particular point, so, just adding my +1 FWIW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 23:31:13 GMT -6
For monsters, it's a lot faster & simpler to just use HD = Attack Bonus (with less than 1 HD = no attack bonus). The purpose of using AAC is to avoid using tables, I'm a visual thinker. I can do a table lookup far faster than even a simple arithmatic operation. That's why I never even considered using THAC0. Table lookups are far easier for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 23, 2015 5:01:39 GMT -6
I like that the table starts with an Attack Bonus of +1 because to me an "Attack Bonus" of +0 would be an oxymoron. I don't quite understand your point. An "Attack Bonus of +0" would simply imply that the dice roll stands, so perhaps you would prefer the word "none" written in place of the "+0"? I have to agree with Gronan. Whenever I’ve run OD&D, we just used “Chain + Shield” style nomenclature, and the players never noted their own AC number, let alone knew what anyone else’s was. I agree in concept, and that's the way I prefer to play as well. The problem is that it's sometimes more convenient for me for the players to have a number on their sheet so that I can ask quickly what their value should be. Saves me a detail that I have to track as a GM. The same thing could be said for saving throws -- in an indeal world the players wouldn't have that information, either, but then I have to keep track of it for when it comes into play. So providing these numbers is a aid for me, not a requirement for them. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 23, 2015 9:02:14 GMT -6
Peterlind wrote:
Your point underscores the question of what is assumed in the design, the use of tables - a behind the screen approach, that is, how much do you wish players to handle?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Aug 23, 2015 15:31:14 GMT -6
You are correct. From the standpoint of game play, though, I enjoyed the mystery of not knowing all of the stats of the monsters. So as a player, I could just tell the GM what I rolled, and the GM would tell me if I hit or not (by referencing the Attack Matrix). So I consider this kind of approach perfectly okay and perhaps a bit of a lost art?
|
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 23, 2015 15:43:49 GMT -6
My players all take turns at running games (barring one or two). This means everyone is familiar with the process of combat, probabilities to hit, etc. We have limited time to play, and they've said they prefer ascending AC so this was the logical direction for me. Although I like descending, I personally find ascending far easier to run. It's simply a matter of comparing a number with the dice roll. The only time the chart would need consulting is when a level is obtained and a new attack bonus is noted. Again, in my mind this is purely preferential rather one method being intrinsically better than another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 25, 2015 20:53:55 GMT -6
For monsters, it's a lot faster & simpler to just use HD = Attack Bonus (with less than 1 HD = no attack bonus). The purpose of using AAC is to avoid using tables, I'm a visual thinker. I can do a table lookup far faster than even a simple arithmatic operation. That's why I never even considered using THAC0. Table lookups are far easier for me. I'm no fan of THAC0. Ascending AC just uses the number from the first row of the table as the Armor Class. So in a sense you are still looking at the table, but it's on the character sheet or monster stat as Armor Class. The "Attack Bonus" is just because higher level characters and monster have a bonus to hit that number. |
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Aug 25, 2015 23:01:57 GMT -6
I like that the table starts with an Attack Bonus of +1 because to me an "Attack Bonus" of +0 would be an oxymoron. I don't quite understand your point. An "Attack Bonus of +0" would simply imply that the dice roll stands, so perhaps you would prefer the word "none" written in place of the "+0"? I thought it was kind of amusing that the AAC table started all of the classes at +1 rather than at +0. I wondered why and considered that perhaps the designer thinks that a +0 is not really, "by definition," a bonus. . . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 8:27:08 GMT -6
I'm no fan of THAC0. Ascending AC just uses the number from the first row of the table as the Armor Class. So in a sense you are still looking at the table, but it's on the character sheet or monster stat as Armor Class. The "Attack Bonus" is just because higher level characters and monster have a bonus to hit that number. Alternatively, I don't want that sort of information on the character sheet, either. The less players think about the mechanics, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 26, 2015 10:42:39 GMT -6
I use THAC0 as a short hand on my DM notes and characters roster for play-by-post games where neither a "physical" character sheet nor a attack chart are easily available , but I use it to "retro engineer" aforementioned chart
|
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Aug 26, 2015 11:33:28 GMT -6
I switched the ascending AC a while ago as well. I agree looking stuff up on a table is easy peasy, but it's also another table you need to have laying around. ( I put all the tables I use on my blog a while ago.) "If your players have any idea what AC or the hit tables are, you're not playing OD&D." I think the youths would say, "LOL WUT." |
|
I like his doccument in organization and in philosophy and think it's a great resource for his players.
