|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 28, 2015 10:41:58 GMT -6
Ever since I learned Delta's "Target 20" method for resolving attack rolls I never felt the temptation to switch to ascending AC ever again. I was cured (just joking).
Successful hit when:
d20 +HD +target AC (+appropriate magical bonuses, if any) = or > 20
More granularity enters into the equation than in the M&M tables, and some folks don't like that, and I respect that. But it more or less winds up generating similar mathematical results, no charts required. So I am sold on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 15:14:14 GMT -6
"another table?" 1) To-hit tables (3); saving throw table; clerics vs undead; wandering monster tables. All the above fits on 3 8-1/2 x 11 pieces of paper attached to my side of my screen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 15:16:53 GMT -6
"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." Did I mumble? OD&D was written and played with the idea that only the referee had the charts. Neither Gary nor Dave ever gave charts to their players, nor did most of us running the game. To quote Dave Arneson, "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you rolled." Or perhaps Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax didn't run "OD&D"? As kids today would say, "pwned."
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 29, 2015 16:00:30 GMT -6
That may have been how it was played pre-publication, but for the unwashed masses who play the published version, Men & Magic is clear players can, and would benefit from, owning a copy.
Anyway, in my games I'm going to continue using my devious mathematical formulas and still call it OD&D.
The point of this post wasn't to discuss whether I'm doing the game right (I'm confident that I am), the point was to share a resource others may enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 29, 2015 17:54:09 GMT -6
rastusburne, I dig your way too, man. @gronanofsimmerya, freedom from charts is for me as a ref, not for the players.
|
|
|
Post by dizzysaxophone on Aug 29, 2015 18:28:04 GMT -6
I like the table, but like others I would have done 10-17 and done the attack bonuses -1 from where they are. I think that would give the same spread? Like many others, I prefer AAC, but have no real issues with Descending. I just like to have the AC marked on my sheet, and when players tell me what they rolled, I don't even have to reference a chart.
I also want to say I find it highly unrealistic and narrow-minded to think that if your players know what to-hit charts and AC is that you're not playing OD&D. While I wish my players didn't know, it is also putting more work on me. The game is 41 years old. Players are more than likely going to know.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 29, 2015 21:01:43 GMT -6
Well, I would just say that “only the referee has the charts” is paradigmatic for OD&D play. So, for anyone who is accustomed to [AD&D/2E or later] and doesn’t normally play that way, I would just suggest, if you’re trying OD&D out on a temporary basis, give it a shot! You may find you like it. To me, it is little effort for the DM to glance at his screen, and the payoff in immersiveness is huge. I’m speaking from personal experience; not just because Dave Arneson said so, or whatever. Player rolls the die, calls out his number, tense pause, DM calls out “hit!” It’s also very newbie-friendly. One less thing to worry about when teaching the game and filling out the character sheet. Maybe this isn’t an issue if your players have all been doing this for 41 years but hopefully that is not always the case! And for anyone who plays [AD&D/2E or later] and is just looking to borrow ideas from the old school to enliven his game, IMO this is a good one!
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Aug 30, 2015 0:11:43 GMT -6
Falconer, I have done that exact thing for both OD&D and AS&SH. I agree, I really enjoy the unpredictability of it. However, when I asked for campaign feedback that was one thing the players identified they would prefer to have changed. This is actually attractive for two reasons: it makes the players happy, and it's easier for me.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 30, 2015 0:29:38 GMT -6
Well, I would just say that “only the referee has the charts” is paradigmatic for OD&D play. So, for anyone who is accustomed to [AD&D/2E or later] and doesn’t normally play that way, I would just suggest, if you’re trying OD&D out on a temporary basis, give it a shot! You may find you like it. To me, it is little effort for the DM to glance at his screen, and the payoff in immersiveness is huge. I’m speaking from personal experience; not just because Dave Arneson said so, or whatever. Player rolls the die, calls out his number, tense pause, DM calls out “hit!” It’s also very newbie-friendly. One less thing to worry about when teaching the game and filling out the character sheet. Maybe this isn’t an issue if your players have all been doing this for 41 years but hopefully that is not always the case! And for anyone who plays [AD&D/2E or later] and is just looking to borrow ideas from the old school to enliven his game, IMO this is a good one! I think we are lumping two different things together in this thread. With Ascending AC, the referee has "all the charts", it's just a simple formula in his/her head rather than written down on a table. All the players have is their own AC written down on their sheet, just like with Descending AC. The players still don't know if they hit a monster until they tell the DM what they rolled and he compares it to the monster's AC (unknown to he players). Players might figure out the monster's AC once they get a few hits, but it's easy to do the same with Descending.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 30, 2015 1:55:30 GMT -6
I know, I wasn’t touching the Ascending vs. Descending issue, only the Do The Players Calculate It Themselves issue. I’m glad, rastusburne, that you at least tried the old school way. Zenopus, as I said upthread, I actually don’t have a player write an AC number written on his sheet. This old character sheet doesn’t even have a field for it. In AD&D it’s perhaps a different story, with dex adjustments and a presumed plethora of magical adjustments (though even there IIRC they are actually supposed to be applied as adjustments to your enemy’s attack, not to your AC). But, I am only mentioning this as something you might think is neat, not trying to convince anyone.
|
|