[AAC] vs T20

[verhaden]

As of late, RAW -- especially when holding true to the coarse 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5 level advancements. Being said, T20 and the rest of Delta's blog is fried gold, and I've used it in the past and will probably use it again in the future.

[clownboss]

I've gotten used to OD&D's armor class. Now for me 3 is synonymous with 'Plate', and 6 with 'Leather+Shield'.

[hamurai]

For OD&D I mostly use the RAW system, but it depends on the players, really. Some of them (especially the younger ones who started with AAC) are so used to the AAC that I tend to play with AAC to avoid confusion. Personally, I don't mind switching. We've never used the T20 system.

[chicagowiz]

I use Target20 exclusively in any D&D game that I run. Fast and easy and allows me to have everyone roll at once if needs be and I can rip through the results quickly.

[tetramorph]

When I learned T20 from delta I never went back.

I use it for saves in my campaign too.

It has allowed me to move almost everything behind screen and I am growing to prefer that.

Folks who really cherish their dice get to roll attacks and damage if they want to.

But I’ve pretty well moved to all saves being behind screen.

Fight on!

[talysman]

I voted "OD&D RAW", but my real answer is more complex than that.

Since I tend towards running things out of my head as much as possible instead of using rulebooks, I pretty much use just Target20 for combat. But I'm not adverse to using tables, since I think this should all be kept behind the screen. I prefer avoiding a focus on raw numbers and would rather encourage players to focus on the concrete rather than the abstract, and also don't want them to know precisely what an enemy's armor/defense is. They should instead know "this goblin appears to be wearing leather armor" or "that monster has thick bony plates that look about as tough as plate mail."

But I don't use T20 for skills, and generally not for saves, either. I tend to do "5+ on d6" for skills, and I mostly use the standard save tables for saves, although I'm messing around with defining save categories as armor types (Fighters save vs. spells as if attacking an opponent wearing plate, save vs. polymorph as if attacking chain mail.)

The only simple way to describe my preference is "Never AAC". AAC systems shift the focus to the numbers and to attack rolls as a formula, and I just don't like that approach.

[Zenopus]

May 31, 2018 22:33:16 GMT -6 clownboss said:

I've gotten used to OD&D's armor class. Now for me 3 is synonymous with 'Plate', and 6 with 'Leather+Shield'.

Same here, and I usually just use the matrix, but I also know that the AC and the number to hit it on the matrix for a LVL1 character or 1 HD monster is 19. So in my head the AC is always 3/16, 6/13 etc. This second number is the same as the AC if using AAC. So sometimes I will do the calculation in my head, particularly for lower level adventures.

I voted OD&D RAW, but I'm fine with supplementing it with the S&W AAC. They aren't mutually exclusive, you can use them together.

For players in my games, I usually include their matrix on their character sheet. And when I play I like to have my matrix on my character sheet.

[raisin]

My players and myself prefer the RAW tables: while the T-20 system is excellent, the main advantage of using the RAW is that the players only need to record their ability scores, special abilities and gear. Having them add up stuff and figure out what they hit is one step between the fiction and the players' interaction with it in combat.
Or it's our own way of being lazy .

[Mr. Darke]

I have experimented with all of them but keep coming back to AAC.

[mjulius]

T20 because ‘0’ is the perfect AC.

[chicagowiz]

Jun 2, 2018 12:27:56 GMT -6 raisin said:

My players and myself prefer the RAW tables: while the T-20 system is excellent, the main advantage of using the RAW is that the players only need to record their ability scores, special abilities and gear. Having them add up stuff and figure out what they hit is one step between the fiction and the players' interaction with it in combat.
Or it's our own way of being lazy .

For my game, they don't have to figure anything out. They tell me what they roll plus one number on their sheet. I do the math in my head and tell them the results. We're so used to it by now, we rip through it pretty fast.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 2, 2018 13:23:32 GMT -6 Mr. Darke said:

I have experimented with all of them but keep coming back to AAC.

Same for me. I created my own Ascending AC rules a few decades ago and used it instead of the BTB version. I like the 3E/5E/S&W style better than mine and modified my house rules to reflect that, but they all basically do the same thing.

Honestly, most of the AC vs AAC discussion comes down to personal preference. Both sides vehemently argue that their way is "more intuitive" and I think that for most it comes down to the way they learned it.

[magremore]

T20 for monsters. RAW for characters.

[Mr. Darke]

Jun 2, 2018 17:55:55 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jun 2, 2018 13:23:32 GMT -6 Mr. Darke said:

I have experimented with all of them but keep coming back to AAC.

Same for me. I created my own Ascending AC rules a few decades ago and used it instead of the BTB version. I like the 3E/5E/S&W style better than mine and modified my house rules to reflect that, but they all basically do the same thing.

Honestly, most of the AC vs AAC discussion comes down to personal preference. Both sides vehemently argue that their way is "more intuitive" and I think that for most it comes down to the way they learned it.

I agree. If you do the math they are 99% similar and it all depends on how you approach the numbers. It's really not that radical of a change compare to target numbers vs. roll under or changing the numbers and types of saves.

[skars]

I'm used to a TEC and a CRT for many games, so a combat chart never really bothered me much

[spacelem]

From the options provided, I prefer AAC, then T20, with OD&D last. However my favourite method is the one used in Whitehack, which is roll under blackjack.

Attack is a value starting around 10 and increasing with level, while armour starts at 0 for no armour, and better armour has a higher AC (e.g. chain = AC 4).

To attack, you roll a d20 and aim to get under or equal to your AV (attack value), and over the opponent's AC. Rolling your AV exactly is a critical if you use those (for me that's just max on the damage die). Example: PC with AV 14 vs enemy with AC 4, the PC hits with a roll of 5-14.

This has a few advantages. The way AC works feels very natural to me (AC 0 should mean no armour, not the best armour!). In particular there's no maths at all, just 2 comparisons. The player says something like "I pass with a 4" or "I miss", and the GM says "that's a hit" or "their armour catches your attack", no subtraction or addition necessary. The GM can keep the AC secret, or announce it however they prefer. Also the numbers work really nicely with the limited ranges used by OD&D.

[lige]

T20 - I use it for AS&SH (a perfect fit with that system) and with AD&D (a little more fiddly with the base AC 10 system). It’s easy to use and you can use anything published with descending armor class without changing anything.

[derv]

OD&D Monster Attacking Table (by HD) only.

[Starbeard]

Strangely, I find myself automatically going to T20 for B/X—or rather, T20 for monsters and T19 for characters—and RAW for OD&D and AD&D. I don't know why. It could be because I run B/X online these days and never seem to have the tables conveniently to hand, so more often than not I end up silently calculating T19 in my head.