|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 22, 2011 20:29:00 GMT -6
So... Which combat mechanic?
Ascending AC doesn't require the use of a table; Target 20 keeps the numbers small but both force the referee to reveal the AC of the opponent, which I don't always like to do.
Descending AC has more of an old school feel and the ref can keep quiet about the enemy AC but you do need to refer to a table. 15 or so years ago I had no issues with the table, today it's seems unnecessarily slow.
Do you use one of these or something else?
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 22, 2011 21:29:38 GMT -6
When I use target 20, I have the player tell me their result within AC added in. I do that part afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Apr 22, 2011 21:32:56 GMT -6
I use ascending AC, mostly because the vast majority of my playing D&D (up until a few years ago) was with 3e, so it's the system I'm most used to - same with the rest of my group.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Apr 23, 2011 0:05:02 GMT -6
I use the tables. I'm ok with AAC, but prefer DAC.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2011 1:39:19 GMT -6
I use descending AC with a no tables target 20 system.
If 1d20 + your mods + target's AC is 20 or more, it's a hit.
I don't tell the players the target's AC. They roll, add their mods and tell the what they've got. I'll tell them if it's enough or not.
It works great, and never stopping to consult attack matrices is a big time saver at the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 23, 2011 2:33:19 GMT -6
I'm definitely leaning towards Target 20 at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 23, 2011 3:44:17 GMT -6
I use descending AC with a no tables target 20 system. If 1d20 + your mods + target's AC is 20 or more, it's a hit. I don't tell the players the target's AC. They roll, add their mods and tell the what they've got. I'll tell them if it's enough or not. It works great, and never stopping to consult attack matrices is a big time saver at the table. When using this system, do you use the Base To Hit Bonus from the rule book or something else? Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 23, 2011 3:46:05 GMT -6
I use the tables. I'm ok with AAC, but prefer DAC. So why do you go with DAC and tables? Does it not slow down proceedings? I used this al the time back in the day but I can't make up my mind whether I want to go back to it. Target 20 is calling me... |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 23, 2011 4:34:13 GMT -6
I've used some form of AAC in my homebrew games for 20+ years, long before it became part of 3E or other modern games. (Sadly, I wasn't smart enough to start at 10; I started at 0 for no armor and up to 7 for Plate & Shield.)
Always has seemed more natural to me. Descending AC was one of the quirks about OD&D that I disliked from the '70's.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2011 4:37:21 GMT -6
When using this system, do you use the Base To Hit Bonus from the rule book or something else? Cheers I use number of Hit Dice instead. HD are universal for PCs and monsters, and are front and center in every D&D edition/clone/variant I've seen. If you have a high level game, you might want to limit it to HD attained up to (and including) level 9. Beyond that point magic-users start catching up to your fighters in terms of HD. For me, I can only recall one PC who made it past level 9 in 25+ years of gaming, so it isn't an issue. Incidentally, this method easily allows for injuries to be debilitating by (temporarily?) striking off HD (along with hit points). FWIW -- my "smoothed" HD progression for PCs is at the bottom of my original post here . Enjoy  |
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Apr 23, 2011 6:46:09 GMT -6
I use the tables. I'm ok with AAC, but prefer DAC. So why do you go with DAC and tables? Does it not slow down proceedings? I used this al the time back in the day but I can't make up my mind whether I want to go back to it. Target 20 is calling me... Takes about an extra second or two, once the player's are used to it. Sometimes not even that, esp. for the DM. It's really just aesthetics. I like the feel of DAC and since I've been using it for almost 30 years, I'm good with it. Target 20 is great for the DM, but I prefer to make the player's figure out the AC of their opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 23, 2011 8:32:34 GMT -6
When using this system, do you use the Base To Hit Bonus from the rule book or something else? Cheers I use number of Hit Dice instead. HD are universal for PCs and monsters, and are front and center in every D&D edition/clone/variant I've seen. If you have a high level game, you might want to limit it to HD attained up to (and including) level 9. Beyond that point magic-users start catching up to your fighters in terms of HD. For me, I can only recall one PC who made it past level 9 in 25+ years of gaming, so it isn't an issue. Incidentally, this method easily allows for injuries to be debilitating by (temporarily?) striking off HD (along with hit points). FWIW -- my "smoothed" HD progression for PCs is at the bottom of my original post here . Enjoy Love it! Have downloaded the very nice PDF. I played in a 3E game which lasted about 2 years and all the characters made it to Level 9 but getting further seemed a little unlikely. Plus, the GM was rather generous. |
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Aug 31, 2011 8:39:52 GMT -6
I find the Target 20 System pretty interesting. Has anybody tried it at the higher levels?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Aug 31, 2011 18:36:48 GMT -6
I'm an AAC man. When that idea came out I never looked back.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Aug 31, 2011 20:38:17 GMT -6
I use number of Hit Dice instead. HD are universal for PCs and monsters, and are front and center in every D&D edition/clone/variant I've seen. I have to say that I am a big fan of this. I am using this method in my semi-homebrew pulp fantasy game and it works great as a universal combat system. I tend to use descending AC. Since I don't go into 'negative' AC as AD&D did it makes 0 a nice, absolute 'best defense possible'. I know that mechanically 9 would be the same thing with an ascending scale, but for some reason it just doesn't feel right to me. I don't use a table, rather I just remember the THAC0 of each HD and do the math. What is target 20? I don't think I have heard of it before. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 31, 2011 21:20:19 GMT -6
I use number of Hit Dice instead. HD are universal for PCs and monsters, and are front and center in every D&D edition/clone/variant I've seen. I have to say that I am a big fan of this. I am using this method in my semi-homebrew pulp fantasy game and it works great as a universal combat system. It especially works great with the old hit dice progressions using d6 only, because then you get fighters improving at combat twice as fast as magic-users, with clerics in between, and no need for separate handling procedures during combat. I tend to use descending AC. Since I don't go into 'negative' AC as AD&D did it makes 0 a nice, absolute 'best defense possible'. I know that mechanically 9 would be the same thing with an ascending scale, but for some reason it just doesn't feel right to me. I don't use a table, rather I just remember the THAC0 of each HD and do the math. I feel the same way about using 0 as the limit vs. 9 as the limit, and I've come to the conclusion that in an ascending AC system, the numbers feel open-ended, even though you can set an arbitrary limit. In a descending AC system, you have to take an extra step and commit to using negative numbers, so the 0 limit feels more natural. Mathematically, there's no difference, but psychologically, there's a big difference. What is target 20? I don't think I have heard of it before. It's d20 + hit dice or attack bonus + descending AC, result of 20+ means success. Thus, your target number is 20. Easy to remember (your target is always 20,) and even easier to use if you use those old HD progressions, like I was talking about, so that you don't have to look up attack bonuses. (Otherwise, it's supposed to be equal to level for fighter, 2/3 level for cleric, 1/2 level for m-u.) The entire Target20 rules fit on one page. www.superdan.net/oed/target20/ |
|
