Doing a rewrite for my house rules

[trebormills]

Ive seen a lot of debate re AC vs AAC, ive made a choice to go descending.

My reasons:
Philotomy says its good so it must be
Its how ive always played it
The good modules use it
Allows funky combat whilst still being old school

So choice made that got me looking into simple combat as used with AAC...leads me to target 20.

Thing is why isnt it target 19??

after all ac 2+17=19 ac 9+10=19 and my tables show to hit ac2 needs a 17 and to hit ac9 needs a 10 (page 19 i think)

Am i being dense and missing something?

Im almost done doing a new edit so want to check first for opinions

[baronopal]

It tells you the number you want on the die you roll. 20. It has an elegant charm.

[Deleted]

IIRC you are missing the adjustment for fighter level. PCs get an adjustment for level of fighting skills so FTR 1-3/CL 1-4/MU 1-5 there is an adjustment of +1.

Again, I am not real familiar with Target 20 but I remember that (I think).

[trebormills]

Thanks for the posts

i agree that they get +1 every 3/4/5 levels. However at level 1 my table says a fighting man needs a 17 for ac2 which implies a target 19.

I can see the elegance of 20, but a 20 is nice to keep as a critical hit- even if that just means you always hit non magical requiring beasties

So no real further insight etc then??

[Deleted]

In that case I'll have to admit I am not sure what you're asking. I'm not Delta but let me see if I can break it down by steps.

T20: d20 + Level + modifier >= 20

Fighter level 1 gets a level modifier of +1
Opponent AC is 2 so that is an additional modifier of +2
Total modifiers to combat = 3

20 - 3 = 17 ("to hit" by the book)

Using Target-20 player adds +3 to a d20 die roll. As with BtB rules, any roll of 17 or greater is a successful hit.

So, either way, the probability "to hit" is 20% (4 out of 20)

Does this help or did I make it worse (or did I miss your question again) ?

Ooops: the "greater than or equal to" symbol I used in my post doesn't display properly. Post edited.

[Finarvyn]

Part of the problem may come down to AC 9 (OD&D) versus AC 10 (AD&D) for no armor, yet both use AC 2 for platemail. This means that some versions of the AC equations may not match each other.

[Deleted]

Continuing my analysis based upon a reread of your original post, here is Target-20 for AC 9 (no armor)

Fighter level modifier +1
Modifier for opponent armor +9
Total modifiers +10

To hit by the book = 10

To hit with Target-20 = 10

Again, the same result.

If memory serves the scores "to hit" are not always identical through all the levels, but they are close enough for most folks to be comfortable with using it.

[trebormills]

Jun 29, 2011 7:42:38 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Part of the problem may come down to AC 9 (OD&D) versus AC 10 (AD&D) for no armor, yet both use AC 2 for platemail. This means that some versions of the AC equations may not match each other.

I think this is the issue right here

More or less its
ODnD= ac 9 to 2
ADnD= ac 10 to 2

Well in that case I have my answer, glad to see my bad maths is not a factor here. I was having a rant about THAC0 today with some guys I know who are into 3.5 so hadnt a clue re 2nd ed and why i didnt like stuff past 1st ed (i should clarify that- i prefer odnd, basic and 1st)

[waysoftheearth]

I'm pretty sure Dubeers has the math right for first level.

However, the target 20 system gives fighting-Men a distinct advantage over Attack Matrix I (M&M, page 19) from level 2 up.

By Target 20 the attacker adds his level to his attack rolls; obviously giving him a +1 to hit adjustment for each level he advances.

Attack Matrix I, however, gives a slower rate of advancement. No advancement whatsoever until level 4 is attained, and an average attack adjustment of +0.5 per level for fighting-Men between levels 1 and 16.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2011 6:07:30 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

By Target 20 the attacker adds his level to his attack rolls; obviously giving him a +1 to hit adjustment for each level he advances.

No, the +X "to hit" adjustment is equal to the fightING level (not the FightER level), as per the Attack Matrix I from M&M. Thus, x = 1 for Fighting-Men levels 1 to 3, x = 2 for FM 4 to 6, etc.

For Clerics it is every 4 levels, and MU every 5. This is the same progression as the OD&D Attack Matrix I.

Your basic point, however, remains valid. The progression is not exactly the same with the two systems, even considering the point I make above.

(edit to add emphasis to some tricky wording)

[trebormills]

To argue against myself

I just noticed in Holmes that a 0 level person requires 11 to hit ac9, a 1st level person only requires a 10

so that may account for the 20 number as 11+9=20, 1st level adds +1

@dubeers
I agree with your last post fighters get another + after 3 levels, Cleric 4 levels and MU 5th level
so level 1-3 +1, level 4-6 +2, 7-9 +3 for fighters, 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 for clerics and so on

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 30, 2011 6:40:47 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

No, the +X "to hit" adjustment is equal to the fightING level (not the FightER level), as per the Attack Matrix I from M&M. Thus, x = 1 for Fighting-Men levels 1 to 3, x = 2 for FM 4 to 6, etc.

That would definitely work. Although it does mean you would need to keep track of this additional "fightING level" statistic, which is probably not a big deal for a player. But then again, you have every monster in the game to consider too... do you plan to add this stat to them too?

FWIW -- I've been using a target 20 system in all my games for years now, and I use number of HD as the "fightING level" stat. The progression is faster than on the official Attack Matrices, but it's already there for every PC and every monster And it's very close to the AD&D progression.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2011 16:57:15 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

That would definitely work. Although it does mean you would need to keep track of this additional "fightING level" statistic, which is probably not a big deal for a player. But then again, you have every monster in the game to consider too... do you plan to add this stat to them too?

No, man ... their modifier is by hit dice. It's a nice, clean system that is fast and close enough to the TLBB Alternative combat system as to make no difference.

re: your additional comments about fighter class level as modifier? That sounds like a nice idea, too. One I'd never considered.

[aldarron]

Jun 30, 2011 17:00:43 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jun 30, 2011 16:57:15 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

That would definitely work. Although it does mean you would need to keep track of this additional "fightING level" statistic, which is probably not a big deal for a player. But then again, you have every monster in the game to consider too... do you plan to add this stat to them too?

No, man ... their modifier is by hit dice. It's a nice, clean system that is fast and close enough to the TLBB Alternative combat system as to make no difference.

Meaning if they have 3 HD - no bonus, but 3HD +1 means a +1 bonus to the to hit roll?

[Deleted]

Okay, I was using two terms interchangeably, that's probably why I'm coming off a bit incoherent.

The monster hit dice are the Level Modifier. Sorry for the confusion. That's what I get for doing that from memory!

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 30, 2011 17:00:43 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

No, man ... their modifier is by hit dice. It's a nice, clean system that is fast and close enough to the TLBB Alternative combat system as to make no difference.

That's exactly what I do in my games.

What I don't quite get is why you'd do that for monsters, but then not for PCs? Having a "mixed system" (where monsters add +HD to attacks, but the PCs don't) gives the monsters a bit of an edge.

Not that I mind at all, just saying.

Here's a combined attack matrix by PC level and monster HD that I posted a while back...

[tombowings]

I always interpreted the difference as the assumption that the PCs would be wielding magic weapons, which gives a bonus to hit.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2011 21:10:12 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

What I don't quite get is why you'd do that for monsters, but then not for PCs? Having a "mixed system" (where monsters add +HD to attacks, but the PCs don't) gives the monsters a bit of an edge

As I attempted to explain in my previous post, working from memory had me using the wrong terms. Player-Characters modify T-20 rolls according to combat level as already pointed out. Monsters don't, they modify the T-20 roll according to hit dice.

I don't use the system, btw; thus I lack the reference point to know if this is superior to however your using it. So, it could very well be your way makes more "sense". I it also possible I'm using an earlier version of Target-20 and Delta has figured out the same you have and modified the system.

All that being said, here is the quote from the rules I was basing my posts on. Sorry for confusing things a bit.

Attack Rolls
For attacks, roll d20 + fighting ability + armor class (plus any other modifiers, such as
for dexterity and magic). The "fighting ability" is the same as the fighter's level or
monster's hit dice. Clerics add 2/3 their level, and wizards add 1/2 their level
(rounding down). The "armor class" assumes the classic descending-AC system.

[waysoftheearth]

Hey Dubeers, you don't need to apologise to me at all; I wasn't trying to say "my way is better" or anything like it, and I apologise if I came across that way.

I'm just interested in the discussion is all...

Attack Rolls
For attacks, roll d20 + fighting ability + armor class (plus any other modifiers, such as
for dexterity and magic). The "fighting ability" is the same as the fighter's level or
monster's hit dice. Clerics add 2/3 their level, and wizards add 1/2 their level
(rounding down). The "armor class" assumes the classic descending-AC system.

I don't know what qualifies as the "official" Target 20 System these days (although I did read about it on Delta's blog many moons ago).

All I was trying to say is that it's an option to simplify the thing even further by forgetting about "fighting ability" (as described in the quote above) and simply use number of HD instead. For both monsters AND players.

Here's a table I knocked out to show how it turns out with by-the-book HD for players (except that I added a 0th level row to beneath the 1st level PCs):




From this it looks like clerics would be pretty d**n hard up to level 4!

In my game I use a house-ruled HD advancement for the players, but otherwise that is pretty much exactly as I play it

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2011 4:21:29 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Hey Dubeers, you don't need to apologise to me at all; I wasn't trying to say "my way is better" or anything like it, and I apologise if I came across that way.

You didn't at all, that was merely my awkward embarrassment for getting so confused!

I'm just interested in the discussion is all...

Me, too. I always enjoy finding out how others have solved the same problems I've faced with the rules.

I'm off to work, let me digest what you've posted here and I'll get back to it.