Do you tell players what they need to roll TO HIT?

[Zulgyan]

No I don't tell them.

But players love rolling dice, I'm not taking that away from them.

[talysman]

You could let them roll damage...

[strangebrew]

Hmm, I've heard of the "referee rolls everything" approach and I don't personally see the appeal. I wouldn't want to either play or ref such an arrangement. I like the traditional dice rolling dynamic, it keeps everyone engaged and rolling dice is run. People say that the "ref rolls" approach is meant to draw players more into the narrative, but I think rolling the dice is one thing that keeps them attached to the action. I've heard of games where the players roll all the dice, such as rolling a defense when attacked, which sounds much more interesting to me.

Original post - I usually just tell them the AC as soon as they've committed themselves to an attack. They find their to-hit number on their sheet and tell me if they hit. I used to keep the AC a secret, with the players figuring it out eventually, but I'm getting to old for such subtlety these days.

[blackadder23]

Jan 29, 2015 9:30:37 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

They tell me what they rolled and I tell them if they hit.

That's what I do. It usually doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out monster AC based on what does and doesn't hit, but I don't lose any sleep over it. It's just a game.

[Mr. Darke]

Since I have some experienced players and those that can figure the numbers out in a round or two I have no problem telling them what AC they need to hit. When it comes to things like ability checks or Thief skills I usually do not ( I use an X-in-Six mechanic for these) as it changes too much and ruins the tension.

[talysman]

Original post - I usually just tell them the AC as soon as they've committed themselves to an attack. They find their to-hit number on their sheet and tell me if they hit. I used to keep the AC a secret, with the players figuring it out eventually, but I'm getting to old for such subtlety these days.[/quote]
The joy of dice rolling is a personal thing. Some may feel more engaged when rolling dice, some less, and some don't care. But the numbers are a bigger deal. Focusing on the numbers creates a different game than focusing on what's being described.

So I can let players roll or roll for them, it doesn't matter, but I would never ever tell them the AC, or ask what AC they hit. I'd tell them what armor an opponent is wearing, or what its hide is equivalent to. AC is a convenience for the GM, not a feature of the world.

[Lorgalis]

Stupid Idea - round by round variable AC. D6 1-2 increase AC by 1
3-4 AC remains the same
5-6 decrease AC by 1

combat rounds are a minute long (debatable but not here) and damage is variable why not AC.

keep em guessing.

[blackadder23]

Jan 30, 2015 13:17:44 GMT -6 Lorgalis said:

Stupid Idea - round by round variable AC. D6 1-2 increase AC by 1
3-4 AC remains the same
5-6 decrease AC by 1

combat rounds are a minute long (debatable but not here) and damage is variable why not AC.

keep em guessing.

I don't think that's a stupid idea at all - it sounds pretty cool! But it's more trouble than I would care to go to. It's annoying enough that I have to keep track of monster hit points.

[Starbeard]

I think it's a great idea. It's only a short step away from the 'attack roll vs defence roll' that many games use, after all. I'd bet someone somewhere has already put together a way to translate all of the relevant combat information (class, levels and AC) into a straight roll comparison between attacker and defender. That would be an ideal way of keeping monster combat stats hidden.

Jan 31, 2015 8:29:23 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Jan 30, 2015 13:17:44 GMT -6 Lorgalis said:

Stupid Idea - round by round variable AC. D6 1-2 increase AC by 1
3-4 AC remains the same
5-6 decrease AC by 1

combat rounds are a minute long (debatable but not here) and damage is variable why not AC.

keep em guessing.

I don't think that's a stupid idea at all - it sounds pretty cool! But it's more trouble than I would care to go to. It's annoying enough that I have to keep track of monster hit points.

This just came to me as a possible way to vary the TN from attack to attack, by adopting a contested roll procedure. Take it for what it's worth (i.e., 2 minutes of un-playtested thought):

1. Attacker rolls 1d20 + level bonus* + whatever other bonuses being used (magic weapon, specialization, etc).

2. Defender rolls 1d20 + level bonus* + AC (the AC system used will have to be ascending, where AC 10 becomes AC 0).

3. The attacker must roll equal to or higher than the defender to hit.

*The level bonus corresponds to which combat table/level progression the character has: 1/2 current level for Fighting-Men, 1/3 for Clerics, 1/4 for Magic-Users. Monsters HD/level bonuses are treated the same way.

[Porphyre]

That would make the defender much harder to hit, since his "defensive value" would increase with level.

Not that I find it illogical, but the increase in defense is already covered with the increase of Hit Points. This would make combat much longer since you hit less, and still have to wear down the HP of the opponent.

[Scott Anderson]

Old House Rules has a mechanic where instead of adding AC, armor adds hit points.

[Starbeard]

Jan 31, 2015 16:08:04 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

That would make the defender much harder to hit, since his "defensive value" would increase with level.

Not that I find it illogical, but the increase in defense is already covered with the increase of Hit Points. This would make combat much longer since you hit less, and still have to wear down the HP of the opponent.

Very good point. The defender's level wouldn't be necessary at all, I'm not sure why I had figured that into it.

[Porphyre]

Another way to do would be to have players do all the rolls, treating the monsters and NPC attacks as a "static" roll (like armor).

When attacking, they must roll 1d20 + attack modifiers > or = 10 + opponent's AAC to hit

Next phase of the round (or previous if they lost initiative) they must roll 1d20 + AAC > or = 10 + opponents attack modifiers otherwise they must incur damage.

If you dont' want to use Ascenting armor class, using Target 20,

Attack: 1d20 + Attack Mod. + Opp. AC > 20 (roll over)
Defense: 1d20 + Opp. Attack Mod. + AC < 20 (roll under)

[Starbeard]

Feb 1, 2015 1:44:35 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Another way to do would be to have players do all the rolls, treating the monsters and NPC attacks as a "static" roll (like armor).

When attacking, they must roll 1d20 + attack modifiers > or = 10 + opponent's AAC to hit

Next phase of the round (or previous if they lost initiative) they must roll 1d20 + AAC > or = 10 + opponents attack modifiers otherwise they must incur damage.

If you dont' want to use Ascenting armor class, using Target 20,

Attack: 1d20 + Attack Mod. + Opp. AC > 20 (roll over)
Defense: 1d20 + Opp. Attack Mod. + AC < 20 (roll under)

I like this idea. An attack roll vs AC is going to be effectively identical to a defence roll vs WC, it lets the players make a defence roll (which I've known some non-D&Ders to miss when they come over to play D&D), and it spreads a bit of the combat logistics out across the table so the referee isn't having to do as much multitasking.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 1:44:35 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

they must roll 1d20 + AAC > or = 10 + opponents attack modifiers otherwise they must incur damage.

You'll need to make this 12 + Opponent's Attack Bonus if you want the probabilities to work out properly. I played 3e this way for years. I'd write a monster's attack bonus as "+3 / 15" so I could do it either way.

[Fearghus]

Feb 1, 2015 8:48:28 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Feb 1, 2015 1:44:35 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

they must roll 1d20 + AAC > or = 10 + opponents attack modifiers otherwise they must incur damage.

You'll need to make this 12 + Opponent's Attack Bonus if you want the probabilities to work out properly. I played 3e this way for years. I'd write a monster's attack bonus as "+3 / 15" so I could do it either way.

That is how I play as well. Makes all of my paperwork really easy.