About 2/3 of all the monsters listed in this ruleset, require either a 10, 13, 15, or 17 to Hit; once you do the simple math. Dragons happen to require a 17 to Hit, due to their AC of 2.
I have always wished to keep to Hit numbers, within the spectrum of the D20 itself. No 23 to Hit, etc. It's apparent that this is easily doable, within the context of a Classic OD&D setting. I like it.
It's so easy on the DM / GM, that there are fewer AC's and to Hit numbers to try to remember. I like it.
About 2/3 of all the monsters in the original AD&D Monster Manual have ACs in the 4-8 range. Given the range of hit tables for characters levels 1-3, that would mean the numbers needed to hit would range from 10 to 17.
There are 3 monsters in the Journeymanne Rules with AC 1 or 0. Mind you, PCs could potentially go crazy because magic armour goes from -4 to +5 to AC. Holmes magic items are random like that.
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 22, 2021, 01:26:43 AM
About 2/3 of all the monsters listed in this ruleset, require either a 10, 13, 15, or 17 to Hit; once you do the simple math. Dragons happen to require a 17 to Hit, due to their AC of 2.
I have always wished to keep to Hit numbers, within the spectrum of the D20 itself. No 23 to Hit, etc. It's apparent that this is easily doable, within the context of a Classic OD&D setting. I like it.
It's so easy on the DM / GM, that there are fewer AC's and to Hit numbers to try to remember. I like it.
I have always thought that 5e's 'Bounded Acuraccy' was a step in the right direction systematically for D&D.
The problem for me was the execution of everything else around it didn't hold to the reduced number escalation paradigm.
That's always been the saving grace of descending AC; the overwhelming majority of the time all combat rolls are just a number on a D20.