SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

An observation I made, when studying the Blueholme Prentice Rules

Started by Jam The MF, December 22, 2021, 01:26:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Jam The MF

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.
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

Lunamancer

#1
December 22, 2021, 12:46:08 PM
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.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Vile Traveller

#2
January 02, 2023, 05:07:00 PM
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.

Jaeger

#3
January 02, 2023, 05:20:43 PM
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.
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

The select quote function is your friend: Right-Click and Highlight the text you want to quote. The - Quote Selected Text - button appears. You're welcome.

Tasty_Wind

#4
January 03, 2023, 08:47:48 AM
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.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions