Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nellisir" data-source="post: 5817230" data-attributes="member: 70">Thanks for answering!A quick note: I played 1e briefly, 2e extensively, 3e extensively, and 4e almost not at all.  My references to 3e are to the system, not a passive/aggressive means of saying 3e did it better or somesuch.  It's also the system I played most extensively most recently (I probably had a more extensive knowledge of 2e rules, but that was 13 years ago).Here's how I'm seeing it: in most cases, your TN system is functionally identical to 3e's DC number.  A random character has a TN of 18+ to detect a secret door, or secret doors are found with a seach check of DC 18 or higher.  Whether or not those numbers inflate with levels (as they tended to do in 3e, or assuredly do in 4e) is irrelevant, since either system could support inflation, or not.  I'm not a fan of inflating DC with levels myself.It is very clear that you're going for a "unified" mechanic, and by and large, there's nothing wrong with it.  You've opted for a fixed DC in most cases, including (I haven't delved into it yet) what looks like a fixed save system (saves are not modified by spell level).  I'm OK with all of that.The attack mechanic, however, is the most frequently used system in the game, and is extremely variable.  Any one combat can feature opponents of differering ACs vs characters of differing ATVs.  In standard 3e, the AC as written functioned as the DC that a character had to meet or beat in order to inflict damage.  That DC is identical for each character.  In ACKS, the AC as written is converted to a modifer, and added to each character's ATV to determine whether or not they hit, generating (hypothetically) a different TN (or ATV?) for each character.  Rinse and repeat for each monster of a different AC, so an encounter of 4 characters with 3 monsters of different ACs generates 12 different target numbers, whereas 3e would have 3.Also, while you've opted for static DCs in most cases, characters still improve their chances to hit as they increase in levels, and I notice ACs for tougher (more HD) monsters are generally higher than for weaker (lower HD) monsters (ie dragons).  I think this is the problem.  If attack bonuses (or TNs) were truly static, the TN system would work as a universal system.  But they're not, and it doesn't.A partial solution to this would be present AC as a bonus (giant crocodiles have an AC of +8).  This makes it clear that the AC is not a target number, but rather a modifer (which it is).  This still makes for a slew of different numbers in play at one time, but adds some clarity.BTW: I don't dismiss the ACKS system as a legacy of 1e/2e.  Mathwise, it's 3e.  The fact that I can add 10 to the AC, and change the ATVs into bonuses makes that clear.  But it is, literally, a THAC0 system.  The ATV is to hit Armor Class 0.I'd like to hear how exactly the information is conveyed around your table.  Do you say a monster has an AC of 8, and the player adds 8 to his ATV?  Does the player say she rolled a 12, and you check her character's level, find the ATV, and add the AC before comparing results?  Does the player roll and say "my character hit an AC of 6", and you give a thumbs or or thumbs down?Ultimately, I doubt I'll play the ACKS system as written.  As you said, it's an aesthetic choice, and the values wouldn't change, so I'd houserule to something I find more intuitive.  But that doesn't mean I don't wonder why you made the choice, or how exactly it functions at your table.</blockquote>

Verification