I prefer games taht use tables (like 1E). I think it both leaves the players in the dark and thus captures a since of mystery. It also seems to put the power with the GM (who determines who hits or misses by consulting the chart) and reduces the work for the players (who in D20 have the task of keeping up with all the pluses).
Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables
- Thread starter tx7321
- Start date
JVisgaitis
Explorer
tx7321 said:
To look up the results of attack rolls? Heavens no. Combat takes long enough. I don't really see why you think it puts the power in the hands of the DM since a player doesn't know what he needs to roll to hit anyway.
Xyanthon
First Post
I do like the tables. I'm not sure I can really justify it, but for whatever reason, I always found something about them rather arcane and pretty cool. Recently I've been looking at my old Marvel Superheroes game with the Universal Table. If there was one game that really competed for D&D for my time when I was young it was MSH. I thought the table was easy to use and the game played really fast making it actually quite a bit different than the AD&D tables. So MSH and AD&D, two of my favorite games from my youth, both use tables even though they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Mouseferatu
Hero
D20 for me. The fewer things I have to look up on a table during game play, the better.
All of your alleged "advantages" are, as far as I'm concerned, bugs, not features. Characters should have some idea of how good they are at the things they do (or are you saying you have no idea, say, how good you are at math?). DMs have more than enough power, thank you very much. And creating less work for the player is nice until you look at the flipside - more for the DM, who already has plenty.tx7321 said:
But beyond that, your so-called advantages of tables over formulas have nothing to do with using tables! You can use tables and have them be public knowledge. You can use formulas and keep them secret. If you want to keep the players in the dark, go ahead (just don't expect me to touch your gaming table with a ten-foot pole). You can do it in a formula-based game just as easily as in a table-based one. You can't do it easily in 3E as written, but that is a matter of how the rulebooks are organized, not which of the two methods they use.
There's also the fact that the older tables, for the most part, are just a way of getting the exact same result as the newer formulas... using more, and more confusing, steps. In this respect, the formulas are strictly better. This aspect is not a question of taste; to prefer the tables in this particular respect, one must actually be using faulty logic.
I rather the 3.x ed. the pluses aren't that hard to keep up with, infact most player sheets these days make it easy by putting places for players to do the math.
Total = Base + shield + armor + dex + deflection + natural + misc
is the usualy way i see AC worked out these days, so its easy. The same is done for attack
Total = Base + Str + misc (generally weapon attribs)
so i think tables are easier to work with
Total = Base + shield + armor + dex + deflection + natural + misc
is the usualy way i see AC worked out these days, so its easy. The same is done for attack
Total = Base + Str + misc (generally weapon attribs)
so i think tables are easier to work with
tx7321 said:
Err...
In AD&D, the players had to keep up with all their pluses: magic weapon, weapon type, strength bonus, magic bonus. They rolled the die, added their pluses, and and announced the result.
In 2E AD&D and Basic D&D (1981), they had access to their tables, so there was no mystery about it.
And the mystery disappeared the moment one player opened the DMG in AD&D.
Cheers!
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Aw...you guys know what I'm gonna say.
