Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[RFisher]

I like tables. Not necessarily for things like D&D "to hit" that can be easily simplified into a formula, but they can be quite useful when they can't be easily be simplified into a single, easy to use formula.

See Jonathan Tweet's comments about the Fantasy Combat Matrix from Chainmail for a bit of what I mean.

While the D&D XP table could be broken down into a series of formulas, I like having the table.

But, I'm lousy at arithmetic, so I'm actually enjoying using the "to hit" tables in my classic D&D campaign even though it is a straightforward formula.

Did AD&D1E not use THAC0?

AD&D1e did not officially use THAC0. If you wanted to be playing RAW, then you had to memorize how to handle the special case that was built into the 1e attack charts when using THAC0. (The repeating 20s.) Classic D&D & AD&D2e eliminated the special case instead.

(The classic D&D chart had repeating 20s, but this was simply because a 20 was an auto-hit. The chart didn't include 21, 22, 23, &c. like the AD&D1e charts did.)

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

d20 all the way.

 

[Aaron L]

While the D&D XP table could be broken down into a series of formulas, I like having the table.

That's another thing I really like, that most things in 3E are derived from formulae.

 

[painandgreed]

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).

Hah. If I had ever tried to keep the tables from the PCs of any of the gaming groups I had in 1st or 2nd edition AD&D, I would have been laughted at. Besides, the to hit tabels were easy to memorize and IIRC, the official character sheets had places to write down all your saves. My players might have trusted me from time to time, but they always remembered all their own modifiers anyway and expected to see the tables. As DM I don't want to have to work more and remember all the modifiers for monsters, NPCs, and PCs., and would never have wanted to run things like that.

Besides, if I would have tried some crappy thing like that, when they DMed the next week, everybody but me would have access to various books during play.

 

[Rothe]

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).

Power & Secrecy

I don't recall when I bought the 1e DMG if I needed to sign an oath that I was a DM and not a player, but I don't think so. So I don't see where the secret aspect comes in. Also, I've never met a 1e player that doesn't have the DMG or has not consulted one at a library.

Further, the progression to hit with armor class was easy to memorize and when it stepped up with character level, every 2 levels fighter, every 3 levels cleric, every 4 levels mu, IIRC. Not rocket science or some byzantine relationship that was hard to remember. Thus, there is nothing about the table that makes it any more secret than a formula. But if you think so you can always take the to hit progression for your 3.x players and tabulate it; then you'll have something to look up.

The GM always has the power to determine who hits or misses, you roll and tell me what you get with all your modifiers; I'll tell you if you hit. This approach works equally well with a table or formula, try it.


Player Work
Yes in 1e "BAB" was locked in with your class and level, there was no variation within a class. So everything you needed to determine a hit was in the 1e DMG table. Wait, what if he was a ranger and fighting a giant class, well add in that modifier. Oh yeah do you have any magic weapons or items that have pluses? Well, tell me what those are player or you just add them in. Sorry for the extra work of you keeping track of your positive modifiers. Funny, I've never had a player complain about keeping track of positive modifiers, in fact, they keep track of these religiously.

The only legitimate complaint about characters adding things up themselves is increased difficulty in 3.x because instead of maybe adding one or two numbers of less than 6 in 1e; you need to add 3 or 4 number and some of them can go up to 20.

One Good Thing About Tables
One good thing I can think of for tables over formula is the haptic feel and tactile experience of using a table. You just can't get that with mental arithmetic. However, I have enough paper to push around that the haptic feel has not left my game.

 

[WizarDru]

However, I have enough paper to push around that the haptic feel has not left my game.

I had to look haptic up....I didn't know that word.

d20 all the way. I like the IDEA of charts far more than the actual USE of charts. The nostalgia for AD&D makes them seem neat...but in actual table use, they were always a hindrance. The consistency of the core d20 formula mechanics is a major advantage in my book and one of the things that brought us back to D&D after a long hiatus.

As to the 'mystery' aspect, like restricting access to the Monster Manual, this was not really actionable, IMHO. I routinely played with other DMs and they with me, so we couldn't help but own the 'DM books' and know their contents. A game predicated on this would never have worked for us in the past, just as it wouldn't work for us in the present.

 

[Shade]

D20. THACO was wacko.

 

[Desdichado]

As to the 'mystery' aspect, like restricting access to the Monster Manual, this was not really actionable, IMHO. I routinely played with other DMs and they with me, so we couldn't help but own the 'DM books' and know their contents. A game predicated on this would never have worked for us in the past, just as it wouldn't work for us in the present.

Ditto. We've had some minor line-up changes in our group, but not long ago, literally every. single. guy. in our group liked DMing as much as playing and had done it frequently. Keeping the mystery on the manner in which the OP proposes would never have worked at all for us.

 

[Umbran]

So, one has to wonder, why didn't Gygax just use a D20 system to begin with (or something like it). Why create all these head aches over tables? Its not like D20 wasn't obvious ( infact to make the tables he'd have had to first developed a D20 system and then reverse engineer it).

In point of fact, no, in order to get tables, you do not have to start with d20 and reverse-engineer. You merely have to start with the idea that you want certain probability distributions - d20 and charts are merely ways to represent them. And, coming from minis-wargames (which usually had lots of reference tables for combat resolution), the d20-style mechanic is in no way "obvious".

Most inventions of mankind are obvious in restrospect. It is much more difficult and rare to come up with them out of the aether. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is pretty darned hazy stuff.

So, why didn't he use such a system? My guess is that it probably simply didn't occur to him at the time. That's all. Nothing mysterious there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D20. THACO was wacko.

Perhaps, but THAC0 was better than charts......

.....and D20 is a fairly natural evolution of THAC0.


Seriously, though, I can understand why someone might think the "To Hit" tables added to the mystery of the game, largely due to their uneven distribution. In D20 you can easily do the same thing by giving opponents the Dodge feat: "Whata ya mean I missed? Bobbo hit against AC 15?!?" Nothing in the D20 System requires the DM to announce AC. All the DM has to do is tell the players whether or not their characters hit.


RC