Target 20 as new to-hit mechanic?

[kitsune9]

I'm not a fan of the target 20 because now I'm adding my opponents AC into the mix. I want less modifiers, not more.

For example, in the old system if I have a 1st level fighter attacking an AC 10 opponent and he has a BAB +1, Str +4, I'll realize that I'll hit when I roll a 5, declare AC 10 and realized I've hit.

Now, the DM will tell me, "You get +10 to the roll", then I get to add +15 for modifiers. If the opponent had an AC of 19, the DM tells I only get +1. If the opponent has an AC of 25, he tells me that I have a -5 penalty to the roll.

Or the DM keeps the AC modifier a secret but then has to compare the math his head to see if Target 20 has been hit or not.

Interesting mechanic, but I'd pass on it.

 

[3catcircus]

If this is serious, then I guess they're giving up on speeding up combat. Between this and opposed checks for spells, you've got a ridiculous amount of rolls/hunting for numbers that is completely unnecessary.

Or, maybe that's why we're looking so much at SoD, because if we can reduce combat to a single round of unnecessary rolls and hunting for numbers than it's quicker!

Not necessarily. Combat can be just as quick with opposed rolls or target 20 or whatever.

Personally, I'd prefer a 20 dice pool mechanic where you have to roll lower than the skill's controlling attribute as the target number, where everything is a skill - attacks, spells, etc. and where different ranks of skills give you set numbers of d20 dice. Your opponents defensive skills could modify the target number by succeeding at their own skill checks, and armor would be treated as DR only. Multiple dice rolls being successful add to the amount of your success. The amount you beat the target number gets added to your results as a modifier.

No worrying about the player's figuring out the opponent's AC. No worrying about how the AC gets modified by being flat-footed or by touch. No worries about critical hits - the amount you succeed by in an attack automatically adds to the damage.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

The thing to remember here is that we're all experienced players who already know how attacks and AC and things work in our edition or editions of choice.

The reason I started using the "Target 20" system (although as I mentioned before - I came up with it independently and didn't know it under that name) was because I was GMing for 7-13 year old players who had never played a roleplaying game before.

And I can say from experience that for them, the big advantages of the "Target 20" system were:

1) A fixed target number of 20 (when rolled on a d20) is very easy to understand. It's not only the maximum you could roll on the die without modifiers, it's also a nice round number which makes comparisons easy.

2) Having a bonus to that roll that increases as you get better at fighting is also easy to understand and makes logical sense.

3) Adding the opponent's AC to the roll also makes logical sense to someone who hasn't played before. The system assumes your foe is armoured in some kind of plate armour*. If they're wearing less armour than that you get a bonus to your attack roll because they're easier to hurt. If they're wearing more armour than that (or are generally tougher) - which is rare at low level when they're learning the game - then you get a penalty to your attack roll because they're harder to hurt.

From my experience with new players (particularly younger ones), these small factors make a big difference. It's easier to understand a roll with a fixed difficulty that is a nice round number and a modifier to make it easier (and a low levels it is usually making it easier) than it is to understand a roll with a seemingly arbitrary variable difficulty.

It's easy for us to lose sight of this because, as I said, we're already experienced players. Most of the time when we say "it's easier to do X" what we actually subconsciously mean is "X is what I'm most familiar with".

But for new players who aren't already familiar with any particular system, this is - in my experience - easier to understand than either 1e-style big-honking-tables, 2e-style THAC0 or 3e/4e-style variable DC.



* The exact armour needed for AC 0 may vary from edition to edition; I was using BECMI where that AC is for "Suit Armour".

 

[Mercutio01]

I don't really agree with that.

My daughter is 7. Every once in awhile we'll have a basic D&D room fight. She rolls a d20 and then adds in the attack modifier for her character and tells me the total. To make it a learning game for her, I tell her the AC of what she is attacking. She compares the two numbers. The person with the higher number wins.

I seriously fail to see how (d20+modifier, compare to other number) is more complex than this target 20 thing (which I've never heard of until this thread).

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

I seriously fail to see how (d20+modifier, compare to other number) is more complex than this target 20 thing (which I've never heard of until this thread).

Well, I can only repeat that in my experience, new folk (especially children) do find it easier.

I don't think one is particularly more complex (pretty much by definition they have the fundamentally the same complexity because they have fundamentally the same variables). It's more of a psychological thing.

If it helps, think of it this way:

You're doing [d20 + Single Modifier], compare to [Other Number].

I'm doing [d20 + Combined Modifier], compare to 20.

There are two differences there.

The first is that your way has two variables - your daughter has to add a modifier to her roll and then has to compare it to another arbitrary two digit number. My daughter (who is one of my players and was 7 when we started using this system although she's 8 now) has to add a modifier to her roll and then compare it to a fixed value of 20 (a round number). Clearly in this respect my way is simpler than yours.

Contrariwise, your daughter has to add a single modifier (her to-hit - which will likely be a single digit positive value) to her roll, whereas my daughter has to combine two numbers (her to-hit and the monster's AC - both of which are likely to be single digit positive values) to get a modifier before adding it to her roll. Clearly in this respect your way is simpler than mine.

So overall, it's fairly balanced in complexity and the "easiness" depends on psychological factors. Single-digit maths is easier than double-digit and comparison to round numbers is easier than comparison to arbitrary numbers.

At higher levels, when armour classes can go negative (meaning you need to subtract rather than adding) and when attack bonuses start reaching double figures both those psychological factors disappear. But by then the players are more used to the system anyway so the ease of learning doesn't matter so much.

 

[CM]

<facepalm>

I disagree that adding attack bonus and AC together is at all intuitive. Why is a high number for one good and a high number for the other bad? This doesn't make sense. High numbers should either always be good or always be bad.

Not to mention, as others have stated, that an enemy's defenses are revealed immediately with the first attack.

I just don't see any redeeming qualities with this method other than a misguided appeal to nostalgia in going back to descending AC.

 

[Dornam]

d20
1. Roll d20
2. add hit
3. inform DM
4. DM compares result to AC
5. DM informs you

T20
1. Roll d20
2. Add hit
3. Ask for AC
4. Subtract AC
5. Compare to 20
6. Inform DM

Imho comparing is easier than subtracting and the amount of AC must be know in both systems so I fail to see any advantage at all.

 

[dkyle]

You're doing [d20 + Single Modifier], compare to [Other Number].

I'm doing [d20 + Combined Modifier], compare to 20.

This would be more clearly stated as:

[d20 + Number on PC's sheet] compared to [Number on Monster's stat block]

vs.

[d20 + Number on PC's sheet + Number on Monster's stat block] compared to 20

You're glossing over what that combined number means, and producing that combined number is where the real disadvantage of Target 20 lies.

The first is that your way has two variables - your daughter has to add a modifier to her roll and then has to compare it to another arbitrary two digit number. My daughter (who is one of my players and was 7 when we started using this system although she's 8 now) has to add a modifier to her roll and then compare it to a fixed value of 20 (a round number). Clearly in this respect my way is simpler than yours.

There are two variables in both cases. But the difference is that your daughter has to add those numbers together, plus the d20. Whereas his doesn't even need to know what the monster's AC is, and only adds the number on her character's sheet. He only tells the AC to her because he wants to make it more complicated for her. But if he wanted to make things simpler, he has the option of her telling him her result, and he does the comparison. There's no simplification for yours, unless you have her tell you the result before adding the AC, in which case the "Target 20" has no impact to her. She's just doing exactly the same thing as in 3E/4E d20 system, but you're doing an extra addition, instead of just doing a simple comparison.

So overall, it's fairly balanced in complexity and the "easiness" depends on psychological factors. Single-digit maths is easier than double-digit and comparison to round numbers is easier than comparison to arbitrary numbers.

I think you're overestimating the complexity of comparison to "arbitrary numbers". It's hard for me to see a comparison ever being more complicated than an addition of numbers, unless the comparison involves numbers that are vastly higher than the addition, which is not the case here.

 

[delericho]

Imho comparing is easier than subtracting and the amount of AC must be know in both systems so I fail to see any advantage at all.

There isn't any subtraction in the Target-20 system. Under that system, ACs are descending (that is, lower is better), and range from 10 down to 0 (no negative ACs). So, in Target-20, you add the AC of the target to the attack roll.

Additionally, not all comparisons are created equal - comparing "X with 20" is considerably quicker than comparing "X with Y" where Y is an arbitrary number. Basically, if the result is "twenty-anything" then it's a hit, while if it's "anything-teen" it's a miss.

 

[dkyle]

There isn't any subtraction in the Target-20 system. Under that system, ACs are descending (that is, lower is better), and range from 10 down to 0 (no negative ACs). So, in Target-20, you add the AC of the target to the attack roll.

Well, the problem then is having descending AC, which I see absolutely no good reason for, other than pure nostalgia.

And only having a range of 0 to 10 for AC sounds extremely limiting. Only 10 difference, on a d20 die, between a buck naked commoner, and a level 20, Plate Mail-clad Fighter?

Additionally, not all comparisons are created equal - comparing "X with 20" is considerably quicker than comparing "X with Y" where Y is an arbitrary number. Basically, if the result is "twenty-anything" then it's a hit, while if it's "anything-teen" it's a miss.

I'm not so sure about "considerably quicker". The only hard part is knowing what Y is. Once we know what numbers you're comparing, people are very fast at comparisons. And d20 system means that Y doesn't need to be communicated, and the DM can do the comparison. Under T20, that Y value must be told to the player, and they are adding it, which is a much slower mathematical operation.

I'm just not seeing any net positive to T20 over d20, at all. T20 is a decent way to make descending AC work in a relatively intuitive way, but that's making the best of some questionable mechanics.

 

[KarinsDad]

I dunno, my players usually figured it out after about 3 swings. I've given up worrying about it. I haven't noticed that it really changes anything but to make combat run more quickly by letting the fighter types figure out what they need to roll.

As a general rule, most encounters will have foes that require anywhere from a 6 to a 15 to hit depending on the difficulty of the encounter and how proficient the PC attacking is. So there usually about 10 possible numbers and often, one of the numbers in the middle is the correct AC.

But, players do not figure out enemy AC in 3 swings as a general rule. To figure it out precisely requires that the exact number needed to hit is rolled and the number which will miss by one is rolled. This requires a minimum of 2 swings and the odds of this happening (miss hit, or hit miss) in 2 swings are 1 in 200. This is the only way to determine the exact number without the DM telling a player or giving hints (e.g. "you just barely hit"). The chances of this occurring within 3 swings are less than 1.5%.

So no, your players aren't figuring it out. At best, they are guessing.


Handing out this information only helps with some older style not so well designed systems like THAC0. With a good mechanical system (like 3E BAB where the player merely adds two numbers and tells the DM who does the comparison in a nano-second), the reason to not hand out the number is to not spoon feed the players on the difficulty of the foe.

When a player rolls an 8 and misses without knowing the AC of the foe, he might just figure that he missed, not that the foe is tough. When a player rolls an 8 and the DM tells him the high AC of the foe, then the player suddenly knows "shoot, I need a 15 to hit this guy, the team had better start handing out bonuses right now and we'd better pull out the big guns". Some DMs think that handing out this information is both metagaming and taking the mystery out of the game. Other DMs think that the PC with a single swing would know how skilled his foe is. Personally, I fall into the former camp. I don't think that the PC and hence the player would automatically know how skilled the NPC foe is with a single swing. I think it would take time to figure this out and the best way to do this is to see what happens as the dice are rolled. A 13 is rolled and a miss occurs, then the players can go "oh shoot". Four 6 or less numbers are rolled and the player just thinks that cold dice has occurred and his klutzy PC doesn't really know that he is facing a skilled foe or not.

This level of free information metagaming is not preferable for some DMs. The game is better if there is some mystery in it and the players don't know most everything as if they were playing chess or Monopoly. In fact, 4E (especially as one gets up into Paragon level) is easy enough as is (assuming reasonably well designed for combat PCs and overall party) and doesn't need the DM making it even easier by giving out free extra info.

 

[Ratskinner]

As a general rule, most encounters will have foes that require anywhere from a 6 to a 15 to hit depending on the difficulty of the encounter and how proficient the PC attacking is. So there usually about 10 possible numbers and often, one of the numbers in the middle is the correct AC.

But, players do not figure out enemy AC in 3 swings as a general rule. To figure it out precisely requires that the exact number needed to hit is rolled and the number which will miss by one is rolled. This requires a minimum of 2 swings and the odds of this happening (miss hit, or hit miss) in 2 swings are 1 in 200. This is the only way to determine the exact number without the DM telling a player or giving hints (e.g. "you just barely hit"). The chances of this occurring within 3 swings are less than 1.5%.

So no, your players aren't figuring it out. At best, they are guessing.

Perhaps my players are more clever than yours? Once a few swings have narrowed it down, i.e. "I missed at 14 AC, you hit with 17." How hard is to figure out the critters' AC must be 15, 16, or 17....and does it really make any difference if you know which of the three it is? For me and mine, no. It only slows down play for each attacker to ask "Does an N hit?". Then the metagamey question of "What's its AC?" has to continue to be asked each and every round.

This level of free information metagaming is not preferable for some DMs. The game is better if there is some mystery in it and the players don't know most everything as if they were playing chess or Monopoly. In fact, 4E (especially as one gets up into Paragon level) is easy enough as is and doesn't need the DM making it even easier by giving out free extra info.

Dude, I don't want to diss your playstyle, but if "What's its AC?" counts as mystery....I think you're letting the metagame get inside your head already. The way I feel, combat is all about metagame and it always has been. If the fighter knows whether to ask for "healing" or not by looking at his totally abstract, possibly not even injuries, hit point total; then just give up. The best way I've found to reduce the impact of the metagame on combat is to speed it up and get it over with quickly and efficiently. Also, I'm not talking about 4e specifically, my experience spans all but the very earliest OD&D.

I used to feel like you seem to now. Just dumb luck that one day I tried a suggestion and put all the status information out there to let the players handle more of it and "woosh!" combat rolled by quickly. Perhaps more surprising, the metagame had less of an impact, because they didn't have to keep worrying about it. A Fighters turn becomes: "I smash him in the face for 12!" instead of 20 questions. Figure it out an forget it, apparently. You can still throw in surprise and shock by either lying about the numbers or holding them back until the first attack hits. YMMV, I suppose.

 

[Mercutio01]

I'm obvously not KarinsDad, but it's got to be totally different playstyles. Combat like you describe "I hit him for 12" is just about the most boring way of playing I've ever heard of. I wouldn't play long in a group like that.

 

[KarinsDad]

Perhaps my players are more clever than yours?

Not if they need the DM to hand out AC to speed up combat.

Once a few swings have narrowed it down, i.e. "I missed at 14 AC, you hit with 17." How hard is to figure out the critters' AC must be 15, 16, or 17....and does it really make any difference if you know which of the three it is?

Except that this rarely happens. You are using a rare occurrence to support your POV. It's rare that the players roll within a few numbers with both a to hit and a miss in the first few swings. For your 4 number range example here, it happens 1 time in 25.

Dude, I don't want to diss your playstyle, but if "What's its AC?" counts as mystery....I think you're letting the metagame get inside your head already.

If you say so. Personally, I want my players to be challenged, not held by the hand. I want them to discover whats what in combat as the combat unfolds, not know as soon as the door is opened most of the ins and outs of this particular encounter.

The way I feel, combat is all about metagame and it always has been.

A certain amount of metagame is unavoidable. But, it doesn't make sense to make it even more metagamey.

Also, I'm not talking about 4e specifically, my experience spans all but the very earliest OD&D.

So does mine.

I used to feel like you seem to now. Just dumb luck that one day I tried a suggestion and put all the status information out there to let the players handle more of it and "woosh!" combat rolled by quickly. Perhaps more surprising, the metagame had less of an impact, because they didn't have to keep worrying about it. A Fighters turn becomes: "I smash him in the face for 12!" instead of 20 questions. Figure it out an forget it, apparently. You can still throw in surprise and shock by either lying about the numbers or holding them back until the first attack hits. YMMV, I suppose.

I'm glad it works for you. As a DM, though, I don't have a problem with a player saying "I hit a 22" and I tell him whether it hits or not. I'm not quite seeing the speed improvement that you seem to imply. But, I do see the increased amount of better player decision making based on information that the player has, but the PC shouldn't in your approach.

Player: "Well, since his AC is so good and I know he only has a few hit points remaining, I decide to attack him with my weaker attack vs. Will.

Why bother to have the players even show up if you hand out so much information that their decision making is practically a no brainer? That's what happens when the players explicitly know NPC stats like defenses, remaining hit points, etc. and it's why the game designers did not add this information to Monster Knowledge Checks. As a player, I wouldn't want the DM to do this. I want to figure stuff like this on my own, not be told it.

Player: "Wow, a 14 missed. We're might be in trouble here."

instead of in round one:

Player: "Hey guys, the DM told us that this guy has a 27 AC, maybe we should retreat."

or alternatively:

Player: "Nah, I'm not using a Daily on these guys. They only have an AC of 22."


weak sauce

 

[Dornam]

While I too made the observation that Players narrow the AC of opponents down after a few hits I think it none the less a huge difference between finding out in the midst of combat and being told up front.

So if we sum up:
In t20 you need to know AC and hit just as in d20.

Comparing to 20 and comparing to a number near 20 that you know is the same.

Needing to "add" an AC of -7 is actually subtracting, especially because t20 scales badly if you do not allow negative ACs.

So I maintain, t20 has no advantage whatsoever over d20.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Perhaps Ratskinner meant two or three rounds to determine AC? By then, a party of 4-5 has had not just two or three swings, but 8-15 total swings. In any case, it has also been my experience that two or three rounds is usually enough for the players to figure out AC plus/minus epsilon.

Regarding descending AC and its range of values: Keep in mind that in Basic/OD&D, there weren't ~30 different armors, and AC and armor type were in one-to-one correspondence. So, once the DM described the enemies and the armor they were wearing, you pretty much knew their AC. It wasn't so much a metagamey thing, it's just the way the system was. Of course, monsters were a different situation, though paying careful attention to the description could help: "The monster has big thick protective plates covering it...."

Regarding the advantage of T20 vs d20: For T20, once the AC of the target is announced, all the arithmetic, comparison and decision making is pushed to the player's side. It's faster for me to roll, do the calculation and determine whether I hit, than it is for me to roll, do a calculation, announce my result, have the DM make a comparison, and then have the DM announce the result. In fact, once I've calculated what number I need, I roll, glance, done. Not much faster, but it is.

In any case, I don't think it's a nostalgia thing so much as it is a playstyle thing. Older editions had a much more abstract combat system that played quickly, which some folks prefer. In a 4-5 hour session, you might have [-]two[/-] a dozen combats. This is unthinkable in 3.x/4/Pathfinder, in which the combat systems tries to simulate combat on a much more detailed level.

 

[scadgrad]

My group of sons, nephews and nieces (ages 7, 9, 10, 12 & 13) get along just fine playing Whitebox with AC as it was for 26 years of gaming. To make things easier on the DM (that would be me), I have their thAC0 noted and we fly through combats without any hitch at all. Of course, in those "primitive days" EGG & DA decided to keep AC in a very small, elegant range of numbers (an actual feature, not a flaw).

I applaud the originator of the Target 20 idea, but since my 1st grader has been able to grock thAC0 and descending AC (he could do so in kindergarten, but that sounds like I'm bragging) with little difficulty, I no longer accept the notion that ascending AC is "better". Different surely, and popular, but the game is better when there is some mystery involved in whether or not you hit.