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.