OOC I

[Zhym]

Welcome back from the site-enforced timeout.

[dmw71]

Today, not being able to access the site, was really hard. I think I truly do have an addiction.

[Alethan]

Today, not being able to access the site, was really hard. I think I truly do have an addiction.

Not really a bad addiction to have, all things considered.

I quit using the dice roller character sheets quite a while ago. I prefer the look of the text-formatted sheet.

[OGRE MAGE]

I see that others have been posting all day, any idea why this happened?

What happens when you do try to connect? Are you receiving any error messages?


No, no message, it just wouldn't load. I post from my iPad most of the time but I couldn't get the site to come up on any of our devices.

I have the computer savvy of a two year old so I don't know anything about IP whatevers, I'm just glad it works now. It was rainy and crappy out most of the day (as is normal for our area) so it was even harder not being able to get anything done on here.

Not sure what i did to "fix" it, I'm just glad it works now.

[dmw71]

I was able to populate quite a few house rules today and wanted to point them out as soon as possible. They can be found here: House Rules. While I believe the rules should be fine, I am definitely open to discussing any of them if there are any questions.

Feel free to review them, and share any thoughts you may have here.

[dmw71]

I hope I don't ruin anyone's plans for their character, but I've decided to attempt something extreme for this game -- eliminate the cleric class. The cleric is actually one of my favorites, but I'm curious to see how the party will function now that the healing requirement is spread equally, and not just the responsibility of the player "stuck" playing the healer.

To compensate for this (even though clerics did not begin the game with any spells), each character will begin the game with one potion of healing (B48), and additional potions of healing will be widely available for sale at double the cost of holy water, or 50 gold pieces each (prices are subject to change).

[Zhym]

Wow. That is radical.

What about the cleric's other spells? They may not be able to use them at 1st level, but they do start to come in handy later, especially if they survive to use higher level spells. The other major function of the cleric is turning undead. Any thoughts on how (or if) you might compensate for that?

[dmw71]

What about the cleric's other spells? They may not be able to use them at 1st level, but they do start to come in handy later, especially if they survive to use higher level spells.

Interestingly, I only see three 2nd-level cleric spells available: bless, hold person, silence (15' radius) (B18). I think the group can overcome the lack of those. I may also be willing to make non-adventuring clerics available as NPCs in towns.

The other major function of the cleric is turning undead. Any thoughts on how (or if) you might compensate for that?

I'm actually not planning on compensating for this lost ability. At the same time, I'm also not eliminating silver weapons and holy water from the game, so those methods of combating them will still be available... just in case.

[dmw71]

Just added a second house rule which will likely seem a bit different: Target 20.

Check it out, and let me know what you think.

[Zhym]

Do all character classes now have the same attack tables, or does each class have a "fighter level" for their class level?

Well, how about that. I had no idea that all character classes used the same attack tables in B/X.

As to the calculation: it doesn't matter to me whether we compare d20+level+bonuses+AC ≤ 20 or d20+bonuses ≤ 20-AC-level. I've been doing this long enough that the latter calculation is easy, but the former isn't any harder. The former isn't going to be any easier to turn into a macro, though, since AC will vary.

The only aspect of the attack table that might get lost in this method is that BtB, a modified 20 (not just a natural 20) always hits. Under the Target 20 calculation, that translates to d20+level+bonuses ≥ 20 always hits (i.e., leaving AC out of the equation). Of course, that will only matter if we run into an opponent with AC < 0.

I wouldn't think you'd have to tell us ACs. If we roll d20+level+bonus, it should be easy enough for you to add AC to our rolls and compare the result to 20 if you want. In fact, leaving the ACs out of our macros would let us use one macro per weapon instead of one per weapon & AC, and would also make the modified 20s easier to spot.

[dmw71]

Do all character classes now have the same attack tables, or does each class have a "fighter level" for their class level?

Well, how about that. I had no idea that all character classes used the same attack tables in B/X.

I actually didn't realize that myself until I started to put the Target 20 method to the test and compare it versus the attack tables. Shocking, eh?

As to the calculation: it doesn't matter to me whether we compare d20+level+bonuses+AC ≤ 20 or d20+bonuses ≤ 20-AC-level. I've been doing this long enough that the latter calculation is easy, but the former isn't any harder. The former isn't going to be any easier to turn into a macro, though, since AC will vary.

The biggest difference between the two formula you posted is that, in the former (Target 20), it only requires addition (there's no subtraction). I'm capable of performing subtraction, but it is much more natural (at least for me) to add.

Of course, that will only matter if we run into an opponent with AC < 0.

I'll see to it that, at least for the foreseeable future, that doesn't happen.

I only have theoretical knowledge of this system, no actual experience... yet, but a natural 20 will always hit (unless the target can only be hit by silver or magical weapons) regardless of method.

[Zhym]

I edited my post while you were responding. The biggest issue I see now is the need for lots of macros, since AC is part of the addition. What do you think of having us add everything except the AC, which you would add to determine whether an attack hit? That way, we reduce the number of macros we need and you don't have to tell us the AC of everything we fight. And if you want to duplicate the original attack table, a 20 on our d20+level+bonus roll would always be a hit.

[Zhym]

I actually didn't realize that myself until I started to put the Target 20 method to the test and compare it versus the attack tables. Shocking, eh?

Looking at the Expert rules, I see that they add per-class attack tables. The Expert set also has a slower progression for fighters than I'm used to: a 6th-level fighter has a THAC0 of 17, compared to 16 in AD&D and 14 in a +1/level progression. But then, re-reading the Basic set, THAC0s don't change from level 1-3. Craziness.

That bit of weirdness aside, it's easy enough to have different attack tables per class by assigning an equivalent "fighter level" to each class. More generally, if you wanted to mimic the B/X attack table more closely, you could replace "character level" (which works in AD&D) with "level-based attack bonus." Using the B/X attack table by the book, a level 1-3 fighter has a level-based attack bonus of 1, a level 4-6 fighter has a level-based attack bonus of 2, etc.

Granted, that's just a roundabout way of stating "20-THAC0," but it does result in the BtB attack table without subtraction. It does, however, give characters a number to keep track of. Then again, we don't have much trouble tracking THAC0, so I doubt it would be any harder to keep track of 20-THAC0 or "level-based attack bonus" (LBAB?).

Not that I'm against a faster attack roll progression than is in the rules. B/X characters can use all the help they can get.

[dmw71]

The biggest issue I see now is the need for lots of macros, since AC is part of the addition.

I see that. I haven't studied the monsters yet, but my guess is that a majority of them, at least in the B game, will fall into a small range. Still, I get your point...

What do you think of having us add everything except the AC, which you would add to determine whether an attack hit?

I did think about that, and the only downside is that the outcome a roll won't immediately be obvious, which was my goal.

That way, we reduce the number of macros we need and you don't have to tell us the AC of everything we fight.

The not having to share the AC of everything is appealing, but the number of macros, I hope, shouldn't be a problem. I suspect there will only be 3-5 that you'll use most often, especially early on, and new ones can be created as needed, and not all at once.

My preference is to leave the AC in, as part of the beauty of the Target 20 method is that you know the outcome of an attack roll immediately. That said, I will gladly put it up to a vote (the only thing is, I will ultimately want everyone to follow the same system, so it will be an either-or proposition. Let's vote (you can vote publicly or privately):

What does everyone else think?

Leave armor class out of the equation, or create multiple macros?

[Zhym]

I'm fine doing whatever you want to do. To reduce the number of macros, could we put the fixed elements in the macro then add the AC result by hand? For example:

Sword attack (Lvl 2, +2 Str): [1d20+4] = 15+4 = 19 + AC 6 = 25, HIT

Then it'd be up to the player to decide if he'd rather type that up for each roll or just have multiple macros.

[dmw71]

I'm fine doing whatever you want to do. To reduce the number of macros, could we put the fixed elements in the macro then add the AC result by hand? For example:

Sword attack (Lvl 2, +2 Str): [1d20+4] = 15+4 = 19 + AC 6 = 25, HIT

Then it'd be up to the player to decide if he'd rather type that up for each roll or just have multiple macros.

Actually, upon further consideration, with each player having their own campaign in the die roller specifically for their character, I guess it doesn't matter which method they use, just so long as the Target 20 objective is achieved -- a 20 or higher hits.

Either create a specific macro for each AC (or each AC as needed) or manually update a single macro to reflect the AC after-the-fact, as Zhym did above. As long as the manual AC note is added before the roll is posted, I would be fine with that.

Just, for me, I would like to be able to see the roll posted by the player and just know (and have them know). You know?

[dmw71]

Barring any discussions which lead to change, the 'House Rules' should be complete. Feel free to let me know if have any questions, suggestions, whatever.

Now, to decide what to do with you guys?


Anyone have any objections to starting on Monday, or will you need more time to create your characters?

[Zhym]

Monday is fine with me. I'm traveling to a conference next Wednesday, however, and I may or may not be able to post updates through the weekend.

I'm not clear on how the arcane spell selection process works. The way I read it, an MU w/ 16 intelligence would start with a minimum of Read Magic and two other spells in his spell book, plus any spells that a roll vs. intelligence minus spell level says he can have. Is that right?

How are the "automatic" spells selected?

[Alethan]

I'm fine with keeping AC in the equation.

I'm fine with starting on Monday. Does that mean we can advance with our chargen, then?

[Alethan]

Are you leaving the stat penalty/bonus adjustments for high or low scores btb? Or did you house rule that and I can't find it?