Quote from: Bren;864259Reserve XP for replacement characters sounds intriguing. Can you say more about what this is and how it works? I'd

Reserve xp is, if I remember correctly, when you basically throw away gold for no personal benefit (wild parties, tithing, build an orphanage anonamously, &c.). You get 1 xp / gp. When you make a new character, you can apply some or all of your reserve xp to it.

Quote from: Moracai;864263So, how hard it would be to include ACKS's domain acquiring and upkeeping system to an existing, say, Castles & Crusades or Dungeon Crawl Classics game? What subsystems would need special attention, if any?

From what I know of those, very little if anything. I would compare enchanted item fabrication costs and determine some kind of cost ratio between the two systems. After that, you can just run it and apply the ratio to whatever profit or deficit you end up with.

Quote from: Bren;864259That sounds like a useful description of what ACKS does. Integrating economics into the design is a very attractive feature.

For YOU maybe... for most people, they're asleep before they finish reading this sente-zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

But seriously, this was one of those "I didn't even know I wanted that" sort of things for me, and it ends up being brilliant in play. The only term I can think of to describe it is "coherent." That tends to be a dirty word around here, but the result in ACKS is that stuff - just - works. And the various parts of the game just hang together. The fact that they do also makes it easier (perhaps counter-intuitively) to houserule the game.

Some other things on my "I didn't even know I wanted that" list are the changes to spellcasting, and race-specific Classes. These were both things I considered anathema to what I wanted from D&D. But ACKS' implementation works. Both are flavourful, and, more importantly, tons of fun in play.

Quote from: Bren;864259Reserve XP for replacement characters sounds intriguing. Can you say more about what this is and how it works? I'd might like do some adaptation of this for other games that we play (specifically Honor+Intrigue and Star Wars D6).

Reserve XP come from Characters spending their wealth frivolously. If they spend gold for no in-game benefit, they can bank most of that as the aforementioned Reserve XP (keep in mind that ACKS uses 1gp = 1 XP). That becomes a gauge, filling up over time. If their Character bites the dust and they start a new one, that new Character begins play with however much XP the Reserve XP "gauge" currently reads. This does two things: one, it lets players continue playing in an ongoing campaign without either starting over at 1st Level or being auto-levelled to where everyone else is at; two, it gets PCs doing the same kind of crazy stuff that people actually do when they come in to ridiculous amounts of money. So, death has real sting and consequences, and players come up with awesome, memorable, hilarious, and sometimes campaign-defining ways of uselessly spending scads of gold.

Quote from: Baron Opal;864267Reserve xp is, if I remember correctly, when you basically throw away gold for no personal benefit (wild parties, tithing, build an orphanage anonamously, &c.). You get 1 xp / gp.

It's not 1-to-1, but I didn't want to quote the actual rule here.

Quote from: Moracai;864263So, how hard it would be to include ACKS's domain acquiring and upkeeping system to an existing, say, Castles & Crusades or Dungeon Crawl Classics game? What subsystems would need special attention, if any?

The reality is you could rip out the entire ACKS economic subsystem, including Domain management, and transplant it into another TSR-style D&D game without much trouble. Just go with ACKS price lists, building costs, and assume ACKS' 9th Level is whatever is considered "Name-Level" in your system of choice (note that 9th Level isn't required for a Domain in ACKS, but it's a breakpoint where certain things that help happen).

Quote from: Bobloblah;864268Just go with ACKS price lists, building costs, and assume ACKS' 9th Level is whatever is considered "Name-Level" in your system of choice (note that 9th Level isn't required for a Domain in ACKS, but it's a breakpoint where certain things that help happen).

That's another thing that I liked about it. There's nothing that prevents you from building your tower and controlling a domain earlier if you have the cash. It's just that there is the assumption that at a certain level (9th), you have enough competence and fame that people will help you when you start.

Well, thanks!  I'll look into it.  Sadly, a bill cost more than expected this month, cutting into the money, but it's on my DTRPG wish list for sure!  Thanks!

Best feature is how it does the Rule Cyclopedia domain rules in a way that actually works, way better.

Worst feature is the attack mechanic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;864841Worst feature is the attack mechanic.

Can you elaborate on this?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864276Well, thanks!  I'll look into it.  Sadly, a bill cost more than expected this month, cutting into the money, but it's on my DTRPG wish list for sure!  Thanks!

There is an Old School Bundle of Holding these days featuring the ACKS corebook (in PDF). Maybe you should check it out.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864847Can you elaborate on this?

ACKS switches things around for attack rolls. AC starts at 0 and ascends (e.g., leather armour is AC 2, chain armour is AC 4, plate armour is AC 6, etc.). Characters have an Attack Throw value, starting at 10+; this means that on a d20 roll of 10 or more, they hit AC 0 for damage. The reasons for the reversal are to make it easier to keep things on the Judge's side of the screen (e.g., player rolls a 12, and you know their Attack Throw is 10+, they've hit AC 2, and you can tell them they missed the goblin whose AC is 3, without ever telling them the monster's AC). On the other hand, if you ask a player what AC they've hit, they need to subtract their roll from their Attack Throw. Regardless, Pundit doesn't like this because it's different, as he says here (paragraphs 12 and 13). I've seen others make the same complaint, and it seems to be almost universally an issue with the difference from what people are used to. Having said that, most of those are from reviews and not from people playing the game. My own experience is that it's jarring for the first session due to expectations, and then fades from notice, as it's no more or less complicated than any other method of performing the same math.

Quote from: nDervish;864198Converting to D&D3-style "attack bonus" and increasing all ACs by 10 is a trivial one-time adjustment.

Yeah, the good news is that ACKS ACs are super-easy to convert to any ascending-AC version of D&D.
I accidentally bought the ACKS version of Dwimmermount on Saturday (meant to get the LL version, maybe Orcs Nest had sold out) but since I'll use it either for 5e D&D or for my Classic D&D game which uses ascending ACs it looks as if I actually saved myself some work. Adding 10 to listed AC is much easier than my usual calculation for converting descending AC (converting from Classic/LL 9-AC = number to add to 10. 19-AC gives same result but my brain prefers the former.)

Quote from: Bobloblah;864849My own experience is that it's jarring for the first session due to expectations, and then fades from notice, as it's no more or less complicated than any other method of performing the same math.

My experience was more along the lines of:

Session 1:  Give the ACKS Attack Throws a shot as written.

Session 2:
Players: This Attack Throw stuff is slow to figure out.  Can we use D&D3-style hit rolls instead?
nDervish: C'mon, guys, it's the same thing either way.  We're just not used to it.

Session 3:
Players: Attack Throws still suck.  Can we please switch?
nDervish:  Well, OK...  I guess we can try it the other way next time.

Session 4:
nDervish:  I've updated your character sheets with the changed ACs and Attack Bonus.  Let's give it a shot.
(Try D&D3-style hit rolls.)
(Notice combat running a lot faster and smoother.)

I think the major gain came from taking a step out of the process.  With ACKS Attack Throws, you have to compare your roll to your Attack Throw, then calculate what AC you hit.  With D&D3-style, your modified roll is itself the AC you hit.  The conversion step is quick and easy to do, but it still is an extra step and takes non-zero time to perform.

Quote from: Bobloblah;864268For YOU maybe... for most people, they're asleep before they finish reading this sente-zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

But seriously, this was one of those "I didn't even know I wanted that" sort of things for me, and it ends up being brilliant in play.

Some other things on my "I didn't even know I wanted that" list are the changes to spellcasting,

Reserve XP come from Characters spending their wealth frivolously.

Verily. There were some of the things I saw as interesting changes or embellishments.

Aside from the aforementioned irk with copying some things whole cloth. I think the book is a little overly wordy. Similar to how 5e is overly wordy. Though not as badly as 5e by far.

Quote from: nDervish;864877My experience was more along the lines of:

Session 1:  Give the ACKS Attack Throws a shot as written.

Session 2:
Players: This Attack Throw stuff is slow to figure out.  Can we use D&D3-style hit rolls instead?
nDervish: C'mon, guys, it's the same thing either way.  We're just not used to it.

Session 3:
Players: Attack Throws still suck.  Can we please switch?
nDervish:  Well, OK...  I guess we can try it the other way next time.

Session 4:
nDervish:  I've updated your character sheets with the changed ACs and Attack Bonus.  Let's give it a shot.
(Try D&D3-style hit rolls.)
(Notice combat running a lot faster and smoother.)

I think the major gain came from taking a step out of the process.  With ACKS Attack Throws, you have to compare your roll to your Attack Throw, then calculate what AC you hit.  With D&D3-style, your modified roll is itself the AC you hit.  The conversion step is quick and easy to do, but it still is an extra step and takes non-zero time to perform.

In virtually every case where ACKS' attack throw system is criticized, it is because the Judge is keeping the Armor Class of the target secret. The decision to keep the AC secret is perhaps a holdover from other games, as it doesn't appear in the rules. In ACKS the AC is a modifier the attacker applies to his target number.

As I said in my blog, "With ACKS, we started by acknowledging that all the player really cares about is  "what number do I need to roll to hit".  We wanted to find the absolutely easiest way possible to deliver that information."
http://www.autarch.co/blog/ascending-v-descending-armor-class

"The throw mechanic directly, rather than indirectly, informs the player of the information he needs to know, i.e. "what number do I need to roll on the die."
http://www.autarch.co/blog/basic-mechanics-adventurer-conqueror-king-system-throws-and-rolls

E.g. the Judge tells the player the AC of his target, he adds that to his base attack throw, and then he rolls the die and instantly knows if he hit or not.

This is very fast, and is how I expected the game to be run.

If you keep the AC secret then the ACKS system can be slower because you are off-loading the math to the Judge or forcing the players to do a subtractive step after they roll.

I think ACKSs combat system is pretty simple.

Class level attack mod(+ any stat mods)+AC=target threshold to roll equal or better.

IE: My 5th level mage has a mod of +9. Attacking a lizardman in scale mail, AC 2 then is 2+9=11. So I hit on a 11 or better. A 5th level fighter would hit on a 9 or better (2+7)

Not much different from 5e's AC as your target number before mods.
Scale mail AC 14. 5th level warlock is +3 so I hit on a 13 or better. (or I add +3 on my roll to beat the 14 AC.)

Quote from: Omega;864903IE: My 5th level mage has a mod of +9. Attacking a lizardman in scale mail, AC 2 then is 2+9=11. So I hit on a 11 or better. A 5th level fighter would hit on a 9 or better (2+7)

So the fighter has a lower attack modifier than the mage? I know it is just arithmetic, but that seems unintuitive in a system where rolling higher is better.

Quote from: Bren;864926So the fighter has a lower attack modifier than the mage? I know it is just arithmetic, but that seems unintuitive in a system where rolling higher is better.

It depends on the order in which you read the numbers. The fighter's Attack Throw Modifier is 7+, meaning that he only needs a 7 or better to hit AC 0 (unarmored), as compared to the mage who needs a 9 or better (9+). To hit AC 2 the fighter would need a roll of 9 (7+2). In a sense, it's the target's AC that's the modifier to the base "to hit" threshold. Read that way it's perfectly intuitive.

Another way it could have been done would be to make the Attack Throw Modifier a negative number, which gets subtracted from the d20 roll. So that same 5th level fighter could have a ATM of -7, and if he rolls a 9, the AC hit would be 9 -7 =2 (Roll minus Attack Throw Modifier = AC hit). In this case it really would be an "attack throw modifier". But for some people, subtraction is anathema.