Quote from: aspiringlich;864939It 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.

The unintuitive aspect is calling the base to hit AC 0 number a modifier instead of calling it the base. Treating that number (e.g. 7+ or 9+) as the base and the AC number as a modifier makes sense and is intuitive enough. The rest is just elementary arithmetic. There's certainly an argument to be made that adding AC to a base is a simpler operation than subtracting a class or level modifier from AC.

Quote from: Bren;864955The unintuitive aspect is calling the base to hit AC 0 number a modifier instead of calling it the base. Treating that number (e.g. 7+ or 9+) as the base and the AC number as a modifier makes sense and is intuitive enough. The rest is just elementary arithmetic. There's certainly an argument to be made that adding AC to a base is a simpler operation than subtracting a class or level modifier from AC.

I just checked and it's actually not called a modifier. The expression is Attack Throw Value.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864960I just checked and it's actually not called a modifier. The expression is Attack Throw Value.

Well there you go. I'm not surprised. After you explained it, I kind of figured "modifier" was probably the wrong word. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: amacris;864891In virtually every case where ACKS' attack throw system is criticized, it is because the Judge is keeping the Armor Class of the target secret.

It was a year and a half ago, so my memory isn't entirely clear, but I do know that I didn't make a point of hiding ACs, so they were probably public most of the time, but occasionally unknown to the players.  (I don't want to say "hidden" or "secret" because that implies intent.  What's more likely, given what I know of my own tendencies, is that I simply forgot to announce it up front.)

Quote from: amacris;864891E.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.

Apparently, I misunderstood the way it was intended to work, then.  Which isn't terribly surprising, given that I've mentioned earlier in the thread that I had a hard time wrapping my way around the Attack Throw system.  We were doing it as "roll, subtract AC, compare to base Attack Throw value", which has the subtractive step after the roll even when the players know the AC.

Quote from: Bren;864964Well there you go. I'm not surprised. After you explained it, I kind of figured "modifier" was probably the wrong word. Thanks for clearing that up.

Very true. They call it a attack throw. But it functions as a modifier to me since it is adding on. Or if your levels are good enough. Subtracting from the target AC.

Quote from: amacris;864891In virtually every case where ACKS' attack throw system is criticized, it is because the Judge is keeping the Armor Class of the target secret.

(Snip)

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 ran ACKS for nearly a year for a group of 12-18 year old students. I never keep AC secret (I feel that it adds nothing to the game, and makes everything take longer).

My criticism of the attack throw system in ACKS is primarily based on the fact that all of the kids in this group found the system confusing. I explained it and used it in the way you describe, but whether they had played some variant of D&D before or not, they all found it difficult to tell whether they had hit an opponent or not.

This year, I'm using BFRPG with a similar group, and they all understand the attack bonuses + d20 vs. AC without any difficulty.

While ACKS is still one of my favorite games, in future I will probably convert attack throws to an attack bonus and use 10+AC as a target number for attack rolls. I understand the logic behind the ACKS rule, but I simply found that it doesn't work as smoothly in practice as it does in theory.

to be honest the attack throw system has been explained what 3 or 4 time in this thread and i still dont get it

Quote from: kosmos1214;865136to be honest the attack throw system has been explained what 3 or 4 time in this thread and i still dont get it

It's just THAC0 for an ascending AC system. Your Attack Throw Value is the roll you need to hit AC 0 (unarmored). So all 1st level characters have an ATV of 10 (they need to roll a 10 or better to hit an unarmored opponent, just like in B/X). If you add the target's AC to the attacker's ATV, that gives you the roll needed to hit that target. So if I have an ATV of 10, and I'm attacking a creature with AC 5, then I need a roll of 15 or better to hit that target (ATV 10 + AC 5 = 15 or better to hit). As I go up in level, my fighting ability improves, so I don't need to roll as high to hit the same AC. Consequently, my ATV goes down (I only need a 9 to hit AC 0 instead of 10, so I only need a 14 (9+5) to hit AC 5 instead of 15 (10+5).

I don't see what's so difficult about this.

Both ACKS and d20 start off with an intuitive approach but end up with something unintuitive.

In d20, you start with the intuitive assumption that attacker's AC should equal the target value (AC n should be hit by a roll of n or better). But then you're stuck with the unintuitive consequence that AC 10 is the lowest possible AC (why not 9? why not 8? Because then the math doesn't work).

In ACKS you start with the intuitive assumption that AC 0 is the lowest possible AC (0 for no armor makes perfect sense). But then you're stuck with the unintuitive consequence that numbers have to be added to AC to get the appropriate target value.

Quote from: kosmos1214;865136to be honest the attack throw system has been explained what 3 or 4 time in this thread and i still dont get it

d20 + modifiers - Attack Throw Value

That's it. Your target number is the opponent's AC. People can work it out and explain it a number of different ways, but that's what the math boils down to. Doing it that ways lets you keep AC secret. If that isn't to your liking, then it can easily be done differently, too.

Quote from: aspiringlich;865137It's just THAC0 for an ascending AC system. Your Attack Throw Value is the roll you need to hit AC 0 (unarmored). So all 1st level characters have an ATV of 10 (they need to roll a 10 or better to hit an unarmored opponent, just like in B/X). If you add the target's AC to the attacker's ATV, that gives you the roll needed to hit that target. So if I have an ATV of 10, and I'm attacking a creature with AC 5, then I need a roll of 15 or better to hit that target (ATV 10 + AC 5 = 15 or better to hit). As I go up in level, my fighting ability improves, so I don't need to roll as high to hit the same AC. Consequently, my ATV goes down (I only need a 9 to hit AC 0 instead of 10, so I only need a 14 (9+5) to hit AC 5 instead of 15 (10+5).

I don't see what's so difficult about this.

Both ACKS and d20 start off with an intuitive approach but end up with something unintuitive.

In d20, you start with the intuitive assumption that attacker's AC should equal the target value (AC n should be hit by a roll of n or better). But then you're stuck with the unintuitive consequence that AC 10 is the lowest possible AC (why not 9? why not 8? Because then the math doesn't work).

In ACKS you start with the intuitive assumption that AC 0 is the lowest possible AC (0 for no armor makes perfect sense). But then you're stuck with the unintuitive consequence that numbers have to be added to AC to get the appropriate target value.

yes but the math is like theco more complex then it needed to be and why 10 because on a d20 with no bonuses its 50%

Quote from: Brand55;865140d20 + modifiers - Attack Throw Value

That's it. Your target number is the opponent's AC. People can work it out and explain it a number of different ways, but that's what the math boils down to. Doing it that ways lets you keep AC secret. If that isn't to your liking, then it can easily be done differently, too.

ok now i get it

Is it fair to say ACKS character generation is frontloaded?  What little I've seen of the system is from the Player Companion regarding custom classes.  I do like frontloaded character creation.

Quote from: Bunch;865177Is it fair to say ACKS character generation is frontloaded?  What little I've seen of the system is from the Player Companion regarding custom classes.  I do like frontloaded character creation.

I think that's fair, yes. You can create a very custom class specific to your taste, but you design it up front.

Quote from: kosmos1214;865147why 10 because on a d20 with no bonuses its 50%

Exactly what I said: 10 is what makes the math work. But for someone just learning the game who has no prior assumptions, the notion that 10 is "bad" isn't at all obvious. However, to that same person, "having an armor class of zero" sounds bad, because it sounds like you have zero protection, and in ACKS, that's just how it is.

Quote from: Bunch;865177Is it fair to say ACKS character generation is frontloaded?  What little I've seen of the system is from the Player Companion regarding custom classes.  I do like frontloaded character creation.

Depends on the class. Most are BECMI/Pedia analogs. They get all their abilities at level 1 and then those abilities improve as they level up. None of the "Get new widgit every level".

The campaign classes though tend to have some widgets at levels X-Y-Z. The Bard for example gets Read Languages at level 4, Blade dancer gets potion and scroll crafting at 5. and so on.

Quote from: kosmos1214;865147yes but the math is like theco more complex then it needed to be and why 10 because on a d20 with no bonuses its 50%

It's 55% - 11 in 20. Rolls of 1-9 miss (45%), rolls of 10-20 hit (55%).

This is possibly why AD&D had base AC 10 and base THAC0 21 - gives 50% to hit.  Fighters & Clerics had base THAC0 20 giving them 55% base to hit. Classic D&D has base AC 9 but everyone except Normal Men gets THAC0 19 or better, hitting 55%.