I'm about to pull the trigger on this, but I'm not entirely sure. It looks cool, and it sounds like it has a decent progression system, but at the same time, I have some players that wouldn't want to be 'King' of anything, rather stay wandering heroes for the entirety of the campaign, others would like to emulate Conan from the short stories, where they can lose said 'kingdom'.
What's the game like?
https://bundleofholding.com/presents/OSR2015
It's in this bundle of holding for a little over $13. There's some other really cool items that come with it. Just a, y'know, FYI.
It's a lot like classic D&D, for the most part. There's a bit more complexity in the combat system, due to having rules for various maneuvers (knockdown, disarming, etc.), but most of them come down to "roll to hit at -4; if you hit, the opponent gets a save vs. paralysis to resist; if you have the appropriate proficiency, there's no penalty to hit and the save is at -2".
The domain management system is very crunchy, but also very well integrated into the rest of the system. The ACKS game I ran focused on a group of level 3-4 characters founding a colony on a hostile island, using the domain rules to manage the town and its fortifications. The rules worked well for that, at least until I got Domains at War and recalculated construction rates based on the actual population, which slowed things to a crawl. (The core rules' default construction rates assume 3000 workers on the project. Our total population was only around 500, and only something like 80 available for construction work...)
Even if you don't set out to conquer territory, the domain rules also cover things like running thieves guilds, building wizards' towers, or managing trade caravans, so the players can still get good use out of them without becoming feudal lords as such.
The other thing that stands out about ACKS is the Player's Companion, which contains rules for creating custom classes (also usable for customizing existing classes, of course) and custom spells. If you want to be able to do that sort of thing and have a system in place to give it a degree of balance, I highly recommend it.
Overall, if you already have another D&D retro-/neo-clone that you like, you probably don't need ACKS unless you expect to use the domain or class creation systems. If you don't already have a favorite clone, then ACKS would be my first pick for the clone to recommend.
The players don't have to explicitly use the domain system to get all they want out of ACKS.
What ACKS does well is that the authors thought out how treasure, money, society, and economics work together. Then exposed it. So the treasure system for monster is consistent with the prices for items which is consistent with how trade works which is consistent how domains are organized.
And it is defined with a moderate level of detail. Not totally abstract but neither it is at the Harn level of detail.
So if the players are not interested in establishing domains and becoming King of the Hill then it will function as a world building tool for you. And likely there will be one player in your group that will notice the consistency and try to take advantage of one of the options.
I really like ACKS - it's crunchier than I usually like, but in a fractal way. That is, most of the subsystems can be ignored until you need them.
I really like the class creation/customization tools, and the custom spell stuff. There are a lot of little tweaks that I enjoy - spell repertoires instead of standard spell preparation (basically 5e's "spell slots"), simple two-weapon fighting, thief skills on a d20 roll (with Hear Noise/Find Traps rolls for all), slightly expanded B/X style morale rules, and a ton of others.
Most of the rules are written with the idea of supporting emergent play instead of restricting possibilities. nDervish already mentioned the combat maneuvers stuff, which explains how to do the 'standard' combat maneuvers but makes it obvious how to apply the weirder things PCs will inevitably try. The "equipment availability by market" table is another brilliant one - it fits into the detailed economic system, but doesn't require any special understanding of that system. It simply tells you a % chance that a given bit of gear, or hireling, will be available where the PCs are, which tends to drive them both into bigger centers of civilization and farther into the wilderness.
It's the bits and pieces that are there when you need them that I like the most, though. When your Mage character decides to create a magical hybrid between a goat and a hippopotamus and an ogre, there's a simple system to support that. The domain rules are straightforward but comprehensive, and make running a kingdom feel different than an assassin's guild or a Wizard's enclave.
My main criticism of the system is that the "attack throw" system combines the worst bits of ascending AC and THAC0 - it's both unfamiliar and unintuitive. Fortunately, it's very easy to convert it to a 3/4/5e attack bonus or to a THAC0 system.
A friend gave it to me some time ago.
If you have BX/BECMI or Cyclopedia then ACKS will look very familliar in places.
In fact they flat out steal tables from BX and BECMI.
What they do though is embellish and add onto BECMI. Technically ACKS copies BECM and leaves out the Immortals part. Some additions are proficiencies, tweaks to some tables. Like Thieves having a slightly better chance to thieve, and so on.
When I got it it was more than a little annoying to see so much flat out copied/stolen. But it also has some original ideas that might interest. Really a YMMV thing here.
So the question might be how familliar are you with BX, BECM(I) and the Cyclopedia?
Quote from: Omega;864059So the question might be how familliar are you with BX, BECM(I) and the Cyclopedia?
Not very, to be honest.
Quote from: Ddogwood;864052My main criticism of the system is that the "attack throw" system combines the worst bits of ascending AC and THAC0 - it's both unfamiliar and unintuitive. Fortunately, it's very easy to convert it to a 3/4/5e attack bonus or to a THAC0 system.
On the other hand, the notion that AC 0 = "unarmored" strikes me as a very intuitive starting point. But it does take some getting used to for those more familiar with the traditional or d20 methods.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;864063Not very, to be honest.
That could be a good thing or a bad thing.
For me I kept getting irk moments at all the stuff directly lifted from BX/BECMI/RC. Moving past that though its a freaking big book! Nearly the same page count as the Rules Cyclopedia. Around 270 to the pedias nearly 300.
The other off point for me was the mix in of 3e rules elements. In a way it would have been better if they had stuck to one or the other. The mish-mash doesnt quite mesh.
The game is a refined version of classic D&D. Classes are specific to race, with humans having the most variety. The concept of feats and skills are incorporated, but in a very modular manner that is easy to ignore if you don't want that level of complexity. I have removed them (mostly) myself, and do not notice any lack of individualization or capability.
The economics are a shining part of the game. As mentioned, there has been some effort in balancing the domain level economics with treasure tables and the common and exotic economies. If you are interested in having a hands on approach, that is well supported. If not, you appoint a trusted henchman to run your affairs while you smite that Neutral lord that insulted you last month.
Character level approximates temporal as well as personal power. Dukes tend to be higher level than Barons who are greater than Knights. It is safe to assume that if you want to take out that foreign king, he's a bad-ass and you have to prepare. It's not necessarily true, hereditary positions are possible. If that's the case, however, their retainers are probably going to be the bad-asses in the equation.
In the first supplement, whose name I forget, included are some tables and processes where you can build campaign specific classes, with examples. As race is (nearly) class in ACKS, this is very handy.
Ddogwood makes the comment that the complexity is "fractal" in nature, and I agree. I have been able to incorporate, ignore, or alter the aspects beyond the base B/X D&D fairly easily and have been able to reasonably anticipate the effects.
I've made a few changes to some combat aspects to fit my campaign style (attack bonus, cleave rules). Also, I've adopted the Specialist class and a variant of the minimal skill system from Legend of the Flame Princess. Feats are subsumed into either training or benefits for guild memberships. I do appreciate how skills are presented in ACKS, and would be content with them if I didn't prefer LotFP's more minimal method.
It is a very well made product, and I am very pleased with my purchase. I have no need to consult my RC Cyclopedia, nor do I want to.
As an aside, I really like the idea of feats, but not the execution. Having them be a codified advantage or exception-based rule acquirable outside the class structure is working best for me at the moment.
Quote from: Omega;864070The other off point for me was the mix in of 3e rules elements. In a way it would have been better if they had stuck to one or the other. The mish-mash doesnt quite mesh.
Sometimes it seems like you just can't win with the OSR. If you make changes, people complain that the mix of old and new just complicates things. If you don't make changes, people complain that's it's just a rehash of what's already been done, so just play the old thing.
Quote from: aspiringlich;864078Sometimes it seems like you just can't win with the OSR. If you make changes, people complain that the mix of old and new just complicates things. If you don't make changes, people complain that's it's just a rehash of what's already been done, so just play the old thing.
In a way you are right, but that is kind of the whole purpose of OSR rules. The acknowledgement that everyone's sweet spot is different. Speaking as someone who cannot keep track of what is what version, I think part of the issue relates to why someone is interested in OSR type games and where their personal line of too complex/too many rules gets crossed.
I like OSR rules when they're really simple. Otherwise, I'd rather go with a more skills-based system like BareBones Fantasy.
I like Swords and Wizardry White Box 1st Printing.
S&W WB 3rd printing adds too much rules/complexity for what I want.
S&W WB Core has way too much.
S&W WB Complete has way, way too much.
Someone who remembers which parts of the rules belong where would knowledgeably talk about which version of rules is being added and describe the complexity in those terms.
Also, other people have, IMO accurately, described 1e&2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e as entirely different games with the same name, rather than really as different versions. So, mixing different philosophies (editions) could end up with them not meshing.
Hands down my favorite version of classic/TSR D&D. I have a review here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21913).
TL;DR versions. It's a B/X hack with:
(1) some BECMI/RC material injected, mostly aiming at a high-level game; stronghold building and domain management get the lion's share of attention, but you're also offered a chance to run a game of criminal kingpins, merchant princes (or pirate lords -- yay for naval combat rules) and mad wizards who cross-breed monsters (complete with an in-game reason for them to build dungeons, and random rolls to stock these dungeons with a chance they'll get raided by enterprising adventurers).
(2) a few tweaks that generally line up with more modern design principles, e.g. fighters get a flat damage bonus that scales with level. Proficiencies cover both non-class-specific "general" or "secondary" skills as well as a few feat-like abilities; though there's no "feat tree" to speak of and the whole idea is easily ignored.
(3) a kick-ass Late Antiquity/Dark Ages sort of setting that's unfortunately only hinted at in the books, at least up until the recently-released adventure, The Sinister Stone of Sakkara, which goes into some detail.
Other than that, not a lot to add to what's already been said.
Quote from: Baron Opal;864073The economics are a shining part of the game. As mentioned, there has been some effort in balancing the domain level economics with treasure tables and the common and exotic economies. If you are interested in having a hands on approach, that is well supported. If not, you appoint a trusted henchman to run your affairs while you smite that Neutral lord that insulted you last month.
Yes. This part of the book was really interesting and part of what I mentioned as fleshing out certain aspects of BECMI/RC.
Quote from: aspiringlich;864078Sometimes it seems like you just can't win with the OSR. If you make changes, people complain that the mix of old and new just complicates things. If you don't make changes, people complain that's it's just a rehash of what's already been done, so just play the old thing.
For me it was the re-hash of not one, but two separate systems. Instead of picking one and doing new things with that. This was where the rules dont quite feel as well intigrated.
reading this is making me think i need toi buy a copy of acks
cuz who ever cooked it up seems to build worlds the way i do from the ground up
I've never played it as written, but used it (heavily modified) for a straight historical game I called Tyche's Favourites (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche's_Favourites). Ran for eight sessions podcasted on our site (http://insanitywetrust.wordpress.com/) as usual.
Highlights included a skirmish with a hundred participants all told, which was done in under two hours (it would take that long to do a basic scrap with 10 participants in D&D4e).
Quote from: Ddogwood;864052My main criticism of the system is that the "attack throw" system combines the worst bits of ascending AC and THAC0 - it's both unfamiliar and unintuitive. Fortunately, it's very easy to convert it to a 3/4/5e attack bonus or to a THAC0 system.
Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.
The other thing that really gets up my goat is the healing system, especially when a character goes to negative HP. You have to stop all play and step through all the parameters trying to work out the total DM. Some of the rules are quite ambiguous which doesn't help. It really gets in the road of the flow. Although it reads as a really inspiring and nifty set of rules, in practice it turgid and laborious.
The last thing that is annoying is the poor organisation of the book. Not always intuitive where to find information. I've had to stick in yellow stickies at frequently consulted places (such as the monster XP table) which are in unexpected/illogical places.
I've not yet played the domain rules so can't comment.
Overall, it reads as an interesting game and I suspect many of the rave reviews about it come from people who haven't actually played it. It's a good plan that doesn't really survive contact with the enemy. In hind-sight I wish I hadn't used it but something simpler like BFRPG or the new FAGE. Overall I think I'd give it a 5/10.
Quote from: Tod13;864079I like Swords and Wizardry White Box 1st Printing.
S&W WB 3rd printing adds too much rules/complexity for what I want.
S&W WB Core has way too much.
S&W WB Complete has way, way too much.
For me the sweet spot is S&W WB Core with the stuff I use for my Majestic Wilderlands (classes, monsters, magic items, etc).
In my view the key element of the OSR is it's diversity. For any gamer interested in classic D&D, there probably somebody in the OSR who has done something that lose to what you like and thus save you some time and work as well as serve as inspiration.
Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.
While I strong supportly a diversity of approaches, I personally don't get why wouldn't anybody use anything other than ascending AC especially when it generates the same odds as the original tables or formula.
The only exceptions I know where Ascending AC won't replicate the odds is AD&D 1st because of the repeating 20s baked in the to-hit chart.
I got the PDF for this from a previous Bundle of Holding (actually, it's up again). It looked interesting enough. I liked the artwork and implied setting.
The folks at TBP seem to really dislike the author though. Enough to boycott the publisher because of his views. Yikes.
BTW, I got ACKS from the current bundle too. Actually, two of the bundles are OSR bundles currently. IMO, they're well worth the money.
I didn't care for the initial chapter of ACKS. Liking or not liking fiction is subjective, and the mixing of the prose with system presentation in the first chapter put me off.
The next chapter is much nicer. Good explanations followed by examples, without extra prose fluff. All the terms are bolded and explained, much like a better textbook does. This is very well done. In a lot of games, the meaning or mechanics behind "saving throws" and whatnot are often badly presented, as the target audience is already familiar with the terms. ACKS does not have this problem.
Classes are clearly laid out and they have a good selection of classes.
They use a "class proficiency" system which makes sense. I prefer a more lightweight Barbarians of Lemuria style "does this fit your class/career" type setup as I don't want to track all the different proficiency rules. But for people that want more distinct skills selection, this is nice.
ACKS does not use Vancian magic. Spellcasters can pick any of their spells at any time and cast up to the number of spells they are allowed each day, before having to rest for 8 hours to recharge. (I prefer this method or something very similar for spells.) Again, this is explained very well in the spell chapter, something that a lot of OSR products hiccup on, since they are explaining something the audience already knows.
Lots of neat rules and tables. (More rules than I prefer actually--this isn't to say is it excessive. Just more than I prefer. No worse than SW Core maybe, the extra skills and domain stuff aside.) The Mortal Wounds "Permanent Wounds Suffered" table is pretty cool. More combat situational rules.
As the title suggests, lots of rules and table for followers and domains. Pretty nice.
Lots and lots of monsters.
Note, the margin includes a one word chapter title, and the bottom corner has the page number and a more complete section and subsection description. This is nice and lets you know where you are right away.
GM rules too.
Index is linked. And has a separate monster index. Table of Contents is linked.
Heck--getting both Bundles for a total of around $32 will give you days of just reading the stuff.
Quote from: estar;864177For me the sweet spot is S&W WB Core with the stuff I use for my Majestic Wilderlands (classes, monsters, magic items, etc).
In my view the key element of the OSR is it's diversity. For any gamer interested in classic D&D, there probably somebody in the OSR who has done something that lose to what you like and thus save you some time and work as well as serve as inspiration.
I agree with you on the variety of system variances. Just the differences in Swords and Wizardry editions are incredible. I added some of the Barrel Rider Games extras to what I'm going to use. What I like is I can get all the rule summaries and all the equipment and hiring lists on three pages, without crowding and with a one paragraph minimal "skill system". That doesn't include random tables or monster lists, since that's more a GM thing. And character sheets take 1 - 3 pages (three pages includes spell descriptions).
So, I can give my players 4-6 pages, depending on what class they want to play, and that's all they have to read. :D
I'm going to be starting my group on the 1st ed White Box soonish. (My wife has a paper to submit to Nature first.) So, we'll see how much that impacts which one I like.
Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.
...
I understand having to look up situational die mods, but for base to-hit, can't you just write it down?
Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.
Okay, I promise to be way more respectful of the rest of your post, but this? That's just laughable. Yes, the way Attack Throw and AC is set up differs from other editions of the game (as those other editions differ from each other). I can understand it being jarring at first simply because of prior experience, but laborious in play? It's the same kind of simple addition and subtraction as
every other edition of D&D. I'll lay it out below, and those reading the thread can judge for themselves...
AC starts at 0 and ascends. Leather is AC 2, Chain is AC 4, Plate is AC 6, you get the idea. Every PC (or NPC, Monster, etc.) has an Attack Throw. PCs all start with an Attack Throw of 10+ at 1st Level. That means a roll of 10 or more on 1d20 will hit AC 0 to inflict damage. If trying to hit a Goblin with AC 3 a 1st Level Character needs to roll 13 or more on 1d20 [Attack Throw 10 + Armor Class 3 = 13]. But what if the Character is a 2nd Level Fighter with 15 Strength, a +1 sword, fighting with sword and dagger? Then on their character sheet they're going to write something like the following: Sword+1 & Dagger 6+ 1d6+3; they hit AC 0 on a 6 or more on 1d20. In actual play you can ask them what AC they hit, and they get that by subtracting their Attack Throw from the roll (e.g., they roll a 17, 17-6=11, they hit AC 11), or, and this is why the system is set up the way it is, the DM can keep it behind the screen, so to speak. A player rolls, the Judge looks at their Attack Throw and adds the AC and any modifiers, telling them if they hit. Keeping it in the Judge's hands is marginally simpler (addition only), but it's not really complicated the other way, either. As with other editions of classic D&D, there really aren't that many modifiers, and most of them are semi-permanent and written on the character sheet.
Quote from: Stainless;864175The other thing that really gets up my goat is the healing system, especially when a character goes to negative HP. You have to stop all play and step through all the parameters trying to work out the total DM. Some of the rules are quite ambiguous which doesn't help. It really gets in the road of the flow. Although it reads as a really inspiring and nifty set of rules, in practice it turgid and laborious.
Interesting that you don't like this. I believe you're referring to the Mortal Wounds table? It's a high point of our sessions due to its results. Once again, I'll explain for those unfamiliar...
Unlike B/X D&D (upon which ACKS is based), where at 0 hit points you're just dead, ACKS waits to see if you'll survive. Once someone goes to aid you, a d6 and a d20 are rolled, and the results checked against a table. The d6 roll is unmodified, and determines rather generally where you were hit. The d20 roll, on the other hand, is modified based on a number of factors, and determines your current condition. Some of the modifiers are how far below 0 relative to your total HP you were, whether or not you were killed instantly (e.g., poisoned, coup-de-Gras, etc.), how long it's been since you were dropped, and the healing abilities of the person tending to you. The results range from being stone dead, to merely in shock, with the in-between results being a little more interesting. Those intermediate rolls can result in permanent injury, as well as requirements for additional healing (e.g., healed to 1 HP within 1 Turn or die), and recuperation time (e.g., you need 1 week's bed rest).
While it might seem cumbersome, how often does hitting 0 HP come up in a single session, or on average? Moreover, unlike earlier versions where 0 HP = dead, the results are often (remember, you can still be just plain old dead) far more interesting. Harry the Henchman is alive, but needs 1 week of bed rest; do we withdraw? Camp here? Carry him on a litter? Carry the Cleric's arm was lamed, and she can no longer hold a shield or climb; should the player keep playing her? Retire her? Attempt to get it restored? These kinds of effects create emergent gameplay considerations, and drive interesting choices in-game. Recovery from wounds also provides a natural tempo to a campaign, during which Characters can engage in other activities (e.g., Magical Research, Hijinks, Commissioning equipment, etc.) that are well-supported by ACKS.
All of this is not to say everyone should like Mortal Wounds, but if one really dislikes it, it can be ignored, going back to 0 HP means dead, just like B/X. Personally, I find that would be a loss, as Mortal Wounds capture a lot of the fun of the Critical Tables in Rolemaster without anywhere near the overhead, as well providing interesting decision for the players to navigate. One of my own pet peeves with it as a system was the apparent quantum nature of someone's injuries when they went down; you didn't roll on the table until someone else tended to them, only then learning the extent of their injuries. The simple solution to that was rolling the D6 for the Mortal Wounds table when someone drops. The D6 roll is what decides where an injury generally is (e.g., head, torso, arms, etc.), so making that D6 roll when someone is reduced to 0 HP allows the description to match.
Quote from: Stainless;864175The last thing that is annoying is the poor organisation of the book. Not always intuitive where to find information. I've had to stick in yellow stickies at frequently consulted places (such as the monster XP table) which are in unexpected/illogical places.
It's definitely an informationally dense rulebook. While the index and table of contents are pretty good, some information for resolving certain kinds of situations in regular play can require flipping around. For example, encountering wandering monsters while traveling overland might require flipping between four different spots if you need to look up everything. Obviously, this goes away as you play more. I also downloaded a PDF Judge's screen from the Autarch site that helped a great deal. I think this sort of thing is very often a problem with RPGs. Should the book be a textbook? A reference book? It's particularly a problem with D&D and clones, as they have numerous disparate systems, and in many common in-game situations multiple rules systems come into play. But I digress...
Quote from: Stainless;864175Overall, it reads as an interesting game and I suspect many of the rave reviews about it come from people who haven't actually played it. It's a good plan that doesn't really survive contact with the enemy. In hind-sight I wish I hadn't used it but something simpler like BFRPG or the new FAGE. Overall I think I'd give it a 5/10.
There are definitely quite a few reviews where the reviewer hasn't actually played the game, but that's true of reviews for every single RPG product, and is simply the nature of reviews. Personally, I've found the opposite of you, both in terms of reviewers being negative about ACKS because they clearly haven't played it, and the game being far, far better in actual play than it reads. It's too bad you didn't like it, but there's certainly no dearth of other options in the OSR these days.
As for the original question of the thread, I've run a lot of ACKS, and I'll post a response to the OP's question later today.
Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.
Converting to D&D3-style "attack bonus" and increasing all ACs by 10 is a trivial one-time adjustment.
Quote from: Stainless;864175The other thing that really gets up my goat is the healing system, especially when a character goes to negative HP. You have to stop all play and step through all the parameters trying to work out the total DM.
You're not actually supposed to stop and check the Mortal Wounds table immediately. You don't roll on it until someone spends their action checking on the downed combatant (or at the end of the fight). I don't recall whether the rules explicitly state this, but it seems fairly clear to me, given that the modifiers to the d20 roll include things like the medical skills of the person checking on them, whether healing magic is applied, and how long they were down before being checked on.
When the time comes that someone takes their turn to triage the wounded, it doesn't, in my experience, take noticeably longer than working out the modifiers would have if they'd instead spent that turn making an attack.
Quote from: estar;864178While I strong supportly a diversity of approaches, I personally don't get why wouldn't anybody use anything other than ascending AC especially when it generates the same odds as the original tables or formula.
ACKS divides all use of dice into two broad categories: "Rolls" are for when the actual numbers on the dice matter, such as damage rolls. "Throws" are for pass/fail results. "Throws" are generalized from the traditional saving throw mechanic, so they have a fixed target number determined solely by your class and level. In order to wedge attack [strike]rolls[/strike] throws into that framework, you need to treat AC as a penalty to the die roll rather than a modifier to the target number.
I don't like the attack throw mechanic. It was one of the hardest parts of the game for me to wrap my head around initially because it comes at things from a completely different direction from how earlier D&D-type games have done it. But I do see the logic behind it. I see how it's consistent with the rest of the system. And I am reminded that "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Quote from: Necrozius;864179The folks at TBP seem to really dislike the author though. Enough to boycott the publisher because of his views. Yikes.
What's that all about? I do recall there was a rpg author who's name or company was close in name to another company that had views they didn't like, but it wasn't the guy.
Quote from: RunningLaser;864199What's that all about? I do recall there was a rpg author who's name or company was close in name to another company that had views they didn't like, but it wasn't the guy.
Not sufficiently critical of Gamergate and I think he knows someone involved in the "controversy".
I've no idea, I like the guy based on the interactions we've had, mostly talking about classical history and ways to tinker with ACKS.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;864018I'm about to pull the trigger on this, but I'm not entirely sure. It looks cool, and it sounds like it has a decent progression system, but at the same time, I have some players that wouldn't want to be 'King' of anything, rather stay wandering heroes for the entirety of the campaign, others would like to emulate Conan from the short stories, where they can lose said 'kingdom'.
What's the game like?
I was going to get all specific and detailed, quoting rules and stuff, but I take it that's really not what you're looking for... instead, I'll try and explain where the game is good, and what the feel is like.
First off, it's less lethal than early or Basic D&D. Mortal Wounds (specific, non-death effects for hitting 0 HP) ensure this. It makes low-level play a bit more forgiving.
Fighters rock. They hold their own as a Class, and shine as a specialist in combat. Combined with some changes to spellcasters, you won't feel inferior as a Fighter or other martial Class, and become an integral part of the team, not just a speed bump.
In spite of the power-curve of spellcasters being toned down, spellcasters feel more useful, particularly at lower levels compared to early versions of the game. The ability to freecast from their Repertoire means Mages will actually cast utility spells that almost never saw use during an adventure. They also don't break the setting at high level (Feature? Bug? You decide!) while still feeling powerful.
Thieves are more effective and fun to play at low levels. The game realises where their abilities overlap with things everyone can attempt, and makes sure that Thief abilities are on top of that. Plus they get to run criminal empires at higher levels.
Combat is fast (which beats modern versions of the game), lethal, and highly entertaining. It can take on an epic tenor in mid- to higher-level play as PCs (or sometime Monsters!) slice through multiple opponents. Very satisfying, and I have yet to see a combat turn into a slog (which Basic D&D was prone to). It also sports some real-world tactics as an emergent property of how the combat rules interact, and seriously encourages team-work.
A whole bunch of campaign activities are also covered, such as building stuff, making stuff, crossbreeding stuff, buying and selling stuff, and researching stuff. Even just hiring stuff. Moreover, it all ties into the game's underlying economics and XP. This gives players tons of stuff to do, and some of the reasons to do it. It gives them stuff to do between adventures. It gives them tons of stuff to do to solve problems. It also gives them tons of ways to meaningfully spend their ill-gotten gains, although they can spend it frivolously, too (and get Reserve XP from it to be used by replacement Characters; brilliant!).
Players can build a kingdom, raise an army, or conquer the world. Sure, you can do that in any edition, but ACKS bakes it into the game. It doesn't forget other Classes, either, and building border forts, criminal syndicates, new religions, or magical towers on top of dank dungeons is also considered. You can still go the wandering hero route, or play the absent King, if that's your thing. Still, ACKS does a better job of managing the dynamics of high-level play than any other version of the game I've played (i.e., most of them). And the stuff players can do ends up
driving emergent gameplay, and I can think of no higher praise for RPG rules.
For a great example of these dynamics in play, I'll point you to
here (https://bridgetocynidicea.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/introduction-and-character-creation/) on the Bridge to Cynidicea Blog, and
here (http://www.autarch.co/forums/actual-play/maze-du-ch%C3%A2tel),
here (http://www.autarch.co/forums/actual-play/chronicles-grim-fist-part-ii), and
here (http://www.autarch.co/forums/actual-play/chronicles-grim-fist-part-iii) on the Autarch site. It's a long read, but these campaign write-ups will illustrate more far more clearly than dry rules discussions why this stuff creates interesting gameplay.
That sounds like a useful description of what ACKS does. Integrating economics into the design is a very attractive feature.
Quote from: Bobloblah;864258It also gives them tons of ways to meaningfully spend their ill-gotten gains, although they can spend it frivolously, too (and get Reserve XP from it to be used by replacement Characters; brilliant!).
Reserve 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).
So, 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?
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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551374&postcount=1) (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.
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%.
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.
For the most part, yes.
At the class-creation level, it generally defaults to you getting everything at level 1 (with some things improving over time and other things not improving), but there are rules for "trade off an ability at level 1 for an ability at level (7-N) and another ability at level (7+N)", etc. Personally, though, I tend to feel that it's not a worthwhile tradeoff, since I rarely see characters above level 3-4 in most D&Dish systems. Its value in your campaigns may vary.
At the character-creation level, picking your class defines the bulk of how your character will develop mechanically - there's no multiclassing, skill points to spend every level, etc. - but you do get to choose one new general proficiency at levels 5, 9, and 13, and one class proficiency every 3, 4, or 6 levels (depending on your class), so there's still a small allowance for tweaking the character's mechanical path after character creation.
Quote from: nDervish;865195For the most part, yes.
At the class-creation level, it generally defaults to you getting everything at level 1 (with some things improving over time and other things not improving), but there are rules for "trade off an ability at level 1 for an ability at level (7-N) and another ability at level (7+N)", etc. Personally, though, I tend to feel that it's not a worthwhile tradeoff, since I rarely see characters above level 3-4 in most D&Dish systems. Its value in your campaigns may vary.
At the character-creation level, picking your class defines the bulk of how your character will develop mechanically - there's no multiclassing, skill points to spend every level, etc. - but you do get to choose one new general proficiency at levels 5, 9, and 13, and one class proficiency every 3, 4, or 6 levels (depending on your class), so there's still a small allowance for tweaking the character's mechanical path after character creation.
Thats a different version of frontloaded thatn what i was going after. I'm referring to where all your major class choices are made when you're first level. This would be contrasted with say d&d 3.x where every level you pull out all the books and see what you want now. For the pbp games I'm currently playing frontloaded design seems to mke life easier.
In both systems spellcasters still have some backloading issues.
Yes, character creation is front loaded. That's because you're supposed to spend your higher levels focusing on domain creation.
Can't say my group had any issues with Attack Throws whatsoever. We worked out everyone's basic melee and missile Throws, and had them recorded against specific weapons if they had anything like Fighting Styles that augmented them.
Then I told them the AC of whomever they were attacking, and they added it to their Throw.
Quote from: Bunch;865231Thats a different version of frontloaded thatn what i was going after. I'm referring to where all your major class choices are made when you're first level. This would be contrasted with say d&d 3.x where every level you pull out all the books and see what you want now. For the pbp games I'm currently playing frontloaded design seems to mke life easier.
In both systems spellcasters still have some backloading issues.
OK, then that sounds like you were talking about what I referred to as "the character-creation level": You pick your class when you create the character, and that defines the bulk of your future mechanical development, with the exception of picking a new proficiency once every few levels. The majority of levels are just "roll additional HP and update to-hit/save numbers" with no choices to be made.
Quote from: aspiringlich;865186Exactly 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.
ah ok i under stand you now sorry i miss under stood you
Quote from: S'mon;865191It'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%.
ah sorry thanks for catching my mistake
Quote from: Christopher Brady;864847Can you elaborate on this?
It's been described elsewhere on this thread already; I mentioned it in my review of ACKS, which is found in the Reviews section of this forum. It just seems counter-intuitive to me, without making anything particularly simpler. I guess it works for Macris or whoever designed it, but it didn't appeal to me.
Well, cool. I'll save my pennies then.
Quote from: Omega;865187Depends on the class. Most are BECMI/Pedia analogs.
This is pretty heavily dependant on interpretation. Five of the twelve classes in the core book have no equivalent in the BECMI books or the Rules Cyclopedia. Only one of the nineteen (19!) classes in the Player's Companion comes up in BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia (the Mystic, broadly equivalent, though not identical, to the Mystic in the Master set and reprinted in the Rules Cyclopedia), with one other (the Shaman) vaguely similar (but not really) if you view it in a mirror while squinting.
Quote from: Omega;865187They 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.
This isn't really true either. Most Classes get certain fixed abilities at Levels 5, 9, and sometimes 11. For example, Fighters get a Morale bonus to Hirelings they personally lead at Level 5, and Mercenaries flock to their banner at Level 9. Mages can research spells, scribe scrolls, and brew potions at Level 5, gain apprentices and can craft wands, rings, and weapons at Level 9, and can create constructs and magical cross-breeds at Level 11. Some Classes (like the Thief mentioned above) have a few more abilities scattered over their progression.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865317Yes, character creation is front loaded. That's because you're supposed to spend your higher levels focusing on domain creation.
This isn't particularly the case. ACKS has a great domain system, but it doesn't assume the PCs pursue that.
Quote from: aspiringlich;865137I don't see what's so difficult about this.
Quote from: Kiero;865369Can't say my group had any issues with Attack Throws whatsoever. We worked out everyone's basic melee and missile Throws, and had them recorded against specific weapons if they had anything like Fighting Styles that augmented them.
Then I told them the AC of whomever they were attacking, and they added it to their Throw.
This was my experience as well. My own players are currently handling it in different ways each to their own tastes, which is simple since most of the modifiers are largely static. I'm actually having difficulty believing the amount of trouble with the mechanic being described, considering our group's lack of difficulty. Clearly that's not everyone's experience.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;865857Well, cool. I'll save my pennies then.
I think that's a shame, if so. Generally, people's complaint here seems to revolve around Attack Throws. That's a single mechanic out of the entire game, and as has been explained, the math is simple enough to flip it around into whatever format you prefer from any version of D&D, if it rankles. There's more than enough other material in ACKS that makes the game rock in actual play that it's still more than worth it. A lot of the discussion here strikes me a bit like not buying a house you like because you dislike the paint in one of rooms.
Quote from: Bobloblah;865874I think that's a shame, if so. Generally, people's complaint here seems to revolve around Attack Throws. That's a single mechanic out of the entire game, and as has been explained, the math is simple enough to flip it around into whatever format you prefer from any version of D&D, if it rankles. There's more than enough other material in ACKS that makes the game rock in actual play that it's still more than worth it. A lot of the discussion here strikes me a bit like not buying a house you like because you dislike the paint in one of rooms.
My bad, no, I meant I was going to save up to pick up the PDF at the very least. Not hold off. Sadly, something came up and I have to spend the 'windfall' I got a week ago. Is all.
It's still on my radar. It'll just take a while more for me to pick it up, is all. I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;865875My bad, no, I meant I was going to save up to pick up the PDF at the very least. Not hold off. Sadly, something came up and I have to spend the 'windfall' I got a week ago. Is all.
It's still on my radar. It'll just take a while more for me to pick it up, is all. I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression.
Oh, no worries! Anyone can obviously decide for themselves that the game is junk not worth owning. It's simply that, as a fan, I beg to differ!
:D
Quote from: Bobloblah;865874This is pretty heavily dependant on interpretation.
This isn't really true either. Most Classes get certain fixed abilities at Levels 5, 9, and sometimes 11.
This isn't particularly the case. ACKS has a great domain system, but it doesn't assume the PCs pursue that.
We must be reading different games then called Adventurer Conqueror King.
1: Fighter Mage Cleric Thief. As well as Dwarf and Ellf (2 types each corresponding to Cyclopedia divisions.) Obviously not exact. Then there are the prestige style classes.
2: Its the same as in BX where the classes around level 9 all gain a domain style perk. That and gaining small armies or apprentices are not really part of the class as they may never come into play. The core classes effectively load in about everything up front and then build on it. Those that do not get one, maybe two widgets over the course of all those levels.
3: You are correct here. Which then by your own statement makes all those mercs and castles not a point for those classes does it?
X: Even if someone doesnt like the overall 3e+pedia format. There are still many elements that can be pulled out and applied to the whole basic series from B to BX to BECMIpedia.
Quote from: Omega;865903We must be reading different games then called Adventurer Conqueror King.
1: Fighter Mage Cleric Thief. As well as Dwarf and Ellf (2 types each corresponding to Cyclopedia divisions.) Obviously not exact. Then there are the prestige style classes.
2: Its the same as in BX where the classes around level 9 all gain a domain style perk. That and gaining small armies or apprentices are not really part of the class as they may never come into play. The core classes effectively load in about everything up front and then build on it. Those that do not get one, maybe two widgets over the course of all those levels.
3: You are correct here. Which then by your own statement makes all those mercs and castles not a point for those classes does it?
X: Even if someone doesnt like the overall 3e+pedia format. There are still many elements that can be pulled out and applied to the whole basic series from B to BX to BECMIpedia.
It's certainly true that the core classes are the most BX/BECM like, and the most front-loaded. But the campaign classes in ACKS are less so, and the numerous classes presented in the Player's Companion are even more varied and are definitely not front-loaded.
The Shaman, for instance, gets:
1st. Commune with spirits, totem animal (12 options)
2nd. Divine spellcasting
3rd. Spiritual ritual
5th. Shapechange, magic research (minor)
6th. Spiritwalk
9th. Medicine lodge, magic research
11th. Ritual spells
The Warlock gets:
1st. Familiar, spellcasting
2nd. Secret of the dark arts
4th. Hex
6th. Contact dark powers
7th. Magic research (minor)
8th. Alter shape
9th. Coven
10th. Summon infernal creature
13th. Magic research, necromancy
14th. Forbidden spells
The Mystic gets:
1st. Graceful fighting, meditative focus, mindful
2nd. Strength of spirit
3rd. Speed of thought
4th. Probability trance
5th. Purity of body and soul
6th. Command of voice
7th. Wholeness of body
8th. Perception of intention
9th. Monastery
10th. Harmony of spirit
14th. Perfection of body
The Witch gets:
1st. Divine spellcasting, tradition (4 options), tradition power #1
3rd. Tradition power #2, brew potions
5th. Tradition power #3, research spells
7th. Tradition power #4, scribe scrolls
9th. Coven, magic research
11th. Ritual spells
The Zaharan Ruinguard gets:
1st. Dark blessing, quickening, weapon focus
2nd. Arcane striking, spellcasting
4th. Death healing
5th. Dark charisma
9th. Spell storing, dark fortress
10th. Magic research (minor)
And all of the above are created with the same class-creation engine, which is provided in the Player's Companion so you can make your own classes to your taste.
If you want an RPG with 5E-style classes where you pick a tradition/path and that shapes which powers you accumulate over time, you can do that - the Shaman and Witch are examples. If you want to have 3E-style classes that offer a new class ability every level, you can have that - the Mystic is an example. If you want simple BX/BECMI classes, you can have that, too - the Fighter and Thief are examples.
Quote from: Omega;865903We must be reading different games then called Adventurer Conqueror King.
1: Fighter Mage Cleric Thief. As well as Dwarf and Ellf (2 types each corresponding to Cyclopedia divisions.) Obviously not exact.
Okay, as I said, this depends on interpretation, although I think that's me being generous. Saying "Most are BECMI/Pedia analogs" was extremely misleading, seeing as five out of twelve were not, and one of the remaining seven, the Assassin, requires an extremely generous interpretation of the Headsman/Thug NPC-only monster "class" in the Master set DM's book. It would not be unreasonable to say
half of them are different than those in B/X and BECMI. That's completely different than what you said. Yes, it contains the classes from the BECMI Red Box (actually, they're a closer match for their B/X equivalents), but it then adds six more.
Quote from: Omega;865903Then there are the prestige style classes.
There's nothing like a Prestige Class in ACKS. Are you referring to the Fighter's Paladin/Knight/Avenger and the Cleric's Druid from the BECMI Companion set? They are really pretty different from the nearest ACKS equivalents, not least because they require you to level in the base class to 9th level first. Having played both BECMI and ACKS, I can't see any reasonable comparison that equates these with ACKS classes.
Quote from: Omega;8659032: Its the same as in BX where the classes around level 9 all gain a domain style perk. That and gaining small armies or apprentices are not really part of the class as they may never come into play. The core classes effectively load in about everything up front and then build on it. Those that do not get one, maybe two widgets over the course of all those levels.
I think Alex goes into a more detailed response to this, but I just wanted to point out that this statement seems nonsensical to me. So, we should obviously ignore high-level spells, then, seeing as a campaign might never get there. In fact, we should probably ignore 5th Level abilities, too, seeing as a campaign might never get there. In fact, we should probably ignore 2nd Level stuff because... you get the idea. Moreover, the question wasn't whether or not the classes in ACKS get something
different than in B/X at every level, merely whether or not they get "widgets" at every level. They don't, but most of them get additional abilities or benefits at 5th, 9th, and sometimes 11th, while many get abilities and/or benefits in-between there, too.
You original statement was perhaps vague enough for this to be a matter of interpretation, but the points I mentioned above are factually correct. I think you're letting your prior experience with B/X and BECMI colour your judgement. Saying free mercenaries at 9th level is not a class ability because it was the same in B/X is a subjective judgement. Saying one of an ACKS' Fighters class abilities is to receive free mercenaries at 9th level when building a stronghold is an objective statement of fact. Did it work the same in B/X? More or less. So what?
I do agree that it's fair to say that ACKS classes are generally front-loaded. The fact that class abilities are prescribed and not selected (with the exception of Proficiencies) also eliminates the whole build mentality.
Quote from: Omega;8659033: You are correct here. Which then by your own statement makes all those mercs and castles not a point for those classes does it?
A Fighter might never lead anyone in battle, therefore his 5th Level ability shouldn't be a point for the class. Does that make sense to you? My initial statement around domains was that ACKS doesn't force you into them, and it doesn't, just like heavier armour is generally better for a Fighter, but the system doesn't force you to wear it. A PC is, however, going to be, on average, more powerful if they go that route. That's both an interplay of their class abilities with the domain and mass combat systems, and the fact that bringing the resources of a domain to bear can be quite effective (e.g., thousands of gold, armies, vassals, etc.).
Quote from: Omega;865903X: Even if someone doesnt like the overall 3e+pedia format. There are still many elements that can be pulled out and applied to the whole basic series from B to BX to BECMIpedia.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If it's that most TSR versions of the game are broadly compatible, sure. Am I misunderstanding you?
Quote from: Bobloblah;865874This isn't particularly the case. ACKS has a great domain system, but it doesn't assume the PCs pursue that.
It doesn't
force PCs to pursue the domain game. It absolutely does
assume that they will. One of the Fighter's core abilities is to add morale bonuses to henchmen and mercenaries. Mages need to build sanctums to pursue magical research. The section on designing a campaign setting is geared almost entirely towards creating a region where PCs will be able to establish domains. Not to mention the title of the book - I mean, it's not called "Adventurer Adventurer Adventurer".
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961It doesn't force PCs to pursue the domain game. It absolutely does assume that they will.
I think we're quickly going to get in to semantics and definitions here. We clearly mean different things by the word "assume." If you'll forgive me, I'll try to explain by fisking your post...
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961One of the Fighter's core abilities is to add morale bonuses to henchmen and mercenaries.
Nothing about this requires a domain, so I'm not sure how this is relevant. It works for Henchmen. It works for hired Mercenaries. Neither of those
in any way require the Fighter to have a domain.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961Mages need to build sanctums to pursue magical research.
That's incorrect. Mages need a library for research, and a workshop for creating magic items. Neither of these requires a sanctum (or a domain), and several other versions of the game have similar requirements. They can also build a dungeon to attract monsters and harvest them, but that also doesn't require a sanctum or a domain. In fact, the only thing they need a sanctum for is acquiring apprentices.
The above Mage and Fighter abilities also kick in at 5th Level, well before most characters are going to be able to manage to clear and hold a domain.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961The section on designing a campaign setting is geared almost entirely towards creating a region where PCs will be able to establish domains.
No it isn't. It's geared towards creating a sandbox adventure setting. The setting could also be designed completely differently, and the PCs would still be able to establish domains, if desired. It's also geared towards making something demographically and economically internally self-consistent.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961Not to mention the title of the book - I mean, it's not called "Adventurer Adventurer Adventurer".
Which is why Castles and Crusades is about medieval fortifications and religious warfare - oh, wait...
Look, I'm not trying to say that ACKS isn't good at the domain endgame - it is! - but there's no more forcing the PCs to engage with that than other editions of the game. It integrates the domain-game a lot better, fleshes it out, and provides interesting interactions, sure. But it doesn't "assume" in the way 3.x assumed characters would be decked out with magic items, or AD&D 2nd assumed characters would be heroes. Assume is a very strong word, and in the context of RPGs there are a lot of negative connotations attached to that. ACKS simply doesn't do that.
Those looking for a BECMI reference, if it'd help them out, since they seem to want one, are looking for the Dark Dungeons project, it is to BECMI what OSRIC is to 1E. Keeps the 3 column format and everything.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961It doesn't force PCs to pursue the domain game. It absolutely does assume that they will.
No more than 3X assumed Epic levels, or any version of the game ever assumed domain play, really. It was there as an option, it just so happens ACKS devotes more resources to developing that aspect of play, basing itself off the BX chassis which already more-or-less perfected the adventuring aspect of the game.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961One of the Fighter's core abilities is to add morale bonuses to henchmen and mercenaries. Mages need to build sanctums to pursue magical research.
And he implements those morale bonuses in the field or in the dungeon, and that has nothing to do with ownership of a castle until he's defending one or taking another by siege. Mages need workshops and libraries, they could set that up in a rolling wagon if they wanted to, like a Old West purveyor of snake oil.
So a group like my college group, who operated much more as a "fantasy A-Team" sort of travelling merchants of violence at all levels, would work fine in ACKS.
And they'd enjoy the additional systems of ACKS without tying themselves to a domain - the fighter could wield troops effectively, the mage could research, the cleric could proselytize (a favorite activity of our resident cleric-player, and now he'd have some structured church options), and the thief could hire out hijinks (well, theoretically anyone can do that).
They'd even paint a wagon black with a red stripe to hold the mage's library and workshop...ha!...that really would work like the A-Team. That's awesome. Roll into town, find problem, mage builds some contraption, problem solved with explosions. Plans that came together are then loved.
All of that without having to lay down a stronghold or hideout or temple or sanctum or whatever. Just fun rules options to suck gold out of pockets and keep them hungry.
Quote from: Ddogwood;865961The section on designing a campaign setting is geared almost entirely towards creating a region where PCs will be able to establish domains. Not to mention the title of the book - I mean, it's not called "Adventurer Adventurer Adventurer".
I wouldn't establish a domain in an area defined by those rules. Those are somewhat more meant for a starting area for a new campaign, as shown in the Sakkara adventure module they just delivered on, and they serve as a general outline of how to implement ACKS' domain rules in a useful manner.
I probably would, and the hooligans I run with certainly would,
take over an existing domain established by those rules, and then I'd be able to use the expanded rules ACKS hands out without doing the whole from-scratch domain building implied.
I guess we're talking about semantics, then. Obviously the game doesn't "assume" that PCs will establish domains in the sense that it "assumes" PCs will gain experience points and levels. I'd still argue that it "assumes" that PCs will establish domains just as strongly as it assumes that PCs will hire henchmen or explore dungeons. That is, the rules support PCs doing these things, and the game can very easily be played with PCs who don't do these things - but the game is clearly designed with the assumption that establishing domains, exploring dungeons, and hiring retainers are all things that most players will want to do in most campaigns.
I don't disagree with your other points. I just have a slightly different sense of the word "assume".
Quote from: Ddogwood;866094I guess we're talking about semantics, then. Obviously the game doesn't "assume" that PCs will establish domains in the sense that it "assumes" PCs will gain experience points and levels. I'd still argue that it "assumes" that PCs will establish domains just as strongly as it assumes that PCs will hire henchmen or explore dungeons. That is, the rules support PCs doing these things, and the game can very easily be played with PCs who don't do these things - but the game is clearly designed with the assumption that establishing domains, exploring dungeons, and hiring retainers are all things that most players will want to do in most campaigns.
I don't disagree with your other points. I just have a slightly different sense of the word "assume".
:D
We can all agree ACKS assumes you want to play something like D&D.
I interrupt this discussion with a shameless plug - the latest ACKS Kickstarter just got announced. :)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/lairs-and-encounters
Quote from: amacris;866178I interrupt this discussion with a shameless plug - the latest ACKS Kickstarter just got announced. :)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/lairs-and-encounters
You have no shame!
Good luck!
Quote from: RPGPundit;866494You have no shame!
Good luck!
None whatsoever. But you are a gentlemen for allowing the post to stand. Thank you!