AD&D; Are 1st and 2nd Edition the Same?

[Celebrim]

The more I think about it, the more I realize I actually have more problems with 2E than I thought I did. Plusses that are actually minuses, for example.

A couple of years back I tried to run 1e as a nostalgia game (even though I was the only person at the table that remembered it), and as a DM it was just so clunky that I could never go back, particularly on top of the problems I had with it at the time as a player. I didn't have the exact same problems with it I had at the time, but so many problems became so much more glaring.

I could house rule 1e/2e up to the standard I'd be happy with, but in doing so for my use I'd be reinventing a huge amount of 3e - reversing AC, treating NWP's more like skills, rebalancing the thief class so that it's actually useful and not just flavorful, rebalancing monks, rebalancing monsters to better extend the game above 10th level, etc. I can see that being attractive to some people who wanted a lighter weight version of 3e that was backwards compatible with 1e/2e, but I just don't need it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that's where some people had the disconnect: If I need number X to hit AC 0, I need X-AC(Y) to hit AC Y.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I actually have more problems with 2E than I thought I did. Plusses that are actually minuses, for example.

YMMV I guess. From my perspective, there's nothing incongruous about a "+1" sword decreasing your THAC0. "Plus" consistently implies "better" throughout all of AD&D, and the fact that the sword increases your damage, decreases your weapon speed, and either reduces your to-hit number or increases your roll (depending on how you choose to calculate it--they're equivalent)--those are just mechanical details. But math comes more intuitively to some than others, so YMMV.

 

[Prince Atom]

The more I think about it, the more I realize I actually have more problems with 2E than I thought I did. Plusses that are actually minuses, for example.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where that doesn't also apply to 1E. Maybe it's because I'm not as hot on 1E rules.

(I started playing Labyrinth Lord a couple of years ago, after playing 3E/3.5. It really was like riding a bicycle.)

 

[billd91]

I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where that doesn't also apply to 1E. Maybe it's because I'm not as hot on 1E rules.

(I started playing Labyrinth Lord a couple of years ago, after playing 3E/3.5. It really was like riding a bicycle.)

Oh, no, they definitely still apply. I just think the THAC0 mechanic brought the idea right to the fore by encouraging you to manipulate the math. For example, you subtracted a +1 to hit for strength (or magic weapon, specialization, whatever) from the THAC0 to reflect that it was a little easier to hit so that you could use the exact same equation (THAC0-unmodified d20=AC hit) when what you could have done is added it to the d20 for a slightly different equation (THAC0-(d20+mods)=AC hit). The former equation is a little easier because you need never subtract anything higher than 20 and, when the possibility of negative numbers comes up, that's good for the player who may have a casual relationship with math.

 

[Zhaleskra]

YMMV I guess. From my perspective, there's nothing incongruous about a "+1" sword decreasing your THAC0. "Plus" consistently implies "better" throughout all of AD&D, and the fact that the sword increases your damage, decreases your weapon speed, and either reduces your to-hit number or increases your roll (depending on how you choose to calculate it--they're equivalent)--those are just mechanical details. But math comes more intuitively to some than others, so YMMV.

2e: +X weapon = -X THAC0/+X damage
3e+: +X weapon = +X BAB Mod/+X damage

The issue is seeing the plus and having to subtract it. It's not that the math's difficult, it's that some people's minds disconnect when "add" really means "subtract". Even I had a problem with it at first.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IME, that was one of the gremlins that kept making it difficult to bring new players to the game. Correcting that was one of the biggest advances 3Ed brought in terms of making the game more teachable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

2e: +X weapon = -X THAC0/+X damage
3e+: +X weapon = +X BAB Mod/+X damage

The issue is seeing the plus and having to subtract it. It's not that the math's difficult, it's that some people's minds disconnect when "add" really means "subtract". Even I had a problem with it at first.

But you don't even have to do it that way! If you like the 3E math, you can do this:

2e: +X weapon = +X to-hit/+X damage

I.e. every time you roll a die to-hit, add +X to it before comparing it against your target number. Note that this is exactly how 3E/5E teaches you to do things. You have to do the math more frequently (every swing) but you still get the same answers.

Conversely, you can still do THAC0-style calculations in 5E. E.g. if you want to roll 20 attacks at +6 vs. AC 18 all at once, your target number is 12, so you roll 20 dice and count all the dice at 12+. That's THAC0 all over again, without the name. The two methods are equivalent.

-Max

 

[Jan van Leyden]

IME, that was one of the gremlins that kept making it difficult to bring new players to the game. Correcting that was one of the biggest advances 3Ed brought in terms of making the game more teachable.

But at the same time it increased the number of numbers which had to be added.

 

[billd91]

But at the same time it increased the number of numbers which had to be added.

In some ways, yes. At the very least, they had a BAB that got added rather than a value to subtract from. But there had always been strength bonuses, magic weapon bonuses, circumstance bonuses of a variety of sorts, cover penalties, and bonuses from spells like bless, chant, and prayer. 3e, I think, mainly just adds to the frequency with which those bonuses popped up rather than create new sources of bonuses that previously hadn't existed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But at the same time it increased the number of numbers which had to be added.

IME, that was less of an issue compared to "adding to subtract."