D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[James Gasik]

Since I got replies, this was a question about the Cesti from the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and exactly how it interacts with Punching Specialization.

EDIT: each round you decide which bonuses you are using, so it's either/or, not both.

 

[Scars Unseen]

So is this the hidden "god tier" weapon of 2e? Because I'm looking at a possible reading of the rules that says you can have, at 1st level, +4 to hit, d4+3 to damage, and 7/2 attacks per turn with a chance to KO foes, irrespective of your actual Strength score!

So, from the text as written, it sounds like if you have specialization in both punching and the cestus, you get to apply the bonuses for only one of them each round, but you can choose which one round to round. It's honestly not very well written, but to me, it reads that the tradeoff is that punching specialization only gives +1 to damage instead of the normal +2, but instead you also get a +1 to the result of the "Punching and Wrestling Results" table (page 129 in the PHB).

Which is a pretty dubious bonus, to tell the truth. The only thing you're getting from the chart with the cestus is the chance to KO, but that chance doesn't have any relation to how well you roll. In fact, it's practically random, with the best possible chance (25%) requiring your modified attack roll to be 1 or lower.

Essentially, from my read, what you get with the cestus is a weapon that is easy to use (doesn't require proficiency, 1 point to specialize), can be versatile if invested in, and allows (clumsy) grappling without having to drop your weapon. Personally, I wouldn't give it the tumbling bonus to unarmed attack rolls for the same reason that the description gives it a negative to grabbing and holding: the character isn't truly unarmed. Also, given how specific the description is otherwise, I feel that they would have mentioned the tumbling proficiency if it applied.

 

[Enrahim2]

I'm not sure if there's something apparently confusing about Thac0 to some people or not. I know I've even occasionally have had trouble with it at the table in the past; I can easily do addition in my head, but subtraction not so much.

Recently, I brought someone who I play AD&D with to join my current 5e group. After waxing eloquently about "the good D&D", the rest of the group was curious enough to try to play a 2e game. It was a disaster, sadly, but it definitely reaffirmed my belief that "there's something about Thac0".

One of the players just couldn't grok it. He kept getting tripped up over what, to his mind, were logical inconsistencies. "If AC goes down, why do we want to roll high? Wouldn't it be easier to roll a d20 and subtract your modifiers?" (basically the opposite of what we do now).

I bowed out and let my friend, someone who has been DMing for 35+ years take a crack at it. Finally, in disgust, the player said "you know what, I'll roll, you tell me if I hit".

I am curious - did your DM announce the ACs at start of combat?

I have been thinking hard about the merits of thac0, an concluded it is bad with hidden AC, but really shines with known AC. The idea is that most old school combat involve only, one possibly two, enemy types. If the DM announce AC up front, the players subtract this from the thac0 and have the target number for their dice roll. Then only situational modifiers are added to the roll in the middle of combat, requiering smaller adds. The comparison is trivial, and player can roll and announce damage right away. This is an extremely efficient flow.

However if you do the style of roll and tell DM "I would hit AC X", waiting on the DM to inform if this is a hit, the system is very unveiled compared to a single add.

 

[Voadam]

In a long running 2e campaign my brother made a two-cesti punching specialist ex-slave deep gnome gladiator fighter. He kept pumping proficiencies into punching specialization getting an additional +1 to hit and damage each time. He was eventually punching out giants and house hunters way above normal weight class for his level.

Punching specialization is a big 2e mechanical optimization loophole. The downside as you note is that the modules and charts really do not have magical cesti so unless there is a custom made one you can get you are pretty much out of luck against anything needing +X weapons to hit.

 

[Voadam]

That is what made me fall in love with D&D in the first place, and its relative lack in current WotC productions is a big reason why I stopped buying their stuff.

I really enjoyed reading the 5e Volo's Guide to Monsters cover-to-cover with the in-depth narrative development of things like Beholders and Hags.

I am kind of slogging my way through Tasha's cover to cover but I have high hopes for enjoying a straight read through of my copy of 5e Eberron Rising from the Last War when I get to it.

I enjoyed reading a lot of 2e stuff cover to cover like Faiths & Avatars and the other 2e FR god books too. I even read the wizards and priests spell encyclopedias cover to cover in the 90s.

 

[James Gasik]

So, from the text as written, it sounds like if you have specialization in both punching and the cestus, you get to apply the bonuses for only one of them each round, but you can choose which one round to round. It's honestly not very well written, but to me, it reads that the tradeoff is that punching specialization only gives +1 to damage instead of the normal +2, but instead you also get a +1 to the result of the "Punching and Wrestling Results" table (page 129 in the PHB).

Which is a pretty dubious bonus, to tell the truth. The only thing you're getting from the chart with the cestus is the chance to KO, but that chance doesn't have any relation to how well you roll. In fact, it's practically random, with the best possible chance (25%) requiring your modified attack roll to be 1 or lower.

Essentially, from my read, what you get with the cestus is a weapon that is easy to use (doesn't require proficiency, 1 point to specialize), can be versatile if invested in, and allows (clumsy) grappling without having to drop your weapon. Personally, I wouldn't give it the tumbling bonus to unarmed attack rolls for the same reason that the description gives it a negative to grabbing and holding: the character isn't truly unarmed. Also, given how specific the description is otherwise, I feel that they would have mentioned the tumbling proficiency if it applied.

Oh thanks for the answer, but I found it: if you have both specialization in punching and the cestus, you choose each round which bonuses you apply to the weapon, not both. So at some point, punching specialization's bonus to attack and damage outpaces weapon specialization (since you can increase the benefit every 3 levels). As to what happens with attacks per melee, as to whether you get the +1 attack from Punching while wearing a Cesti, if it's either/or with weapon specialization, beyond level 7 it's moot, and I'm not sure two weapon fighting is compatible with this either.

 

[James Gasik]

I am curious - did your DM announce the ACs at start of combat?

I have been thinking hard about the merits of thac0, an concluded it is bad with hidden AC, but really shines with known AC. The idea is that most old school combat involve only, one possibly two, enemy types. If the DM announce AC up front, the players subtract this from the thac0 and have the target number for their dice roll. Then only situational modifiers are added to the roll in the middle of combat, requiering smaller adds. The comparison is trivial, and player can roll and announce damage right away. This is an extremely efficient flow.

However if you do the style of roll and tell DM "I would hit AC X", waiting on the DM to inform if this is a hit, the system is very unveiled compared to a single add.

I think hiding AC's in AD&D is a time-honored tradition, at least, I've never played at a table where the DM just says what the AC of a monster is. Plus, keeping the attack bonuses of unidentified items is also part of this "tradition", so I've heard a lot of "I hit AC 3, plus or minus any modifiers this weapon may have", lol.

When I DM'd, I got tired of the dance real quick and I just say "it's this AC", and if someone has a weapon with pluses, I assume their characters aren't idiots and can figure out what a +2 bonus to hit and damage feels like in universe.

 

[Mark Hope]

I am curious - did your DM announce the ACs at start of combat?

I have been thinking hard about the merits of thac0, an concluded it is bad with hidden AC, but really shines with known AC. The idea is that most old school combat involve only, one possibly two, enemy types. If the DM announce AC up front, the players subtract this from the thac0 and have the target number for their dice roll. Then only situational modifiers are added to the roll in the middle of combat, requiering smaller adds. The comparison is trivial, and player can roll and announce damage right away. This is an extremely efficient flow.

However if you do the style of roll and tell DM "I would hit AC X", waiting on the DM to inform if this is a hit, the system is very unveiled compared to a single add.

My approach to THAC0 is similar to this and yes, requires the DM to announce the AC because why would you bother hiding something that the players will figure out pretty quickly anyway? For me it works like this:

Roll your attack with any mods and add the enemy AC to your roll. If you equal or beat your THAC0, you hit.

In other words, THAC0 is a target number.

And negative ACs make your attack worse, making it less likely that you'll reach your target.

That said, I use Ascending AC and attack bonuses instead of THAC0 now because I run games for players who started with later editions and I am a kind and generous DM

 

[Andvari]

I think it's reasonable an experienced adventurer could discern roughly how hard an opponent is to hit after making an attempt at it. So you can reveal the AC when they make their attack. They are still subject to the randomness of the die, after all.

 

[James Gasik]

I think it's reasonable an experienced adventurer could discern roughly how hard an opponent is to hit after making an attempt at it. So you can reveal the AC when they make their attack. They are still subject to the randomness of the die, after all.

I agree, but the DM's I played with back in AD&D seemed to think this was privileged information, and some even got annoyed when players would work out what a target's AC was.

I had a DM at a convention eject my friend from his table for "metagaming" when he said "ok, that hits AC 1, so I hit."

DM: "You don't know that."

Him: "I absolutely do know that, because I hit AC 2 last turn."

DM: "The enemy's AC can change at any moment, stop metagaming."

Him: "How could it change? Nobody cast a spell, it didn't do anything weird."

DM: "Fine, you can go."

He got up. I got up. Our other friend got up. The game ended because that left him with 2 players.