D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Voadam]

When THAC0 was adopted, the idea of hiding the AC of the target was basically gone from the game IME.

Really? "To hit A.C. 0" is in the 1e DMG itself, appendix E the chart of monster stats starting on page 196.

The 1e DMG IME is the height of hiding mechanics from the PCs.

"What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee."

"As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting “sages” and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment — insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions."

 

[ezo]

If you had one of those later 1e character sheets.

Pretty common IME. My first PC ever was on one. Might not have been for you, and I understand that, but I grew up in a small-town rural outskirts. It is one of the reason 5E enjoys the success it does compared to AD&D, saturation.

1e did not even provide the PCs with the THACO chart (and the saving throws chart too) to write down those numbers, it was hidden away as secret DM knowledge in the DMG. It presented the info in the DMG as stuff to be kept secret from the PCs.

If you did keep it secret it presented the mechanics as a behind the scenes thing for the DM to resolve actions and for the players to stay more immersively in character by not considering every such mechanic.

The 1e DM screen had this info on the DM only facing side as well.

Honestly, what DM ever said, "No, my precious, the attack tables are MINE, all MINE!!! MWAHAHAHA!"???

None. If one ever did--run away from that DM.

The DM would tell the player (if the player didn't already own their own DMG--about half did IME), you need an X to hit AC 10. From there, the player could fill out the info easily enough, just increasing the number as they filled out the chart.

Anyway, like most groups, we ended up making out own character sheets.

The sheets were developed later in 1e for those who wanted to make things easier to resolve at the table and take some of the burden off of the DM during combat.

"Later", what later? It was released in the same year.

 

[ezo]

Really? "To hit A.C. 0" is in the 1e DMG itself, appendix E the chart of monster stats starting on page 196.

Yes, really. The abbreviation THAC0 was not adopted until 2E officially, pg 91 2E PHB:

People started realizing "To hit A.C. 0" basically spelled out T-H-A-C-0 when abrreviated and started adopting it as a short-hand term.

The 1e DMG IME is the height of hiding mechanics from the PCs.

"What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee."

Of course, because the referee or DM was the final abritrator in the game. Lot of rules in the DMG never saw the light of day, or were sparingly used by some groups.

The DMG had A LOT of information players should not know or it became player knowledge. As I said above, half the players I played AD&D with had a DMG and even more often a MM! Enforcing player knowledge vs. character knowledge was a big issue because of this.

And this word of caution is precisely why...

"As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting “sages” and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment — insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions."

Anyway, you say this like you think it is a bad thing?

 

[Voadam]

es, really. The abbreviation THAC0 was not adopted until 2E officially, pg 91 2E PHB:

I've got a number of pre-2e 1e official D&D stuff that uses the abbreviation THAC0.

For instance WG6 Isle of the Ape by Gary Ggyax

 

[ezo]

I've got a number of pre-2e 1e official D&D stuff that uses the abbreviation THAC0.

For instance WG6 Isle of the Ape by Gary Ggyax

But it did not officially replace to hit tables until 2E came out. Unless you owned such modules or were into the tournament scene, you'd never even see it until 2E, and that is when it is recognized as becoming "official" to the AD&D game.

Prior to that, it was a handy abbreviation and method for not needing the tables. As I said above, it was in common usage prior to 2E, certainly, but not the official method for determining to hit numbers until 2E. (Which is why I posted the 2E PHB for ya. )

You'll note it was officially used in the Master set of the BECMI series that same year as this module (1985), but that isn't AD&D... FWIW, 2E began it's offical development the following year (1986).

 

[Voadam]

This comes up s lot when speaking of the ills of thac0 but it's kind of a misrepresentation of how it worked in play. I think that it's critical to remember that at the table THAC0 was a two part thing with one of those parts existing on the sheet.

View attachment 383635

​

I just noticed that chart on the sheet is for the varying specific weapon to hit adjustments against different ACs, not THACO and what number the PC needs to roll to hit the AC.



Not clear here whether it is for a +1 bastard sword or if the character has a 16 strength which gives +1 to hit and damage.

 

[Lanefan]

I never had an issue with THAC0.

Where THAC0 to me has always seemed pointless except when the target's AC is actually 0. Otherwise it just adds a needless intermediate step to the arithmetic.

 

[Lanefan]

Because the former needs that prewritten chart to function smoothly whilst the latter doesn’t. You could just as easily use similar chart with the latter too, but people usually don’t as it is intuitive enough without it. And of course you don’t separately add proficiency, ability, etc each time, you’ve those precalculated into one attack bonus already.

Yes you do, IME, because there's so many things that can change the arithmetic even within a single combat:

--- (common) someone casts a Prayer or Bane effect
--- (uncommon) you switch weapons for whatever reason, meaning you've likely now got a different magic bonus and have either just gained weapon spec. to your attacks or lost it
--- (rare) something changes your Strength up or down
--- (constant) situational conditions

I don't care whether the attack hits AC 0, I care whether it hits the AC of the target being attacked; so why do I need to work out whether it hits AC 0 every time?

Roll your to-hit, tell me your bonuses, and just let me work it out from there.

 

[Lanefan]

And the thing is, because the bonuses were so small in early editions (particularlly Basic and 1E), often you didn't have to add--you could count using the table (in the book or using the chart on the character sheet. For example, if I am a 5th-level Cleric, I can look up my to hit numbers when I level and record them on the sheet. I have a +1 weapon and +1 for bless in a battle.

View attachment 383642

I roll a 12 on the die, I can literally count two spaces to the right for my +2 bonus and know I hit AC 4.
Alternately, I can roll 12 and add +2 for a 14, and look up the 14 if doing the math is easy for me.

That's another factor: for me the combat matrix or to-hit chart is never player-side information, nor should it be. Ditto for the target's AC until-unless they figure it out during the combat.

I never liked how 3e pushed BAB across to the players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes you do, IME, because there's so many things that can change the arithmetic even within a single combat:

--- (common) someone casts a Prayer or Bane effect
--- (uncommon) you switch weapons for whatever reason, meaning you've likely now got a different magic bonus and have either just gained weapon spec. to your attacks or lost it
--- (rare) something changes your Strength up or down
--- (constant) situational conditions

I don't care whether the attack hits AC 0, I care whether it hits the AC of the target being attacked; so why do I need to work out whether it hits AC 0 every time?

Roll your to-hit, tell me your bonuses, and just let me work it out from there.

I was talking about 5e. None of those are common in 5e, and situational conditions are just advantage or disadvantage. So it is d20+your attack bonus most of the time. And as I usually tell the AC of the enemy once the PC attacks it, it is super quick and easy.