Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6907930" data-attributes="member: 996">LOL.    1e was, as 5e has tried to become, only as bad as the DM running it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Yep.  The attack matrices in the DMG became very familiar to the 1e DM, as did the saving throw matrix - they were all also conveniently on the DM screen back then.  And 21 in that context didn't mean a total of 21 but a natural 20 with at least a +1 bonus.  Both more and less 'bounded' in a sense.  The string of 'mere' 20s rather than a simple 1:1 increasing DC did reign in things a bit, but the requirement that every 20 after the first be natural...I'm amused that you find it so.  It does have it's merits, but it could seem a needless complication, compared to which the oft-maligned THAC0 was arguably a simplification.That's as far as the chart goes, yes.  And it's as far as it went in practice, to, for the most part.  In the MM, for instance, the lowest AC you'll find is a -8, and you won't find an AC 11 anywhere.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  No odder than everything else in 1e.  The whole philosophy of the hadn't crept that far from wargaming, in which any given scenario might have its own variant rules.  Of course the DM could extend a matrix if he wished - he could do whatever he wanted.  Just like a 5e DM can change proficiency or introduce +4 weapons, or make expertise more broadly available or otherwise 'break' bounded accuracy.  The bounds are still there - as a starting point - just as the many tables of AD&D were.Of course it was.  You had lots of save or die effects, dragons' breath weapons did their hp totals in damage (save:1/2).  So if you 72 hp PC failed his save vs that huge ancient red dragon's breath weapon, boom, you were 'oneshotted' - possibly with half the rest of the party.  ('Evasion,' what's that?)Then it's a pervasively bad thing.  AD&D was full of it, 3e was outright rocket tag.  That you can probably, mostly craw free of it out of Apprentice Tier in 5e must be reckoned a good thing, I take it?It has the advantage of not requiring a separate write-up, however simple & easy that write-up may be.  Aside from that, though, I'm not seeing how it's better for the goal of keeping lesser foes relevant to have them automatically wiped out by anything that inflicts half damage.  Instantly defeated by one fireball (or perhaps even the threat of one) is instantly defeated, whether they satisfyingly burn up or just scatter like cockroaches, they've been rendered irrelevant. Sure, the DM in 4e could use a minion or standard version of either an orc or an ogre, so when the PCs were supposed to be one-shotting or struggling they would be.  Part of having functional encounter building guidelines, really.An orc that'll die whether it saves vs  your spell or not has been set up for you to knock down easily - not just easily, automatically.  A 5th level character - or even a 12th level one, is hardly a demi-god - nor is the guy with the helm of brilliance (well, might seem that way) or necklace/wand of fireballs.  Not that fireball was the bread & butter it was in the olden days or could be in 5e if that's your predilection.  You got one fireball a day.  You might have a few other dailies with comparable AEs.  Compare that to pumping all your 3rd-5th level slots into fireballs in 5e - or a classic Wand of Fireballs!Rediculous numbers prettymuch stop being interesting, anyway.  Too much rolling - or they just degenerate into accounting exercises.</blockquote>

Verification