Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7525549" data-attributes="member: 15700">Every time you post, you display how you really do not in fact, know the rules of the game you keep saying you do.&nbsp; No, people did not refer to &quot;THAC0&quot; in 1e.&nbsp; I wasn't even called that, but spelled out in the only place it appeared in 1e (the DMG appendix).&nbsp; It didn't become a thing until 2e when it was an official way of calculating to hit.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because it's NOT the same as the attack table.&nbsp; Unlike THAC0, which was a moving scale from AC10 to -10 in 1 integer increments, the 1e attack matrix did not follow that.&nbsp; Because if you were familar with 1e, then you'd know that once you hit a 20 needed, it stayed the same for several AC values beyond.&nbsp; For example, a 5th level cleric needed a 20 to hit AC1.&nbsp; Not a 21 to hit AC0 like you would when THAC0 became a thing (AC0 being 1 value harder to hit than AC1).&nbsp; Instead, that cleric needed a 20 to hit every AC from 1 to -4, then a 21 to -5, a 22 to hit -6, and so on.The way you've posted about 1e rules makes me think you don't have the first clue about how 1e was actually played.&nbsp; Not just with this example, but all of the others as well (like not knowing how a 1e purple worm's abilities work, or how attack bonuses compare to 5e, and I didn't even mention how you're using NPCs for a tournament module, which are always significantly more powerful than a typical player PC because they were designed to be used in a scoring system).The fact you think an animal, when being attacked by opponents all around it, will instead ignore those attackers and go after one that's far away, regardless of damage, tells me you don't have the first clue about how animals act.Your posts and replies here tell me that you also had no intention of actually having a discussion, but will act with disdain to anyone who doesn't agree with you, as lowkey13 and others have already pointed out.So shine on.&nbsp; I'm not going to waste my time</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7525549, member: 15700"] Every time you post, you display how you really do not in fact, know the rules of the game you keep saying you do. No, people did not refer to "THAC0" in 1e. I wasn't even called that, but spelled out in the only place it appeared in 1e (the DMG appendix). It didn't become a thing until 2e when it was an official way of calculating to hit. Why? Because it's NOT the same as the attack table. Unlike THAC0, which was a moving scale from AC10 to -10 in 1 integer increments, the 1e attack matrix did not follow that. Because if you were familar with 1e, then you'd know that once you hit a 20 needed, it stayed the same for several AC values beyond. For example, a 5th level cleric needed a 20 to hit AC1. Not a 21 to hit AC0 like you would when THAC0 became a thing (AC0 being 1 value harder to hit than AC1). Instead, that cleric needed a 20 to hit every AC from 1 to -4, then a 21 to -5, a 22 to hit -6, and so on. The way you've posted about 1e rules makes me think you don't have the first clue about how 1e was actually played. Not just with this example, but all of the others as well (like not knowing how a 1e purple worm's abilities work, or how attack bonuses compare to 5e, and I didn't even mention how you're using NPCs for a tournament module, which are always significantly more powerful than a typical player PC because they were designed to be used in a scoring system). The fact you think an animal, when being attacked by opponents all around it, will instead ignore those attackers and go after one that's far away, regardless of damage, tells me you don't have the first clue about how animals act. Your posts and replies here tell me that you also had no intention of actually having a discussion, but will act with disdain to anyone who doesn't agree with you, as lowkey13 and others have already pointed out. So shine on. I'm not going to waste my time [/QUOTE]

Verification