Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5th level characters vs a purple worm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7525846" data-attributes="member: 15700"><p>For clarification, while I agreed that "To Hit A.C. 0" appeared in the back of the DMG, I stick by my assertion that that doesn't meant "THAC0". "THAC0" never appeared in that format. It was spelled out like "To Hit A.C. 0". And no one used the term "THAC0" in 1e because that phrase, and rule around it, didn't appear until 2e. Unlike the OP's claim, THAC0 did not do the exact same thing as the attack matrix's as I previously explained. A 1-5th level MU has to get a 20 to hit AC0, so people familiar with the THAC0 rule from 2e would assume they would need a 19 to hit AC1. That's how the THAC0 rule works. However in 1e, using the attack matrix table, the MU needs a 20 to hit AC1 as well.</p><p></p><p>So I can say that "To Hit A.C. 0" existed in 1e while at the same time saying that "THAC0" didn't. They aren't the same thing. The OP did what a lot of people do. They remember using THAC0 for so long, that they assume they've always been using it when they didn't. They couldn't have. It didn't exist as a rule until 2e. I don't have an issue with people making that mistake (it's a common one). I have an issue with someone making that mistake, being informed how it actually worked, and doubling down on it and refusing to acknowledge it. That's how this whole conversation has gone. It seems clear by the OP's comments that the OP hasn't played 1e back in the day, or if he did, played only Monty Haul and thinks that's how the game was played in general. Rules assumptions are wrong, timelines are wrong, there are many examples. That in itself isn't a big deal. But when you make a claim that 1e was much easier when you aren't familiar with how 1e played, and become combative and dismissive when people who are actually familiar with 1e point out your errors, this is what happens. It would be like me making a claim about how 4e played, and when 4e players call out my incorrect assumptions, I dismiss them and double down, telling them they don't actually know what it was like, and calling them "4e experts" in a mocking tone. I shouldn't be surprised if people get upset with me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7525846, member: 15700"] For clarification, while I agreed that "To Hit A.C. 0" appeared in the back of the DMG, I stick by my assertion that that doesn't meant "THAC0". "THAC0" never appeared in that format. It was spelled out like "To Hit A.C. 0". And no one used the term "THAC0" in 1e because that phrase, and rule around it, didn't appear until 2e. Unlike the OP's claim, THAC0 did not do the exact same thing as the attack matrix's as I previously explained. A 1-5th level MU has to get a 20 to hit AC0, so people familiar with the THAC0 rule from 2e would assume they would need a 19 to hit AC1. That's how the THAC0 rule works. However in 1e, using the attack matrix table, the MU needs a 20 to hit AC1 as well. So I can say that "To Hit A.C. 0" existed in 1e while at the same time saying that "THAC0" didn't. They aren't the same thing. The OP did what a lot of people do. They remember using THAC0 for so long, that they assume they've always been using it when they didn't. They couldn't have. It didn't exist as a rule until 2e. I don't have an issue with people making that mistake (it's a common one). I have an issue with someone making that mistake, being informed how it actually worked, and doubling down on it and refusing to acknowledge it. That's how this whole conversation has gone. It seems clear by the OP's comments that the OP hasn't played 1e back in the day, or if he did, played only Monty Haul and thinks that's how the game was played in general. Rules assumptions are wrong, timelines are wrong, there are many examples. That in itself isn't a big deal. But when you make a claim that 1e was much easier when you aren't familiar with how 1e played, and become combative and dismissive when people who are actually familiar with 1e point out your errors, this is what happens. It would be like me making a claim about how 4e played, and when 4e players call out my incorrect assumptions, I dismiss them and double down, telling them they don't actually know what it was like, and calling them "4e experts" in a mocking tone. I shouldn't be surprised if people get upset with me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5th level characters vs a purple worm
Top