Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dessert Nomad" data-source="post: 7526618" data-attributes="member: 6976536">It's not just small and petty, it's factually incorrect. As I pointed out in my response to him, THAC0 was actually a 1e concept. Also, for other readers I want to note that while lowkey13 is slyly insinuating that I got the to-hit rules wrong in the shortcut I used, all of the characters are at levels where THAC0 + AC provides the exact same result as the table lookup; for these characters, only negative ACs would involve a deviation from the shortcut that I used. I like to discuss actual facts, and I don't consider people arrogantly posting false information to actually be helpful. I've provided actual numbers, examples, and cites. You and your pal Sacrosanct provide information contrary to documented sites, and back it with bluster, insults, and ad hominem arguments. The fact that I'm 'standing up' to you by dealing with real information instead of just bowing to whatever weird belief feeds your ego is not something that I'm in the least ashamed of. You're trying to present you and your pal as reasonable and helpful, but you're actually blustering bullies posting false information.If I end up on the ignore list of every person who believes blustering forum posters over documented facts, I will get far fewer worthless responses to my posts. I'm not sure why this is a bad way to come across if it's likely to improve my forum experience. (I doubt that it will, since Sacrosanct has already announced that he's done with the thread and returned, but one can dream). It's interesting isn't it? I took a published set of example characters used in a module designed for basically the same level (actually slightly lower) as this one, and they trashed the encounter fairly easily, and were nowhere near the mythical TPK. And despite your and Sacrosancts insistence that they're horribly overpowered, they're actually pretty weak for 1e characters- none of the fighter types use the weapon specialization rules, which would give them a at least a +1 to hit, +2 to damage and (if I'm remembering right that you could double specialize with your first new proficiency slot) +3 to hit, +3 to damage with their primary weapon. So this supposedly overpowered party actually doesn't even use a straightforward rule that would give them a better bonus than their stats and magic items combined did!If you read my initial post, I explicitly pointed out that one of the differences between 1e and 5e is that the assumed party size moved down from 6-8 in 1e to 3-5 in 5e. So you would actually have to use 5 (5!) characters for a proper comparison, or ignore one of the major differences in difficultly that I included in the comparison and explicitly pointed out in the first post.It's rather interesting that you're being super nitpicky on one hand, but on the other hand claiming that the single instance of +3 chain in the example characters consitutes a "bunch of +3 items". One item is literally not a "bunch of" items. It just isn't. OMG I got one rule wrong when quickly running a fight in a rule system that I last played a game in around 20 years ago. Clearly I must not have actually played, because everyone remembers every single rule from a specific system they haven't played in two decades. It's hilarious that you're claiming I'm being argumentative when you're posting this sort of thing.</blockquote>

Verification