Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9489029">True, in 5E. 3E, even with ascending AC, was often more complicated than AD&D due to the plethora of bonuses and modifiers that became commonplace IME.No, it didn't need the chart. In fact, THAC0 didn't use the chart. The chart is AD&D from the to hit tables, not THAC0.Proficiency "bonus" wasn't a thing to add. The to hit tables changed about once every three to four levels and was done (as written) during downtime at level up. Other bonuses were low and rare, basically STR/DEX if you had 16+ and then any bonus for a magic weapon. That's it as far as the constant bonuses. Situtational bonuses came up once in a while, depending on how often the DM incorporated them.Those "trivial maths" that you might find trivial still give players nowadays issues in 5E. You rolled a 13 with +8 bonus isn't the automatic 21 many people here on EnWorld like to think it is. I don't know why and I will make no claims as to the cause, but for some reason younger players seem to have more problems using ascending d20s then I recall having issues before. Perhaps a large part of that is edition bias? Or how kids are taught, or other problems they have? I have no idea really--it could be a combination of factors as well.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.[ATTACH=full]383642[/ATTACH]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.When THAC0 was adopted, the idea of hiding the AC of the target was basically gone from the game IME. In the above example. my cleric's THAC0 is 18. I know I have a +2, so my adjusted THAC0 is 16. The DM tells me I am attacking an AC 5 creature, and simple subtraction tells me I need to roll an 11 to hit. I do the math ONCE and I know my number for the battle.In d20 ascending terms, THAC0 and to hit tables are replaced by another bonus, my base attack bonus. Continuing the above example, it is +2 (the difference between needing a 10 to hit AC 10 and the 8 recorded in the table). For 5E, this is the universal proficiency bonus; in 3E it was variable depending on class.Continuing the example, my "d20 PC" would have a total +4 bonus (+1 weapon, +1 bless). The AC 5 creature in AD&D is redefined to AC 15. I roll, add my +4, and if the total is 15 or higher I hit. But now, I have to do the math every time.So, which is simpler? <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Having an adjusted THAC0 and doing subtraction ONCE to find a "to hit" number, OR having an attack bonus total which is added every time I roll an attack to see if I hit? Obviously this is entirely dependent on the person--different people think different ways and learn different ways. I don't truly see one system as "superior" to the other. I think the ascending AC system works better in 5E than in 3E due to the simpler mechanics, however, it is due to the simpler design of 5E, not the asecending AC mechanic itself.Personally, growing up with to hit tables and THAC0, I still do the substraction to find the to hit number when playing 5E and don't do the addition each time I attack.</blockquote>

Verification