Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[Henry]

My guess would be that D&D in its early form was directly descended from tabletop wargaming. Tabletop wargaming is chart-heavy in my experience. So it probably just seemed natural to include a chart.

Also remember that d20's for to-hits in 1978 were only a few years old; Gary's original combat rules (over in chainmail) used 3d6's for attacks, not d20's. It wasn't until later that he lucked into the "platonic solids from a school supply catalog" thing.

 

[DaveyJones]

1E didn't use THAC0. It was something introduced in the Dragonlance modules in the mid-80s IIRC, and then incorporated into 2E.

1edADnD DMG (1979 revised) it was in the monster index in the back but not called ThAC0 so much as just a score to hit AC 0. hope that helps

Davey "I'm your new evil twin" Ooi

 

[DaveyJones]

Also remember that d20's for to-hits in 1978 were only a few years old; Gary's original combat rules (over in chainmail) used 3d6's for attacks, not d20's. It wasn't until later that he lucked into the "platonic solids from a school supply catalog" thing.

um... that was 1971 in Chainmail.

by 1973 he had found the platonic solids.

 

[DaveyJones]

(The classic D&D chart had repeating 20s, but this was simply because a 20 was an auto-hit. The chart didn't include 21, 22, 23, &c. like the AD&D1e charts did.)

OD&D(1974) didn't have autohits. nor automisses.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

um... that was 1971 in Chainmail.

by 1973 he had found the platonic solids.

That doesn't refute what Henry said. The "1978" referred to the 1e DMG. So "a few years old" refers to Chainmail (1971), and "later" would refer to when Gygax found the platonic solids (1973).

 

[Ibram]

It took me almost a year when I started playing AD&D to become comfortable with the ThAC0 table (largely because I didn't buy a copy of the PHB for several months). When 3rd came out I was good to go after the first game.

As nostalgic as we can be for the days of tables (and ThAC0) I perfer the ease of the 'higher is better' system that is d20

 

[Gentlegamer]

One thing I prefered about the combat tables was the generally slower rate of advancement in combat ability. Also, the combat table allowed little things like the M-U needing a 20 to hit AC 1 (19) to further emphasize that class's combat drawback.

An advantage of THAC0 was it allowed the use of the "defend yourself" system: the players roll the attacks for opponents trying to hit them. They add their ACs to the result and announce to the DM who compares to the opponents' THAC0 scores - equal or greater equals a hit.

 

[thedungeondelver]

For me it isn't a matter of mystery or keeping players in the dark. Charts are simpler for me. That's all. Although to be brutally honest these days thanks to the DUNGEON MASTER'S ADVENTURE LOG, I generally just write down what each monster needs to hit each character's AC. That's easier than either one.

 

[MerricB]

One thing I prefered about the combat tables was the generally slower rate of advancement in combat ability. Also, the combat table allowed little things like the M-U needing a 20 to hit AC 1 (19) to further emphasize that class's combat drawback.

Both M-U and Thief, yes.

For those interested in the details, the advancement in AD&D was:

Fighter: +2 every 2 levels
Cleric: +2 every 3 levels
Rogue: +2 every 4 levels (one exception: +3 at the 8th/9th upgrade)
Wizard: uneven. (+2 or +3 every 5 levels). 1st: +0; 5th: +2; 11th: +5; 16th: +8; 21st: +10.

Cheers!

 

[tx7321]

Num: "I wasn't being nasty. I was just surprised that you everything in 1E good design. But I guess you knew that since you ninja-edited it out and replaced with touchy. I was just sharing my opinion like you so eloquently put."

OK maybe I over-reacted...its been known to happen Anyhow, thanks for contributing to this thread.

As for the needing to reverse engineer. I think thats just a logical assumption, its the way I'd create a chart or table like the ones in the DMG....just seems intuitive.

All I can rely on guys is my personal experiance as both a player and an experianced 1E DM and a 3E DM (which I Dmed for only a year, but played, on and off, for about 3). When running new players (in either game) there was a difference, for both myself as DM and for the player. I think some better some worse, and some just different. This is to be expected, as they are vastly different systems.

Yes, IMHO the new player is more in the dark in 1E because all they've read is their class and race description...period. They have some idea that as they train and go up they get some bonus but they don't know what. They also don't know the monster HPs.

If your "new" 1E players know stuff in the DMG, then they've been peeking. I know its unrealistic, but their not supposed to do this. When I first started playing I didn't see inside the DMG or MM for over a year (just saw bits and pieces shown to us by the DM).

I recently brought a new player into the game (the wife of a friend) who just sat down and started playing 1E. Within 5 minutes she'd roled her character, read her class (fighter) and race (dwarf). Thats all she needed to know as a player. No skills, no feats, and no need to figure out what bonuses to apply to her sheet (heck she didn't even have to worry about movement rates or incomberance, the DM did all of that). Anyhow, she was a great player, and all she did was sit and imagine and role dice when told to. And that was the exact experiance I had back in 79' in my first game.

The D20 system just switches that complete newby experiance a little. players seem more qued in.