AD&D 2E Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play AD&D 2E? How Was/Is It?

[cbwjm]

I could have sworn these threads were new last year, but they're from back in 2020 which is also when I first posted. Maybe I have early onset dementia...

 

[CleverNickName]

I could have sworn these threads were new last year, but they're from back in 2020 which is also when I first posted. Maybe I have early onset dementia...

Like the argument between folks complaining about THAC0 being too complicated, and other folks explaining how they're wrong, this thread is eternal.

 

[Staffan]

I find it humorous all those fan bois who praise rising BAB in 3e but find THAC0 difficult or hard.

The problem isn't THAC0 in and of itself. The problem is the whole system with THAC0 and descending AC, and how it gives weird effects like a ring of protection +2 lowering your AC by 2, and having a Dexterity defensive modifier of -2 also lowering your AC by 2. You can certainly learn how it works and it's not that complicated, but it's an unnecessary complication.

 

[Distracted DM]

The problem isn't THAC0 in and of itself. The problem is the whole system with THAC0 and descending AC, and how it gives weird effects like a ring of protection +2 lowering your AC by 2, and having a Dexterity defensive modifier of -2 also lowering your AC by 2. You can certainly learn how it works and it's not that complicated, but it's an unnecessary complication.

+ Items may be a complication but for whatever reason it was never an issue in our minds. We knew lower AC was better, and this magic ring gave you a +2 benefit, so it lowered your AC by 2. Weird, I'm sure, but it made perfect sense. However, iirc even TSR thought they should change AC to ascending with 2e DND, but they didn't want to upset their core audience, who they believed wanted it to stay descending, and they were sure that DND wasn't going to get any bigger than it already was... So yeah!

 

[GreyLord]

The problem isn't THAC0 in and of itself. The problem is the whole system with THAC0 and descending AC, and how it gives weird effects like a ring of protection +2 lowering your AC by 2, and having a Dexterity defensive modifier of -2 also lowering your AC by 2. You can certainly learn how it works and it's not that complicated, but it's an unnecessary complication.

No more than if you group items together on what a bonus could or could not stack...

For example I could say Rings and Amulets and Capes do not stack with their bonuses,

But certain Rings and Swords and Shields do,

But Swords and Maces and Gloves do not,

But Tiara's and natural body armor and this spell does,

But Tiara's and natural body armor and this other spell do not,

Etc...etc...etc.

Of course, there's always the thought that lower is better in certain things...such as being #1 instead of #2.

Perhaps I won 10 games and your side only won 8...so does that mean you think I should be #3 rather than #1?

Obviously, that wouldn't make much sense.

There are plenty of things where one number may go up, while another goes down (rankings are a prime example of this).

At the time though, THAC0 was a LOT easier than the tables. Compare what came prior to THAC0 and you'll see THAC0 was actually a much easier and simpler formula for figuring things out. Also, any DM worth their while had already pre-calculated THAC0 out (same with BAB/AB/RAB in 3e) for what was standard...

So if your Fighter had a 17 STR with a +2 Sword and had a THAC0 of 17, we knew the real THAC0 was a 14.

You then just subtract the enemy AC (THAC0 - AC = Roll) to find out what you needed to roll to hit. Dirt easy.

 

[GreyLord]

Like the argument between folks complaining about THAC0 being too complicated, and other folks explaining how they're wrong, this thread is eternal.

Now that it's being discussed again...

Yes...

We old ones lie in sleep
Far beneath in ancient deeps
But say the words and we arise
To the world's dismay and cries.

 

[Velderan]

Just like BAB and ascending ACs were easier to use. That's not saying that THAC0 and descending ACs were impenetrable - just that the system behind using BAB and an ascending AC were easier to teach, learn, and use.

Agreed, if I wanted to run something like OSE today I would probably use ascending AC since everyone in my group has only played games using it and it would feel more natural to them. But at the same time, if I was determined to use descending AC it wouldn't be some impossible task for them to pick it up that some people seem to like making it out to be. It had some weird quirks as has been mentioned (+ and - bonuses), but they were things you got used to pretty quickly once you were playing and didn't give much thought once you had learned the game. Having played it for 7 or 8 years I don't remember it even coming up that often when someone new joined our group. There were far more questions about why you couldn't get an AC bonus from a ring of protection under the circumstances where the rules say you don't get the bonus.

 

[Mannahnin]

THAC0 was a bit of a simplification from the tables with their repeating 20s.

Most players clearly got the hang of descending AC and the needed calculations, but there was always a sub-set who had trouble with it. There was almost always one or two at the table who had issues with the calculations, IME.

Delta (who's a math professor as his day job) made a pretty good argument for descending AC with the Target 20 formula on his blog some years back, during peak OSR blog fervor. But overall broad player sentiment seems to favor ascending AC as the most intuitive.

The bonus stacking rules in AD&D were annoyingly arbitrary. 3E rationalized them with the bonus type rules, so you always knew what stacked with what. The math in combat for attack bonuses, OTOH, could get a little fiddly with all the potential situational bonuses and penalties, even though it was just adding or subtracting small modifiers.

 

[Alzrius]

THAC0 was a bit of a simplification from the tables with their repeating 20s.

Most players clearly got the hang of descending AC and the needed calculations, but there was always a sub-set who had trouble with it. There was almost always one or two at the table who had issues with the calculations, IME.

I think this is true for any TTRPG that can be characterized as "combat algebra." In my PF1 group, there's always one (sometimes two) players who ask me to do the math for them, despite having played for years.

 

[Gradine]

The problem isn't THAC0 in and of itself. The problem is the whole system with THAC0 and descending AC, and how it gives weird effects like a ring of protection +2 lowering your AC by 2, and having a Dexterity defensive modifier of -2 also lowering your AC by 2. You can certainly learn how it works and it's not that complicated, but it's an unnecessary complication.

This is the point that always gets lost in THAC0 arguments. They often come down to trying to measure just how difficult/easy or complex it was to actually deal with in play, which is a deeply subjective sliding scale that people are, very understandably, not going to agree on. It's not even a worthwhile argument to have, honestly.

But there are things which we can say are objectively true, or are at least closer to an objective truth than not. For instance, I grew up with 2e, played it for years, spent many years consulting the THAC0 tables, etc. So when I say that I say that the weapon type modifiers for armor in the item descriptions in the Baldur's Gate games constantly confused me, for instance, it is not a function of the difficulty or complexity of the system, but because of how unintuitive it was.

Whether you found THAC0 and descending ACs easy or difficult, complex or easily solvable, is a matter of personal experience, skill, knowledge, etc. You can argue that it wasn't that complicated. But you cannot argue that it was intuitive.