D&D 5E Finding 5th edition too "safe".

[EzekielRaiden]

The best way to use THAC0 is the player announces a hit if the attack roll result is ≥ THAC0 and the DM announces a hit if the result is ≤ the monster's AC. This is actually superior to d20 + attack bonus vs. ascending AC.

I...what? I not only don't understand how this works, I don't see how it is in any way superior, since it allows for two people to make math mistakes rather than just one. It also doesn't help at all once you get negative THAC0, because the player will *always* announce a hit.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm still a fan of having intelligent creatures/npcs attack unconscious pcs, at least once so the party realizes that the threat of death is more palpable.

Even if a PC doesn't die outright, failing 2 death saves is pretty scary.

 

[Libramarian]

I...what? I not only don't understand how this works, I don't see how it is in any way superior, since it allows for two people to make math mistakes rather than just one. It also doesn't help at all once you get negative THAC0, because the player will *always* announce a hit.

There is no arithmetic; just comparisons. If the die lands 11-20, the attacker compares it with their THAC0. If the die lands 1-10, the defender compares it with their AC. A negative THAC0 is extremely unlikely...maybe you can achieve that in like BGII Throne of Bhaal, but it's nothing to worry about in tabletop AD&D play. I think you meant to ask about negative ACs? They're unfortunately pretty common in AD&D at mid levels and up, which does reduce the utility of this system (it works great up to that point though). A negative AC would either apply as a negative modifier to the die roll, or a positive modifier to the attacker's THAC0.
[MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] here's an example:

Consider THAC0 17 vs. AC 5. With the 2e PHB method you subtract the AC from THAC0, and that's the number you need to roll to hit.
So 17 - 5 = 12 or better to hit. That's a 9/20 chance.

With my method it's a hit if the d20 lands less than or equal to the AC, or greater than or equal to THAC0. So 1-5 or 17-20. 9 out of the 20 possible outcomes result in a hit, so the probability of a hit is the same.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] based on your experience, what do you think of 0 HP = dead in the 2nd tier, with no revivify and new PCs coming in at level 5?

I'm a big fan of taking PCs out without killing them; 0 hp = dead would have deprived me of several cool scenes where Hakeem the barbarian survived being KO'd by sleeping gas and chewed on by a wight, or the time he held off the orc horde & their sorcerer leader long enough for his friends to escape, was KO'd by a cone of cold and put in a wagon for transport back to their dark tower, only to wake up, break his bonds and escape, returning to his beloved...

What I do in my online Wilderlands game is use negative hp, you die at hp = negative max. This makes death rare (rarer than 3 death save fails = dead) but also makes popping dying PCs back up again during the fight is unlikely. After an hour if a PC makes a death save they can short rest, spend hd and potentially wake up & be active again.

Not using revivify seems fine, it's never been used IMC. I would probably rather keep revivify and lose raise dead/resurrection/true res though, I think that would keep the fear of death more strongly while reducing in-game lethality. There was no raising IMC until late in the heroic tier, and only
a couple NPCs (cute, female companion NPCs) have ever been raised, never any of the dead PCs.
The 5e game would work fine with no raising (including revifify) at all - rare, permanent
death works well.

Start at level 5 - I do that, new PCs start at the bottom of the Tier or with half the XP of the dead PC, whichever is better. Sometimes I have different starter points, eg in my 5e Varisia game
the current start level is 4th. 5 works well for PCs in the 5-8 range, for level 8-10 PCs I start them at 8th. Currently in my Wilderlands game the active PCs are 12-14 and start level is 11.
Eventually I'll raise the start level to 14, then 17.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I...what? I not only don't understand how this works, I don't see how it is in any way superior, since it allows for two people to make math mistakes rather than just one. It also doesn't help at all once you get negative THAC0, because the player will *always* announce a hit.

I'm come to realize that what everybody does with THAC0 is find the algorithm that works the best for them. Everybody knows that it's inherently cumbersome and backwards, so everybody finds a method that resolves the cumbersomeness in what they believe is the most efficient manner. It's kind of like watching people multiply polynomials, or evaluate a formula. Everybody does it differently, but everybody thinks they're doing it in the most efficient way. The hope is that if you get good enough at doing it that it will be fast. And it does eventually get there. And, of course, THAC0 is itself already a shortcut rule to make the job easier: it eliminates the combat tables from 1e.

Honestly, the most damning thing about THAC0 is the fact that since 3e, nobody does this anymore. I mean, do you ever discuss the most efficient way to figure an attack roll anymore? Do you have to convince players that the math isn't difficult? No, those question are ludicrous. The method presented in the books is straightforward, self-evident, low complexity, and very intuitive. And all they had to do was reorient the scale. Hell, 3e relied on iterative attacks that effectively had different THAC0 for every single attack. Can you imagine that in 2e? Beyond optional rules that change where the dice roll is made like "make players roll for AC when attacked" or 4e's defenses (i.e., other edition's saving throws), there's nothing to improve about the math of the attack roll anymore.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is no arithmetic; just comparisons. If the die lands 11-20, the attacker compares it with their THAC0. If the die lands 1-10, the defender compares it with their AC. A negative THAC0 is extremely unlikely...maybe you can achieve that in like BGII Throne of Bhaal, but it's nothing to worry about in tabletop AD&D play. I think you meant to ask about negative ACs? They're unfortunately pretty common in AD&D at mid levels and up, which does reduce the utility of this system (it works great up to that point though). A negative AC would either apply as a negative modifier to the die roll, or a positive modifier to the attacker's THAC0.

Well, a "warrior"-type naturally reaches a THAC0 of 1 at level 20, not counting any benefits from magic weapons, weapon proficiency/specialization (which I guess was optional?), or stats. And a THAC0 of 1 is where the problems start--it doesn't even need to be negative, because you cannot roll less than 1 on a die. Even if we assume a modest magic weapon (+2) and a 17 Str (not that unlikely), Warrior types can easily achieve that several levels before cap--and every other bonus ticks it down further (such as the Kensai Fighter kit). Get an exceptional Str, which was hardly exceptional in 2e's heyday as I understand it, and it gets pushed down even further--with sufficient gear and options, it can happen even before the "domain management" phase is supposed to kick in.

Negative AC just happens much sooner and more commonly--but it too is a problem.

Consider THAC0 17 vs. AC 5. With the 2e PHB method you subtract the AC from THAC0, and that's the number you need to roll to hit.
So 17 - 5 = 12 or better to hit. That's a 9/20 chance.

With my method it's a hit if the d20 lands less than or equal to the AC, or greater than or equal to THAC0. So 1-5 or 17-20. 9 out of the 20 possible outcomes result in a hit, so the probability of a hit is the same.

Yes, but now you have the bizarre result that only middle values are bad: you always want to roll high OR low, which means you have even less consistency with how rolling works. Some things you want to roll just low numbers (e.g. "below your Str score") some things you want to roll high (e.g. damage dice, or healing dice from Cure X Wounds), and other things you want to roll "not middle." But "the middle" can become excluded! Both ends of that can become muddled and difficult to work with--it is possible for the two conditions to be mutually exclusive, e.g. a defender with AC 0 against an attacker with THAC0 1: according to the rules, every attack is simultaneously a hit (all rolls are greater than or equal to THAC0) and a miss (no rolls are less than or equal to 0), and because AC is 0 it can't be a modifier in either direction.

 

[MechaPilot]

Even if I buy the argument about, "I'm not subtracting, I'm adding a negative number," -- and I don't, but let's pretend I do -- you're actually just exposing how silly THAC0 is because it has an extra, entirely useless step.

It's no worse than adding any other modifier. It's equivalent to having to deal with bane or bless in every combat.

 

[MechaPilot]

I've already dealt with the "getting back from the dead is too easy" by enforcing rules that make sense for my world/mythos.

I think that's probably the best way to deal with it. In my homebrew setting, you don't see many people coming back from the dead. It's not as if resurrection magic doesn't exist: it certainly does. However, the gods are jealous of the souls they've claimed, and if you want one back, you have to give them another one in exchange.

I may have to bring back item saves myself, maybe only if people fail their save by 5 or more.

That sounds like a decent use of the hazard rules as an option for making the game either grittier or more old-school.

 

[pemerton]

The best way to use THAC0 is the player announces a hit if the attack roll result is ≥ THAC0 and the DM announces a hit if the result is ≤ the monster's AC. This is actually superior to d20 + attack bonus vs. ascending AC.

This won't work for negative ACs, will it?

EDIT: Already answered upthread.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's no worse than adding any other modifier. It's equivalent to having to deal with bane or bless in every combat.

You want to argue about the statement I explicitly stated I didn't want to argue about?