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

[thecasualoblivion]

From an outside and neutral view there did seem to be a subtle negative implication. That may not be what was meant but still what came across.

Is that same "outside and neutral view" seeing the same negative implications from his own posts in the other thread(s) to which I was referring? You know, the ones which lead me to connect those two dots? The ones where he goes into great detail on how imperative it is he be able to play an optimally twinked combat-mastered buttkicker? Because otherwise, I might have to wonder if said "outside and neutral view" is fully informed or is in fact basing their opinion on only partial information.

So the condescension was intentional, as I suspected.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

<shrug> You and your buddy can call whatever you like whatever you want. That doesn't mean my observation, WRT what motivates you to always make extremely combat optimized characters, any less accurate. Your aversion to ever having a character die leads you to make one that can more than hold its own in any fight. Thus assuring it will survive (to the limits any highly twinked PC can, at least, given the nature of the game).

Have I gleaned incorrectly? As I said initially, it was just a stab in the dark. Something I picked up based on what you said upthread combined with your ongoing arguments in other threads.

 

[MechaPilot]

It's needlessly complex, meaning it takes longer. It's not difficult. It's needlessly difficult. Bonuses subtract, while penalties add. Yet we write "+1 longsword" because it's a bonus, even though what we do is subtract 1. Yet on the d20, we want to always roll higher. Everyone intuits that more is better, but THAC0 says the opposite. So THAC0 isn't intuitive. It feels backwards to everyone. Worst of all, the complexity doesn't enhance game play.

THAC0 is a microtyranny. THAC0 is the height of thoughtless game design. THAC0 is the Norman Door of the RPG world.

I did it differently than what you describe. I treated the THAC0 number as the target, bonuses added to the roll, and then you added the target's AC to the roll. Here's an example:

A fighter with a THAC0 of 15 and a +3 to hit attacks a creature with an AC of 5. The player rolls her d20 and adds her +3, getting a die roll of 8, and a to-hit result of 11. I, as the DM, then add the target's AC to the roll (this is direct addition of a positive or negative number: a positive AC increases the player's roll, while a negative reduces it). In this case, the final roll result is a 16. 16 is higher than the fighter's 15 THAC0, therefore the attack hits.

 

[MoonSong]

It's needlessly complex, meaning it takes longer. It's not difficult. It's needlessly difficult. Bonuses subtract, while penalties add. Yet we write "+1 longsword" because it's a bonus, even though what we do is subtract 1. Yet on the d20, we want to always roll higher. Everyone intuits that more is better, but THAC0 says the opposite. So THAC0 isn't intuitive. It feels backwards to everyone. Worst of all, the complexity doesn't enhance game play.

THAC0 is a microtyranny. THAC0 is the height of thoughtless game design. THAC0 is the Norman Door of the RPG world.

Was going to say something, but [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] was very clear. AC applies to to your roll as another modifier, THAC0 is your target.

 

[discosoc]

It's needlessly complex, meaning it takes longer. It's not difficult. It's needlessly difficult. Bonuses subtract, while penalties add. Yet we write "+1 longsword" because it's a bonus, even though what we do is subtract 1. Yet on the d20, we want to always roll higher. Everyone intuits that more is better, but THAC0 says the opposite. So THAC0 isn't intuitive. It feels backwards to everyone. Worst of all, the complexity doesn't enhance game play.

THAC0 is a microtyranny. THAC0 is the height of thoughtless game design. THAC0 is the Norman Door of the RPG world.

But it's not complex... Quirky, maybe, but not complex. And a +1 longsword doesn't subtract anything; it's just adds 1 to your dice roll to hit and damage.

Really, thac0 15 against someone with AC 6 hits on a 9 or higher. Roll d20 and add whatever modifiers you have (+1 longsword, for example) and compare the numbers. It's not really that crazy and it's a lot faster than consulting the hit matrix tables from older editions (which is what thac0 was derived from).

I'm not saying thac0 is easier than 3e+, but it's not like some arcane trig formula either. THAC0 is easy. 3e+ is easier. Neither is hard.

 

[MechaPilot]

But it's not complex... Quirky, maybe, but not complex.

I think "counter-intuitive" is the best description that I've heard. It's not hard, but it does take more getting used to than the more intuitive 3e/4e/5e method.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I miss item saves.

I miss them enough that I've adapted them to 5E. <evil DM cackle> In 5E idiom, that means "item HP." In keeping with the 5E idiom, items are not vulnerable as long as they're being held by a still-living creature (shared life force, blahblahblah, the same thing that keeps you from summoning items held by a living creature), but if someone manages to disarm your sword or grab your cloak, watch out! It's now vulnerable.

My newest campaign is intended to be both higher-magic than the last one, and harsher on magic items. I'm going to actively go out of my way to make players feel like leaving a cherished item at home just might be safer than bringing it on the adventure; but I'll also have lots of (old-school) magic items like a rock that never misses when you throw it or a cauldron of oatmeal that cannot stay empty for long. One reason for this is that in this new campaign, every giant has the chance, once in its lifetime, to make a magic item that fits its needs. So lots of giant-forged magic items with odd or pedestrian uses; but because items are destructible, most magic items are fairly new, not more than a couple of centuries old at most.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I did it differently than what you describe. I treated the THAC0 number as the target, bonuses added to the roll, and then you added the target's AC to the roll. Here's an example:

A fighter with a THAC0 of 15 and a +3 to hit attacks a creature with an AC of 5. The player rolls her d20 and adds her +3, getting a die roll of 8, and a to-hit result of 11. I, as the DM, then add the target's AC to the roll (this is direct addition of a positive or negative number: a positive AC increases the player's roll, while a negative reduces it). In this case, the final roll result is a 16. 16 is higher than the fighter's 15 THAC0, therefore the attack hits.

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.

With d20:

1. Player rolls d20.
2. Player adds modifiers.
3. DM compares result to AC.

Player has to know: d20, modifiers. DM has to know: Target's AC.

With THAC0:

1. Player rolls d20.
2. Player adds modifiers.
3. DM adds target's AC to to roll.
4. DM compares result to attacker's THAC0.

Player has to know: d20, modifiers. DM has to know: Target's AC, attacker's THAC0.

Now instead of doing addition and subtraction, you're doing addition... twice. (I'm sure you'll never count situational bonuses or penalties twice!) All your method does is move the THAC0 overhead from the PCs to the DM. And it looks to me like the DM literally has to do twice as much work, and so is probably at least twice as likely to make a mistake.

And you're still stuck with the backwards "lower THAC0/AC is better" nonsense with the accompanying negative numbers. A bonus to AC still lowers AC. Moving the math around like above does not fix that. And of course it doesn't help that PCs don't want to roll and give the DM an arbitrary number, they want to know what AC they actually hit because that's how the game teaches them to understand hitting a target, and this method obscures it. Yes, I get that it was "intentional" back when the save and combat tables were only listed in the DMG and the players weren't supposed to know them, but I don't think anybody would really argue that was very effective in that role at anything other than pissing off the DM as the players try to calculate AC.

At least the PC can determine their own saving throw, but of course in my experience PCs will often subtract when they need to add since, again, lower is paradoxically better and this confuses people.

Finally, of course, this isn't how the game teaches you to calculate whether or not you hit. So, I agree it's a better system, but DMs and players had to figure it out themselves. In 1e you were told to look it up on a table. The 2e PHB and the 2e DMG say this (quoting):

The first step in making an attack roll is to find the number needed to hit the target. Subtract the Armor Class of the target from the attacker's THACO. (Remember that if the Armor Class is a negative number, you add it to the attacker's THACO.) The character has to roll the resulting number, or higher, on 1d20 to hit the target.

It's even more arcane. Now the DM has to know the attacker's THAC0, the target's AC, and it tells you to subtract them. God help him if he does them in the wrong order.

It's no wonder so many DMs just carried THAC0 wheels.

 

[Psikerlord#]

In another thread I discussed about our group wanting to switch back to 2nd edition and one of the reasons that came up for all of us was that we feel 5th edition is just a bit too safe.

Now what I mean by this is the actual danger that the old edition used to give us. I really miss the lethality of that edition. I just feel like 5th edition, while fun, is just a bit too safe with the amount of hit points and HD healing. One thing I can do is become really attached to my characters and be very upset if they die but be okay with it. It's the fact that I could lose this character anytime because of either bad decisions or just plain bad luck with the dice. This enhances the play aspect for myself and my group and it's something I feel 5th edition lacks.

I can see why people would not like the game to be that lethal because some people become really attached to characters and they just don't want to see them die unless they jump through several hurdles to the point where the characters death was just meant to be. Personally I'm not even one who has to have his character's death be dramatic or mean something. I accept the fact that things happen and this gives a bit of realism for me and my group.

Now I will say that 5th edition feels less safe than 4th edition but just not enough to give us that sense of danger and loss.

Absolutely agree, the default 5e has too much raise dead magic, too much healing, too many chances not to die at zero hp.

Like you, my group finds fun in the danger of the game, and default 5e is too safe to enjoy. It doesnt take many tweaks to make it more dangerous however - use slow healing, remove raise dead magic adn healing word (ie no bonus action ranged healing, making positioning and action economy much more important), make it one death save fail = dead, and possibly add in lingering injuries. There is a lot of danger then anytime you hit zero hp.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's even more arcane. Now the DM has to know the attacker's THAC0, the target's AC, and it tells you to subtract them. God help him if he does them in the wrong order.

It's no wonder so many DMs just carried THAC0 wheels.

This thread has been full of surprises! I'd never heard of "item saves" before now (and am completely flabbergasted at the fact that some people want them back?!), and these THAC0 wheels are new to me too.

I think the problem with THAC0 can be summed up relatively nicely in my own case. I have taken, and performed quite well, in several upper-division math courses. I have tutored people in these subjects, for four years, and received very complimentary client reviews. And THAC0 still drives me up the wall. It is not--it cannot be--that I am not capable of understanding the math involved, or unable to perform the mental calculation. I am, if anything, dramatically overqualified for something as foundational as "subtract this negative number from that other number." But every single time I approach it, I get it wrong, have to carefully walk through the math to make sure I'm doing it right. I've only developed an intuitive grasp of it because of playing through PS:T and BG2:EE, and even then it's only because I have the computer to do the math for me.

Of course, it doesn't help that the games list all sorts of things in bass-ackwards ways that just make it even more confusing. Weapons are always +N, which is added to your damage but subtracted from your THAC0. Spells are wildly inconsistent, with some treating "+N" as a penalty, others a bonus, and same for -N as a penalty or a bonus. It's just...terribly, terribly presented, counter-intuitive (as said above) and cognitively wasteful. Norman doors indeed!