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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6235530" data-attributes="member: 3192">I agree it is entirely possible to express the same rule in different ways. But 1e To-Hit tables, 2e THAC0, and the d20 universal roll are really very different game mechanics and not statistically the same at all. 1st, 1e used d20 rolls to compare to a To-Hit table. It balanced the die results based on two sliding modifier scales and a curvilinear outcome relationship derived from cumulative odds on linear result die. Pretty radical stuff. Plus, it never left that 20 outcome span allowing an infinite quantity of results to be expressed on the one die.2nd, THAC0 was a whole rewrite of the To-Hit system that dropped sliding scales and included 5 instances of 20 before increasing the results possible to beyond 20. All just to keep the modifiers from 1e, which it didn't account for, from breaking the game. This strange beast lost most of the strength and flexibility of the previous design for an attempt at simpler notation.3rd, d20 universal is simply a floating 20 number variable result span that modifiers actually shift up and down the natural number line. A line where an arbitrary DC was set, which forced the DM to become a player. This design actually removes any hope of success for lower level PCs and failure for higher ones. It needed "always succeeds or fails" funky results to artificially keep characters playable, but only served to slow down the game. Not to mention the d20 was no longer just used for game elements benefiting from large variables like attacks and saves, but "skills" and plenty of other rolls which should never have used a 20 point spread. Initiative anyone? Boy, did that get tedious quick.</blockquote>

Verification