Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[tx7321]

What is the "fourth wall" ?

 

[3catcircus]

There is no Thac0 in 1e. I know that technically that it appears in the DMG and a couple of sources, but it isn't the core mechanic of combat, like it is in 2e. 1e is chart-based combat.

You bring up an interesting point.

1e's "chart-based combat," 2e's "THAC0," and 3.x's "BAB" are all nothing more than the *same thing* packaged a different way. The whole purpose is to roll a d20 and, with modifiers, beat a target number.

In 1e: a 1st level fighter (with avg. Str) has to roll a 20 to hit an AC0. In 2e, It is the same. In 3.x, AC 0 is AC 20 and he has to roll a 19. At 5th level, he has to roll a 16 (1e), 16 (2e), and 15 (3.x).

Other than the +1 he gets in 3.x vs. 1e/2e, he has to *roll* the same thing to hit the other guy.

 

[Lanefan]

1e's "chart-based combat," 2e's "THAC0," and 3.x's "BAB" are all nothing more than the *same thing* packaged a different way. The whole purpose is to roll a d20 and, with modifiers, beat a target number.

Quite true; only the mechanics are handled differently. In 1e, the player rolled and added the character bonuses (for strength, magic weapon, etc.), and the DM looked at a chart. In 2e, THAC0 was supposed to simplify this for the DM (and does so mostly in monster stat blocks; the listed THAC0 includes all the bonuses, which is handy - THAC0 elsewhere I found a nuisance) but otherwise all worked the same. 3e takes the DM's chart, breaks it into little tiny pieces, and puts it on the character sheet as BAB...this transfers a tiny bit of work from the DM to the player while taking away some of the mystery. But the general idea of "do I hit it?" remains exactly the same.

Lanefan

 

[T. Foster]

Yup. All 3E did was change from AC being a modifier and THAC0 the target number to AC being the target number and BAB a modifier.

OD&D/1E/2E: Roll d20 + mods (Str, magic, etc.) + target AC >= THAC0

3E: Roll d20 + mods (Str, magic, etc.) + BAB >= target AC

The only difference is that in the first equation the numbers stay relatively small (as the target AC adjustment shrinks and eventually becomes a negative on the one side, and the THAC0/target # shrinks on the other) while in the second one the numbers on both sides just keep getting bigger and bigger.

"But I don't want my players knowing their opponents' ACs!" Two responses: 1) why not? Logically, in melee combat (especially with each round representing a full minute of activity and several exchanges of blows) it makes sense that the opponents will have a good idea of each other's defenses, at least after a round or two; 2) the DM can make the final adjustment -- the player rolls the d20 and makes his adjustments for Str, magic, etc. and tells that number to the DM, who then makes the final AC adjustment and compares to THAC0 (no different than the player telling his adjusted roll to the DM and him comparing it to a table, which was the default in 1E).

These are just two different sets of numbers for accomplishing the same task. Neither is inherently better or worse than the other; it's just a matter of which you're more comfortable with, which you prefer.

I happen to prefer the descending AC/THAC0 system for 3 reasons: 1) it's what I'm used to after 20+ years of play (which some will surely scorn as a reason, but it's true -- my brain is programmed to see AC 5 or AC -3, and know immediately what it means; if I see AC 15 or AC 23 I have to think about it for a split-second, which IMO is a split-second too long); 2) I'd rather add and subtract small numbers (-10 to +10) and compare them to other small numbers (20 or less), than always add increasingly big numbers and compare them to other increasingly big numbers (it's apparently a maxim that addition is easier than subtraction, but my personal maxim is that small numbers are easier than big numbers -- maybe I'm weird?); and 3) I like the symbolic break-point of AC 0 that WSmith alluded to a page or two back -- that positive ACs generally signify "natural" defenses (armor, tough hide, quickness) whereas negative ACs signify "supernatural" defenses -- you can't get "better than the best" (i.e. better than Class 1 Armor) without some kind of magic/divine/supernatural aid. This isn't strictly true in the BtB rules (high Dex + good armor can give a character a negative AC, and characters with magic defenses will often still have positive ACs) but it's "metaphorically true enough," which is what counts for me (and I've considered making it literally true as a house rule -- that no one can ever have better than AC1 without some kind of magic).

 

[MerricB]

Quite true; only the mechanics are handled differently. In 1e, the player rolled and added the character bonuses (for strength, magic weapon, etc.), and the DM looked at a chart. In 2e, THAC0 was supposed to simplify this for the DM (and does so mostly in monster stat blocks; the listed THAC0 includes all the bonuses, which is handy - THAC0 elsewhere I found a nuisance) but otherwise all worked the same. 3e takes the DM's chart, breaks it into little tiny pieces, and puts it on the character sheet as BAB...this transfers a tiny bit of work from the DM to the player while taking away some of the mystery.

Actually, 3e doesn't take away any of the mystery - it was 2e that put the THAC0 on the PC's sheet.

The process in 1e:
* Player announces class/level to DM
* DM cross-references with AC to find target number
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player announces total to DM
* DM announces result

The process in 2e:
(Before play):
* Player writes down THAC0 & static modifiers
(In play)
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player applies formula: AC hit = THAC0 - die total
* Player announces AC hit to DM
* DM announces result

Smart players would have a little table that had the die rolls and the AC hit.

The process in 3e:
(before play):
* Player writes down Attack Bonus
(In play)
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player announces AC hit to DM
* DM announces result

Cheers!

 

[Aaron L]

What is the "fourth wall" ?

Fourth Wall

 

[Psion]

You bring up an interesting point.

1e's "chart-based combat," 2e's "THAC0," and 3.x's "BAB" are all nothing more than the *same thing* packaged a different way. The whole purpose is to roll a d20 and, with modifiers, beat a target number.

Mathematically, yes.

3e, however, takes the load off the DM, involves one less operation per attack, and lacks the explicit subtraction and potential double subtraction which throw off some less math-savvy players.

 

[tx7321]

Psion wrote: "3e, however, takes the load off the DM"
I never understood this notion, who says the DM carried a load with 1Es tables? I never heard a 1E DM complain about running a battle (even a huge one), but I've heard many 3E DMs complain about even attempting to run a medium sized battle. Hell even a simple task like a couple rouges sneaking past a dozen variable monsters or NPCs can be a nightmare (having to role for each).

Thats the rub AD&D 1E was never "broken". The rules, once understood and properly used result in a fast game with just enough freedom for the DM and mystery for the players to create a fluid and fun game.

Thanks Aaron. Should have thought to look it up.

 

[Psion]

Psion wrote: "3e, however, takes the load off the DM"
I never understood this notion, who says the DM carried a load with 1Es tables?

It's a matter of process really, unless you were in the habit of letting the players know the AC of the monster, the DM must determine the target number (whether looking it up or subtracting. We, by the way, used THAC0 back in 1e... it was there.)

In 3e, the player rolls and add modifiers, the DM need only compare the result to AC. No table look ups or calculating to-hit numbers.

 

[MerricB]

Hell even a simple task like a couple rouges sneaking past a dozen variable monsters or NPCs can be a nightmare (having to role for each).

Can that even be done in 1e? Hide in Shadows only works if you don't move. Certainly you can Move Silently, but if you move into LoS, even if covered with shadows?

(Though I do agree that 3e combat can be a pain with many disparate opponents for the DM to run).

Cheers!