D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[tetrasodium]

Because its one of those things where you, as game designer, grok it so fundamentally it doesn't occur to you that its confusing as hell to a typical customer that hasn't already spent the time grasping the concept.

Put another way, its a mechanic that emphasizes system mastery but in a very negative way; mastery isn't desired because thats how you reach a higher level of play, but because the system is ridiculously confusing and you need that mastery just to play.

I think that you've demonstrated that you don't know what THAC0 was because you are light years away from talking about what thac0 actually was.

Thac0 was not the ascending/descending ac. It started from GM's trying to put pertinent info on the character sheet for pregens at con games. On the character sheet you had a THAC0 box for each weapon

Spoiler: like so

In it you would place the precalculated math for d20 rolls with that weapon. It's literally the difference between

• [d20 roll] -> Player line on sheet -> [player says number above the box for that roll] & the game continues on

insteadthat has been "simplified" to the current:

• [d20 roll]->player:"uhh 16 plus 5 from [attrib] [GM:"that's a hit"]plus prof bonus of... umm.. gotta find it... [GM:"that's a hit"] 4 for um[GM:"that's a hit"] twentythree [GM:"that's a hit"] oh plus one for my weapon[GM:"that's STILL a hit.. I SAID IT'S A HIT, YOU HIT"] does a twenty four hit?"[GM:"yes that's still a hit"]

The player didn't even need to do the math themselves like in 5e unless they had a bonus from a high attrib or a magic weapon because

Spoiler: there was a table

If a player did have a bonus from attrib or weapon they just adjusted it if they had a bonus from the relevant attribute (ire high strength usually) or the weapon itself (ie +1 weapon) & that usually only happened if your level went up/down or you were changing to a new weapon. Doing it every attack roll is in no way easier or more straightforward than doing it once & using that for every attack roll to follow till you have reason to adjust it.

 

[Emberashh]

I think that you've demonstrated that you don't know what THAC0 was because you are light years away from talking about what thac0 actually was.

Thac0 was not the ascending/descending ac. It started from GM's trying to put pertinent info on the character sheet for pregens at con games. On the character sheet you had a THAC0 box for each weapon

Spoiler: like so

View attachment 286111

In it you would place the precalculated math for d20 rolls with that weapon. It's literally the difference between

• [d20 roll] -> Player line on sheet -> [player says number above the box for that roll] & the game continues on

insteadthat has been "simplified" to the current:

• [d20 roll]->player:"uhh 16 plus 5 from [attrib] [GM:"that's a hit"]plus prof bonus of... umm.. gotta find it... [GM:"that's a hit"] 4 for um[GM:"that's a hit"] twentythree [GM:"that's a hit"] oh plus one for my weapon[GM:"that's STILL a hit.. I SAID IT'S A HIT, YOU HIT"] does a twenty four hit?"[GM:"yes that's still a hit"]

The player didn't even need to do the math themselves like in 5e unless they had a bonus from a high attrib or a magic weapon because

Spoiler: there was a table

If a player did have a bonus from attrib or weapon they just adjusted it if they had a bonus from the relevant attribute (ire high strength usually) or the weapon itself (ie +1 weapon) & that usually only happened if your level went up/down or you were changing to a new weapon. Doing it every attack roll is in no way easier or more straightforward than doing it once & using that for every attack roll to follow till you have reason to adjust it.

Lets compare this diatribe meant explain THAC0 to how one might explain how 5e works if they aren't going out of their way to portray it in the worst possible light.

Roll 1d20, add mods, call out the total; DM compares to AC.

Done. One sentence versus a rant.

 

[cranberry]

'We are releasing new editions of the books,” Crawford emphasized. “We are not releasing a new edition of the game. And so that, I think, is a really important distinction — that it is still 5th edition, but yes, we are releasing revised versions of the books, which anywhere else in the publishing world would be called new editions.”"

Any thoughts?

Link:
D&D has a messaging problem that goes beyond the OGL controversy

How do you say new edition without actually saying new edition...

 

[tetrasodium]

Lets compare this diatribe meant explain THAC0 to how one might explain how 5e works if they aren't going out of their way to portray it in the worst possible light.

Roll 1d20, add mods, call out the total; DM compares to AC.

Done. One sentence versus a rant.

You are still missing what changes. That bold bit is what the THAC0 chart on the sheet removed the need to do every roll by shifting the actual math to only doing once when the player changes levels or gains a new weapon. The 5e version of doing the math every roll is the worst possible way.

 

[Emberashh]

You are still missing what changes. That bold bit is what the THAC0 chart on the sheet removed the need to do every roll by shifting the actual math to only doing once when the player changes levels or gains a new weapon. The 5e version of doing the math every roll is the worst possible way.

One. Sentence.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

clairity...

imagine tomorrow Mcdonalds made a 'new' big mac that is a single burger on a sourer dough bun with mayo mustard lettuce tomato and pickle.

That MIGHT be a great burger, but calling it a big mac confuses people.

putting out a taste test of that new burger and saying "It's still the big mac just like any other Big mac would make people ask "wait this is a new big mac right?"

It gets worse if you go to your favorite Mc donalds message board to ask about New Big Mac and people insist it isn't new it's the same big mac...

now I am hungry, but I wont go to fast food on a night I don't work.

Idk seems more like hey changed the menu a bit and people are claiming it isn’t the same restaurant, to me.

 

[tetrasodium]

One. Sentence.

Spoiler: 2e phb119 has that sentence

(this information should also be written on his character sheet).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can't use Xanatahar's nor Tasha's subclasses with current 1D&D Classes. To me that is the sign of a different edition/game version/whatever.

But you can tho

I just don't think it's all that confusing. Better than the class tables in the 1e DMG, and it still allows different classes to actually be better or worse at attacks, which 5e certainly doesn't do (nor did 4e before it, I believe).

The math of the game should work the same on a basic level, not be additive in some places and subtractive in others.

Also “better than this really awful thing” isn’t remotely a valid argument that something is good.

 

[Minigiant]

Thac0 was simpler but made for convention play or rotating large group play. It was made for a system with less variables and tactics.

The DM just needed the levels and classes of the PCs and could make a chart for easily determining hit.

However it falls apart if PCs could heavily alter their accuracy via spells, items, tactics,or high stats.

That's the 3e went to To Hit and Ascending AC. Thaco as a mechanic only make sense if allyour fighters, clerics, thieves, and mages are the same and cannot/gont alter their states and only go "I attack!". Once you have 18 STR fighters who can use tactics to get +1 to hitand switch to a +2 spear for +2 more, using Thac0n o longer make sense.

3e edition changed to to Hit because WOTC wanted their own spin on the game and fans wanted more simulationist variables.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The math of the game should work the same on a basic level, not be additive in some places and subtractive in others.

Should it? I like subsystems. The right tool for the job and all that. Do you remember the part where different classes are actually better or worse at attacking?