Except of course, it led to the game being bought by another company and being wholly transformed. Scholars debate to this day whether this was a good thing or not.
That's the point though: "good" is relative. It was "good" for gamers that wanted diversity but still wanted AD&D. It was bad for business.Except of course, it led to the game being bought by another company and being wholly transformed. Scholars debate to this day whether this was a good thing or not.
Yup. My favorite edition, bar none.In other 2E threads I've talked about how it's still a potential future edition to me as my AD&D group never converted over to 2E. We skipped 2E, 3E, 3.5, and went straight to 4E and then 5E. But I was an avid collector of setting material (oh...those tasty settings), those brown leatherette player's books, the blue leatherette DM's books, and the gree leatherette historical books. The campaign sourcebook. The villains book. Creative Campaigning. Dungeon Builder's and World Builder's. Complete races. Etc. You could easily run 2E from here until the heat death of the universe and never run out of content. (Yes, that's hyperbole, let it go.) So much wonderful stuff. So many fantastic resources out there for that edition. And most of them could easily be used for any other even semi-related fantasy game.
I'm not sure if there's something apparently confusing about Thac0 to some people or not. I know I've even occasionally have had trouble with it at the table in the past; I can easily do addition in my head, but subtraction not so much.
Recently, I brought someone who I play AD&D with to join my current 5e group. After waxing eloquently about "the good D&D", the rest of the group was curious enough to try to play a 2e game. It was a disaster, sadly, but it definitely reaffirmed my belief that "there's something about Thac0".
One of the players just couldn't grok it. He kept getting tripped up over what, to his mind, were logical inconsistencies. "If AC goes down, why do we want to roll high? Wouldn't it be easier to roll a d20 and subtract your modifiers?" (basically the opposite of what we do now).
I bowed out and let my friend, someone who has been DMing for 35+ years take a crack at it. Finally, in disgust, the player said "you know what, I'll roll, you tell me if I hit".
When I was a kid, it used to drive me nuts that you couldn't model fantasy heroes from cartoons, who often fought with no armor. Now that I'm in my dotage*, that's easy for me to rectify:Actually you can do it. Try this.
18 Dexterity (-4 defensive adjustment to AC). Fighter with Swashbuckler Kit from Complete Fighter's Handbook (-2 bonus to AC when wearing no armor, padded armor, or leather armor). Also from Complete Fighter's Handbook, devote two weapon proficiency slots to the Single Weapon Style (+2 bonus to AC when using a single one-handed weapon with no shield).
Entirely doable at level 1, and gives you, with leather armor (AC 8), an AC of 0!
*As an aside, an astute observer will note that while the bonus to AC from Dexterity and the Kit are negative numbers, the bonus from Single Weapon Style is a positive number, yet all lower AC! Not confusing at all!
Hence why you can just write it down like a chart. Then just reference the chart when you roll.I'm not sure if there's something apparently confusing about Thac0 to some people or not. I know I've even occasionally have had trouble with it at the table in the past; I can easily do addition in my head, but subtraction not so much.
Recently, I brought someone who I play AD&D with to join my current 5e group. After waxing eloquently about "the good D&D", the rest of the group was curious enough to try to play a 2e game. It was a disaster, sadly, but it definitely reaffirmed my belief that "there's something about Thac0".
One of the players just couldn't grok it. He kept getting tripped up over what, to his mind, were logical inconsistencies. "If AC goes down, why do we want to roll high? Wouldn't it be easier to roll a d20 and subtract your modifiers?" (basically the opposite of what we do now).
I bowed out and let my friend, someone who has been DMing for 35+ years take a crack at it. Finally, in disgust, the player said "you know what, I'll roll, you tell me if I hit".
So, from the text as written, it sounds like if you have specialization in both punching and the cestus, you get to apply the bonuses for only one of them each round, but you can choose which one round to round. It's honestly not very well written, but to me, it reads that the tradeoff is that punching specialization only gives +1 to damage instead of the normal +2, but instead you also get a +1 to the result of the "Punching and Wrestling Results" table (page 129 in the PHB).So is this the hidden "god tier" weapon of 2e? Because I'm looking at a possible reading of the rules that says you can have, at 1st level, +4 to hit, d4+3 to damage, and 7/2 attacks per turn with a chance to KO foes, irrespective of your actual Strength score!
I am curious - did your DM announce the ACs at start of combat?I'm not sure if there's something apparently confusing about Thac0 to some people or not. I know I've even occasionally have had trouble with it at the table in the past; I can easily do addition in my head, but subtraction not so much.
Recently, I brought someone who I play AD&D with to join my current 5e group. After waxing eloquently about "the good D&D", the rest of the group was curious enough to try to play a 2e game. It was a disaster, sadly, but it definitely reaffirmed my belief that "there's something about Thac0".
One of the players just couldn't grok it. He kept getting tripped up over what, to his mind, were logical inconsistencies. "If AC goes down, why do we want to roll high? Wouldn't it be easier to roll a d20 and subtract your modifiers?" (basically the opposite of what we do now).
I bowed out and let my friend, someone who has been DMing for 35+ years take a crack at it. Finally, in disgust, the player said "you know what, I'll roll, you tell me if I hit".
That is what made me fall in love with D&D in the first place, and its relative lack in current WotC productions is a big reason why I stopped buying their stuff.
Oh thanks for the answer, but I found it: if you have both specialization in punching and the cestus, you choose each round which bonuses you apply to the weapon, not both. So at some point, punching specialization's bonus to attack and damage outpaces weapon specialization (since you can increase the benefit every 3 levels). As to what happens with attacks per melee, as to whether you get the +1 attack from Punching while wearing a Cesti, if it's either/or with weapon specialization, beyond level 7 it's moot, and I'm not sure two weapon fighting is compatible with this either.So, from the text as written, it sounds like if you have specialization in both punching and the cestus, you get to apply the bonuses for only one of them each round, but you can choose which one round to round. It's honestly not very well written, but to me, it reads that the tradeoff is that punching specialization only gives +1 to damage instead of the normal +2, but instead you also get a +1 to the result of the "Punching and Wrestling Results" table (page 129 in the PHB).
Which is a pretty dubious bonus, to tell the truth. The only thing you're getting from the chart with the cestus is the chance to KO, but that chance doesn't have any relation to how well you roll. In fact, it's practically random, with the best possible chance (25%) requiring your modified attack roll to be 1 or lower.
Essentially, from my read, what you get with the cestus is a weapon that is easy to use (doesn't require proficiency, 1 point to specialize), can be versatile if invested in, and allows (clumsy) grappling without having to drop your weapon. Personally, I wouldn't give it the tumbling bonus to unarmed attack rolls for the same reason that the description gives it a negative to grabbing and holding: the character isn't truly unarmed. Also, given how specific the description is otherwise, I feel that they would have mentioned the tumbling proficiency if it applied.
I think hiding AC's in AD&D is a time-honored tradition, at least, I've never played at a table where the DM just says what the AC of a monster is. Plus, keeping the attack bonuses of unidentified items is also part of this "tradition", so I've heard a lot of "I hit AC 3, plus or minus any modifiers this weapon may have", lol.I am curious - did your DM announce the ACs at start of combat?
I have been thinking hard about the merits of thac0, an concluded it is bad with hidden AC, but really shines with known AC. The idea is that most old school combat involve only, one possibly two, enemy types. If the DM announce AC up front, the players subtract this from the thac0 and have the target number for their dice roll. Then only situational modifiers are added to the roll in the middle of combat, requiering smaller adds. The comparison is trivial, and player can roll and announce damage right away. This is an extremely efficient flow.
However if you do the style of roll and tell DM "I would hit AC X", waiting on the DM to inform if this is a hit, the system is very unveiled compared to a single add.
My approach to THAC0 is similar to this and yes, requires the DM to announce the AC because why would you bother hiding something that the players will figure out pretty quickly anyway? For me it works like this:I am curious - did your DM announce the ACs at start of combat?
I have been thinking hard about the merits of thac0, an concluded it is bad with hidden AC, but really shines with known AC. The idea is that most old school combat involve only, one possibly two, enemy types. If the DM announce AC up front, the players subtract this from the thac0 and have the target number for their dice roll. Then only situational modifiers are added to the roll in the middle of combat, requiering smaller adds. The comparison is trivial, and player can roll and announce damage right away. This is an extremely efficient flow.
However if you do the style of roll and tell DM "I would hit AC X", waiting on the DM to inform if this is a hit, the system is very unveiled compared to a single add.
I agree, but the DM's I played with back in AD&D seemed to think this was privileged information, and some even got annoyed when players would work out what a target's AC was.I think it's reasonable an experienced adventurer could discern roughly how hard an opponent is to hit after making an attempt at it. So you can reveal the AC when they make their attack. They are still subject to the randomness of the die, after all.