4e could have been even more popular than it was, hypothetically, even have met it's $100mil/year stretch goal, and the damage to the IP from the edition war might still have led WotC to reconsider the strategy. The on-line community was turned absolutely toxic.
Well every time we need to watch a player say words like "I rolled a☆peers at die☆ twelve plus... ☆scans sheet☆ 5 from [attrib] and ☆scans sheet☆ 4 from proficiency that's um... twenty,,,, ooone... oh oo ☆scans sheet☆umm.... oooo my weapon is +1 so twenty two" it's hard not to like the ease & simplicity this brought to every one else.
2e PHB119: Figure Strength and weapon modifiers, subtract the total from the base THAC0, and record this modified THAC0 with each weapon on the character sheet. View attachment 296146
Months back, I arranged a game with my old AD&D GM to join my current 5e D&D group. I'd pitched them an "old school" 2e experience and they seemed interested. Everyone had their characters made and we started the first session. Pretty quickly, the nightmares began.
"Wait, so AC goes down, right?"
"Yes, that's correct."
"Then that +1 chain mail we found is cursed?"
"No no, +1 bonuses subtract from AC."
(Another player) "Wait, that can't be right, my Dexterity gives me a -2 to AC, that's good, isn't it?"
"Yes, it is..."
(Third player) "I'm still trying to understand why everything isn't a penalty if a lower Thac0 is good. Like, my Thac0 is 19, but I get +2 to hit from my Strength and +1 to hit from my Weapon Specialization. Wouldn't it be easier to say my Thac0 is 16?"
(AD&D friend) "No, see, you add the bonus to the die roll, then you compare that to the Thac0."
(Third player) "But...look, AC goes down, right? So why not have low numbers be good on the d20 and subtract all modifiers? So instead of +3 to hit, I'd have -3 to hit, and if I want to hit AC 3, then I need to roll a 6 on the die or less."
(AD&D friend) "Uh..."
(Fourth player, chiming in) "Then you'd have to make ability checks work the same way."
"Well actually, that is how they work."
(Fourth player) "...so wait. We roll high to attack to hit a low number, but low on skill checks? This is all backwards!"
(AD&D friend, not getting everyone's frustration) "Well, sometimes you roll d% too!"
It was decided after that session to go back to 5e, and my AD&D friend has been put out about it ever since.
I already answered that. You have to be able to achieve the task solo, thieve's tools is just one example. There are many other cases where the DM may decide that a piece of lore is obscure enough that if you don't have history you aren't going to know it.
Thieves’ tools isn’t “just one example”. It’s the only example in the PHB or the DMG, because skill checks don’t exist in the PHB or the DMG: the rule is the DM calls for an ability check and proficiency is added if a skill applies.
A DM could require training to make a lot of ability checks. Of course, it could be very rare for the DM to do so, and the default presented in the PHB and the DMG definitely supports the interpretation that it should be rare.
4e could have been even more popular than it was, hypothetically, even have met it's $100mil/year stretch goal, and the damage to the IP from the edition war might still have led WotC to reconsider the strategy. The on-line community was turned absolutely toxic.
I really doubt that. WotC is in the money making business. If they were making $100 million a year a few fans sniping at each other online would be irrelevant. The online community is still toxic. And WotC is still making money and they don’t seem to care about the toxicity. At all.
Hey, that was a a compelling feature of 1e! It differentiated weapons. It was realistic... kinda...sorta...
TBH, I am the only DM I knew back in the day who used weapon v armor type, and my players hated it. So much so I introduced some purchasable minor magic items that partially negated it (which they snapped up), and essentially sun-set the whole thing at higher levels.
I may be alone in liking that sub-system, and I can certainly see why, but I'm not too embarrassed to admit liking it.
(I generally characterize my self as loving D&D, 1e AD&D, especially, in spite of it's flaws, but that's one little flaw I'm quite fond of.)
Honestly, I liked the idea of weapon v. armor just fine, I love when different weapons have different reasons to be used. But where it fell apart was with monsters, who only occasionally specified what the source of their AC was, so you had to make ad hoc rulings on whether two monsters with AC 5 had natural armor that was equivalent to chain mail...
What do you mean? As I mentioned above, WvA was an optional rule in 2e (that no one used). There are a lot more situational and other modifiers to attack rolls in 3e as core rules than there were in 2e.
Honestly, I liked the idea of weapon v. armor just fine, I love when different weapons have different reasons to be used. But where it fell apart was with monsters, who only occasionally specified what the source of their AC was, so you had to make ad hoc rulings on whether two monsters with AC 5 had natural armor that was equivalent to chain mail...
You're absolutely right. I created my own matrix for which armor type different sorts of monsters' AC counted as. Hard Shell? Plate. Tough hide, well, hide? Scales? It wasn't hard, see....
