AD&D 1E The worst thing about AD&D, and boy is it annoying

[sevenbastard]

I have a few d4s that are just d20s with 5 sets of 1-4, they’re my go to d4s for at-table use.

My d20 has all the numbers but I swear it just produces results between 1 and 4.

 

[Lanefan]

I've seen some d4s that are on a d8, that has its own problems though, you'd need them in a different colour to differentiate them if you don't want to find yourself wondering why you can't roll more than a 4 when hitting with your longsword.

We use d6 for initiatives. One night a player couldn't roll higher than 3 no matter what she did...till someone pointed out she'd been using a d3 - a d6 numbered 1-2-3 twice - without noticing. Oops.

I've seen some that are sort of d8-shaped, but they make one end larger and the other smaller, like a tall pyramid with a tiny little pyramid glued to the bottom. Only the tall pyramid portion has numbers on it, being so "top-heavy" that the smaller part of the die isn't really ever going to come up.

A player was rolling one of these at our game last weekend. I found it really hard to read, but that could be more due to the colour combination rather than the actual die shape.

 

[billd91]

I've seen some d4s that are on a d8, that has its own problems though, you'd need them in a different colour to differentiate them if you don't want to find yourself wondering why you can't roll more than a 4 when hitting with your longsword.

We use d6 for initiatives. One night a player couldn't roll higher than 3 no matter what she did...till someone pointed out she'd been using a d3 - a d6 numbered 1-2-3 twice - without noticing. Oops.

Chessex solves the issue for their 12-sided d4s by putting the numbers in Roman numerals. They're sufficiently distinct from the regular d12s that I don't believe I've ever made that mistake.

 

[nevin]

is the love for using the d4 die. Probably the least favorite die type of all, and man, was it all over AD&D (1e and 2e). What's that? You assumed I was going to say something else based on the title?

Nah, this isn't an edition war, but more tongue-in-cheek. Kinda sorta, because I think most of us can agree that the d4 should be used sparingly. But the title is certainly hyperbole. And yet its shows up way more than it should. It shows up in HP. It shows up in weapon damage a lot (d4, d4+1, 2d4), it shows up a lot in treasure tables (1-4 gems, 50-200 starting gold, 5-20 pp, etc.). It shows up in the most famous damage spell, magic missile. But where it really shows up is in monster damage. And in really weird ways. A lot of monsters have 1d4 for damage. Many have 2d4 (including monsters that use weapons, like troglodytes, when the weapon is 1d6). Several monsters have 5d4 (like a troll's bite). I have to ask myself, why? If you're rolling 5d4, why not just 2d10? Instead of 3d4, how about 2d6? People probably would rather roll 2d10 than a handful of d4s. Who has that many in their dice bag anyway?

Possibly the most annoying thing about all of it is that they had 15 years of D&D before 2e came out- 15 years to see how everyone hates the d4- and yet kept it everywhere.

Rant over

to be fair each d4 is enough to kill a wizard or illusionist of that level usually. I never heard of anyone hating a d4 though.

 

[quantumthor]

Monks being a level 1 death sentence and Thieves being completely pointless annoys me (Level 8 Thief same "to hit Armour Class 0" as an Orc...)

 

[VashVet]

I have to admit that playing yet another d6 system game, I long for d4s. Or d8s or d12s. Anything other than another damn d6. The sameness, the lack of tactile originality…it pains me!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Monks being a level 1 death sentence and Thieves being completely pointless annoys me (Level 8 Thief same "to hit Armour Class 0" as an Orc...)

I'm not sure how monks are a death sentence, and one of the big reasons people think thieves are so bad is because the rules were ambiguous about how thief abilities worked. Or were supposed to work. As confirmed with Tim Kask, anyone could try to be stealthy, or open a lock. The thief abilties were there for tasks that were considered too hard for any other class to reasonably attempt. They weren't meant to be used for every task. But that's how most players interpreted the rules.

 

[GreyLord]

I'm not sure how monks are a death sentence, and one of the big reasons people think thieves are so bad is because the rules were ambiguous about how thief abilities worked. Or were supposed to work. As confirmed with Tim Kask, anyone could try to be stealthy, or open a lock. The thief abilties were there for tasks that were considered too hard for any other class to reasonably attempt. They weren't meant to be used for every task. But that's how most players interpreted the rules.

In the same vein of thieves, Monks could work as a replacement for a thief in some situations. The hard part came if one decided to use hand to hand combat instead of Monk weapons at the low levels. The lack of AC also made them very easy to hit, so if you tried to use them as a fighter, rather than like a sneak, you could get in trouble very quickly.

I like Monks, but if used as you would a fighter and only used hand to hand combat without a weapon, you could die very quickly.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the same vein of thieves, Monks could work as a replacement for a thief in some situations. The hard part came if one decided to use hand to hand combat instead of Monk weapons at the low levels. The lack of AC also made them very easy to hit, so if you tried to use them as a fighter, rather than like a sneak, you could get in trouble very quickly.

I like Monks, but if used as you would a fighter and only used hand to hand combat without a weapon, you could die very quickly.

I admit I much preferred the monk that appeared in Dragon Magazine 53. But the original is doable if you know how to play them at low levels.

 

[bsss]

I'd consider getting rid of traditional tetrahedron d4s and using d8s or d12s or weird shapes if it wasn't for the fact they're one of the platonic solids and that's just too cool to get rid of. d10s are the annoying posers.