What DON'T you like about 1E AD&D?

[Storm Raven]

First formalized in the 2e books, at any rate. I believe that THACO was in fairly common usage during 1e, though.

Not really. It was in the DMG listing of monsters from the MM, but it didn't work very well for players, because the combat matrices didn't follow a regular pattern at the margins, making THAC0 unreliable.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

First formalized in the 2e books, at any rate. I believe that THACO was in fairly common usage during 1e, though.

If I remember correctly it first showed up in a Dragon article as a method to streamline combat. I didn't use it until it showed up in the 2E core books, though.

 

[Odhanan]

What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another.

(...)

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

DMG Preface, page 7-8.

I mean. You can say all you like, Storm Raven, but you can't make this quote any clearer, I think.

 

[Tewligan]

Could you tell me where those rules were in the 1e PHB or DMG? Or even UA?

Nope. However, I'm pretty damn close to positive that there were modules that asked for ability checks of the type I described - don't ask me to name specifics, because I'm not going through them to find an example at the moment. Sorry. Regardless, ability checks were common at LEAST as a house rule whether they were official or not.

Hm - actually, I'm gonna trot over to Dragonsfoot and see if anyone can give me an official example of an ability check. I'll get back to ya.

 

[T. Foster]

Let's see:

1. The excess of fiddly minutiae and special case rules, especially in the spell descriptions (prime example: the identify spell -- if you haven't read this in 10 or 20 years, take a look; it's a doozy:

Identify (Divination)
Level: 1
Range: 0
Duration: 1 segment/level
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 turn
Saving Throw: Special

Explanation/Description: When an identify spell is cast, one item may be touched and handled by the magic-user in order that he or she may possibly find what dweomer it posseses. The item in question must be held or worn as would be normal for any such object, i.e. a bracelet must be placed on the spell caster's wrist, a helm on his or her head, boots on the feet, a cloak worn, a dagger held, and so on. Note that any consequences of this use of the item fall fully upon the magic-user, although any saving throw normally allowed is still the privilege of the magic-user. For each segment the spell is in force, it is 15% + 5% per level of the magic-user probable that 1 property of the object touched can become known - possibly that the item has no properties and is merely a ruse (the presence of Nystul's magic Aura or a magic mouth being detected). Each time a property can be known, the referee will secretly roll to see if the magic-user made his or her saving throw versus magic. If the save was successful, the property is known; if it is 1 point short, a false power will be revealed; and if it is lower than 1 under the required score no information will be gained. The item will never reveal its exact plusses to hit or its damage bonuses, although the fact that is has few or many such plusses can be discovered. If it has charges, the object will never reveal the exact number, but it will give information which is +/- 25% of actual, i.e. a wand with 40 charges could feel as if it had 30, or 50, or any number in between. The item to be identified must be examined by the magic-user within 1 hour per level of experience of the examiner after it has been discovered, or all readable impressions will have been blended into those of the characters who have possessed it since. After casting the spell and determining what can be learned from it, the magic-user loses 8 points of constitution. He or she must rest for 6 turns per 1 point in order to regain them. If the 8 point loss drops the spell caster below a constitution of 3, he or she will fall unconscious, and consciousness will not be regained until full constitution is restored 24 hours later. The material components of this spell are a pearl (of at least 100 g.p. value) and an owl feather steeped in wine, with the infusion drunk and a live miniature carp swallowed whole prior to spell casting. If a luckstone is powdered and added to the infusion, probability increases 25% and all saving throws are made at +4.

2. Too many things seemingly aribitrarily changed for the sake of change from OD&D, which both makes conversion between the two a hassle (foreshadowing WotC's comments about 4E, TSR told people (in The Dragon) at the time of AD&D's release "don't try to convert your D&D campaign over; just start a new campaign using AD&D") and also leaves the distasteful impression that the real reason for all these changes wasn't to actually improve the game but rather to justify TSR's claim that AD&D was a "different game" than D&D, and thus deny royalties to D&D co-creator Dave Arneson.

3. The assumption that everyone playing AD&D would want to (or at least should want to) make their campaign essentially a copy/pastiche of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign, and that any campaign that wasn't was automatically inferior and would only appeal to poor benighted players who didn't know any better.

4. That TSR increasingly treated AD&D, which should have been the alternative/advanced version of the game for dedicated/hardcore players and tournament-play only, as the default version and relegated the much simpler and elegant, more open-ended and adaptable, and more mainstream-accessible Classic D&D game first to "kiddie" status and then to redundancy.

5. That Gygax for whatever reason included a bunch of rules in the books (mostly in the combat chapter of the DMG) that he now claims he didn't like even at the time and rarely if ever used.

6. All those damn pole arms: almost a third of the weapons in the game, hopelessly cluttering the weapon-lists and invariably confusing new players -- and the vast majority of which I've still never seen used in 20+ years of play.

7. The weapon proficiency rules: a needless complication that feels tacked-on.

8. All the crap TSR churned c. 1984-88 out after first exiling Gygax to California and eventually giving him the boot altogether, establishing the "quantity over quality" approach that has dominated the entire pen&paper rpg industry ever since.

That's all I can think of at the moment (but I haven't read through the other responses, so there's probably at least a few more things I've forgotten about that someone else mentioned).

 

[Tewligan]

Not really. It was in the DMG listing of monsters from the MM, but it didn't work very well for players, because the combat matrices didn't follow a regular pattern at the margins, making THAC0 unreliable.

Yes, really. The matrices are pretty constant - the 'to hit' number goes up on a 1-for-1 basis along with the descending AC until it hits 20. The 'to hit' stays at 20 for 6 "counts" of AC, and then continues the 1-for-1 progression. THACO really was in common usage at the time, and it was easy to figure those AC's that the 20 'to hit' was good on.

 

[Valiant]

You keep saying this like it isn't total nonsense. Yet we know that it is complete and utter nonsense. We know how the AD&D rules were written and the play conditions under which they were developed, and that the players in the original "test group" rotated DM duties among themselves. The rules were designed in an environment in which the players all knew the rules, even those rules that ended up in the DMG. So making some sort of argument about how the contents of the DMG were supposed to be sacred text forbidden to mere players is just silly. And every time you make the argument it just drops your credibility on any subject lower.

What ever Storm Raven. Your logic is lacking: In the first place, when you first purchased these books (back in the 70s or early 80s) you didn't have the internet, and you didn't have a detailed history of the creation of D&D at your fingertips (perhaps a crystal ball?). All you new was what was written in the rule books.

Second, the creators of the game (all of whom were in the original group) were all experianced players and DMs of this new game. They'd been at it for years...co-DMing and rotating was a necessity. Hell, they played in all sorts of ways to figure out the best way to design it. Then they wrote the rule books (the PH is for players the DMG for DMs). Period, end of story. When a player was ready to learn to be a DM he read it.

Now, Did Gygax intend you Storm Raven-player to one day don the DMs cap...sure, you bet. But until that day he wanted you to keep your nose out of the DMG and let the DM run the game while you sat back and enjoyed it. The game is at its best when you don't have everything memorized...it feels less like a game. Anyhow, If you don't believe me, why not ask the man himself, he posts around these parts. Or go read the intro for yourself.

I don't doubt Gygax expected experianced players to eventually take over as DM and rotate, and yes the game is still just as fun. But the idea that newbies are supposed to pick up the DMG along with the PH to learn the game is rubbish. I agree thats how its done in 3E (its PH, for example, describes the rules for combat completely), but not 1E.

PS my apologies to the mods and original poster for thread jacking.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I do not like that PCs nearly quit acquiring hit points after about 9th level. I also do not like that the rules text seems to belabor the point that an 8 is a viable ability score while the ability score tables only seem to laud extremely high ability scores (all the good stuff comes at 15+). If an 8 is viable, a 10 is normal, then I personally suggest that a 12 is pretty good and should come with benefits. Alas, this concept isn't supported by the out-of-print editions.

 

[T. Foster]

Nope. However, I'm pretty damn close to positive that there were modules that asked for ability checks of the type I described - don't ask me to name specifics, because I'm not going through them to find an example at the moment. Sorry. Regardless, ability checks were common at LEAST as a house rule whether they were official or not.

Hm - actually, I'm gonna trot over to Dragonsfoot and see if anyone can give me an official example of an ability check. I'll get back to ya.

Generalized d20-based ability checks (i.e. roll your stat or less on 1d20) began showing up in third-party products in the late 70s (and were probably mentioned in APAzines even earlier) -- Judges Guild's Caverns of Thracia (1979), for instance, includes several such instances. The Dig spell description (PH, p. 76) includes a Dex or less on d20 saving throw, but that method is specific to the spell and isn't suggested as a general rule. The first appearances of generalized d20 stat checks in TSR products (per an old thread at dragonsfoot, where people did a search) were in 1981, in the Moldvay-edit D&D Basic Rulebook (which wasn't an AD&D product, but was the "gateway drug" for a very large number of AD&D players and thus strongly colored their perceptions) and in module A2: Secret of the Slaver's Stockade. By around 1983 this method had become the standard/default and most modules from that time forward (e.g. I3: Pharaoh (1982)) included something like this in their introduction section:

Occasionally, the text calls for dexterity or constitution checks. This means that the character must roll his dexterity/constitution or less on 1d20. The effects of the roll are explained in each case.

Likewise with THAC0, which was developed in the APAzine culture of the 70s and began appearing in modules long before its adoption as the official default mechanic in 2E. Most modules from c. 1984 on had something like this (from UK2: The Sentinel (1983)) in their intro:

THAC0 = To Hit Armour Class Zero. This is the roll on a d20 needed by the creature to hit an opponent with AC 0 (see DMG p196-215, for examples). In most cases, the roll needed to hit other armour classes = THAC0 - AC.

Check pretty much any later-period 1E module (or supplement, like REF3: The Book of Lairs (1986)) and you'll almost certainly find both of these concepts in use (and explained in the intro).

THACO: This is an acronym for "To Hit Armor Class 0 (zero)." This gives the number that needs to be rolled on 1d20 for that being to hit Armor Class 0. To determine whether the attack hits another Armor Class, subtract that Armor Class number from the THACO to see what number needs to be rolled for a hit. If a creature with a THACO of 15 attacks a PC with an Armor Class of 4, he creature nees to roll an 11 (15 - 4) to hit. If the PC is Armor Class -3, however, the creature needs to roll an 18 (15 - [-3] = 15 + 3).
This number eliminates the need to consult tables or keep charts for each character. One simple calculation tells you whether the attack hits. You will find this calculation quickly becomes automatic.
...
Ability Checks
In an effort to simplify life for both players and DMs, and to give a character's abilities the importance they deserve, recent TSR® products have made use of a mechanism for resolving actions called the Ability Check.
When asked to make an Ability Check (e.g., a Wisdom Check, a Dexterity Check, etc.), roll 1d20 against the character's appropriate ability score. A roll equal to or less than the appropriate score means the action succeded, while a roll greater than the ability score indicates failure and the character suffers whatever dire consequences await. Sometimes an Ability Check enables a character to avoid all or some of the damage from an attack. Some actions are especially easy or difficult and have bonuses or penalties to the ability score the reflect the level of difficulty.
The Ability Check is a wonderful mechanism for resolving the results of almost any action. The DM needs to decide which ability applies to the situation, whether there should be any modifiers due to circumstances, and then roll away.

 

[S'mon]

Playing 1e recently I didn't like that my PC had STR 16 and that gave him no to-hit bonus and only +1 damage. The 3e bonuses are excessive IMO, but I like the Classic bonuses where STR 16-17 gives +2 to hit +2 damage.