Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did mixing editions become unusual?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7530071" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Once and for all, the THAC0 of a 1st level thief or wizard is 21 - not 20. I don't know where or why you assumed I couldn't calculate THAC0 since your whole argument depends on incorrectly assigning it. Calculated correctly, you need a 20 to hit a 1, a 19 to hit a 2, an 18 to hit a 3, and so forth. Viola, no +1 bonus against bad AC. But, you might protest, a 1st level thief or wizard only needs a 20 to hit a AC 0 (or -1 for that matter) per the repeating 20's rule, so your calculation is wrong and you have to account for that. And that would be correct, but as a practical matter, 1st level thief's or wizard so rarely attack anything with an AC of 0, that the problem does not come up in play. </p><p></p><p>I'd go into further details, but I already have. The point is, you never understood what I was saying, so you corrected me over a non-issue. Then you corrected my terminology despite the fact that Gygax used a similar convention in the text and despite the fact that it was clear from context that I was using "higher" and "better" as synonyms. You don't get to tell me what my language means, least of all when you are obviously wrong about it, so what you think or want me to be saying is irrelevant to what I actually said.</p><p></p><p>Feel free to quote yourself as much as you like but, "It would come up pretty often actually - at 1st level, thief and magic user needed a 20 to hit AC1, so using THAC0 to calculate hits even on normal ACs wasn't technically correct for either of those hit tables, as you'd end up with effectively a +1 bonus." is not and never has been a refutation of "In practice, the repeated 20's then 21's rule never came up in play anyway." This is completely obvious to everyone not you. Inventing some defect in my thinking that was never a part of my thinking in the first place doesn't make you right. No one but you is talking about this theoretical but never actually seen +1 bonus.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7530071, member: 4937"] Once and for all, the THAC0 of a 1st level thief or wizard is 21 - not 20. I don't know where or why you assumed I couldn't calculate THAC0 since your whole argument depends on incorrectly assigning it. Calculated correctly, you need a 20 to hit a 1, a 19 to hit a 2, an 18 to hit a 3, and so forth. Viola, no +1 bonus against bad AC. But, you might protest, a 1st level thief or wizard only needs a 20 to hit a AC 0 (or -1 for that matter) per the repeating 20's rule, so your calculation is wrong and you have to account for that. And that would be correct, but as a practical matter, 1st level thief's or wizard so rarely attack anything with an AC of 0, that the problem does not come up in play. I'd go into further details, but I already have. The point is, you never understood what I was saying, so you corrected me over a non-issue. Then you corrected my terminology despite the fact that Gygax used a similar convention in the text and despite the fact that it was clear from context that I was using "higher" and "better" as synonyms. You don't get to tell me what my language means, least of all when you are obviously wrong about it, so what you think or want me to be saying is irrelevant to what I actually said. Feel free to quote yourself as much as you like but, "It would come up pretty often actually - at 1st level, thief and magic user needed a 20 to hit AC1, so using THAC0 to calculate hits even on normal ACs wasn't technically correct for either of those hit tables, as you'd end up with effectively a +1 bonus." is not and never has been a refutation of "In practice, the repeated 20's then 21's rule never came up in play anyway." This is completely obvious to everyone not you. Inventing some defect in my thinking that was never a part of my thinking in the first place doesn't make you right. No one but you is talking about this theoretical but never actually seen +1 bonus. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did mixing editions become unusual?
Top