Which is D&D? 4e or 2e?

[Fifth Element]

I like this explanation the best. Succinct and logical. Not quiet sure why everyone else just gets really mad about the question though (probably the poor way I framed it I guess).

Partly. But also the recent history on these boards. Ever since 4E was released there have been threads about "Blargh! 4E isn't D&D!".

 

[evileeyore]

Partly. But also the recent history on these boards. Ever since 4E was released there have been threads about "Blargh! 4E isn't D&D!".

Because 4e is sufficiently different 1e, 2e, and 3e that it rather stopped feeling like the same game. (mechanically speaking)

 

[Fifth Element]

Because 4e is sufficiently different 1e, 2e, and 3e that it rather stopped feeling like the same game. (mechanically speaking)

You're not helping.

But that's more reason than most of the "blargh" threads actually gave. They usually involved video game and CCG references.

 

[ironfang]

2e did not have half-orcs, assassins, monks, and it had THACO, thus it is not D&D.

Sorry, guess you really haven't been playing D&D all those years. [/sarcasm]


That would most likely be the reason. People tend to get a bit aggravated if someone 'insinuates' that the game they love and play is not, in actuality, the game they love and play.

Oooh oooh! I wanna play semantics too! 2e did have half-orcs, just read the 2e monster manual! ThAC0 is just a calculation TO HIT ARMOR CLASS 0... Its just an "acronym". In 1E or OD&D if a creature had a 0 Armor class, then you had to roll... TO HIT ARMOR CLASS 0.... OMG NOT IN 1E!!!

Therefore, there could not have been creatures with 0 AC in OD&D and 1E because that would ruin a very clear and mechanical difference between the three....

 

[Psion]

But that's more reason than most of the "blargh" threads actually gave. They usually involved video game and CCG references.

Well if it doesn't feel like D&D, it has to feel like something, right?

 

[Fifth Element]

ThAC0 is just a calculation TO HIT ARMOR CLASS 0... Its just an "acronym". In 1E or OD&D if a creature had a 0 Armor class, then you had to roll... TO HIT ARMOR CLASS 0.... OMG NOT IN 1E!!!

No, it's not. THACO is useful because you can use it to calculate what you need to hit any AC.

In 1E, the combat tables did not go 18-19-20-21-22... they went 18-19-20-20-20-20-20-20-21-22 or whatever. There's a stretch of ACs where 20 hits, not just a single AC.

So like I said in a previous post, a 1st-level MU has a 20 THAC0. But also a 20 THAC1. He needs the same number to hit AC 1 as he does AC 0. Because of the repeating 20's.

So it's not just an acronym. It actually changes how the to-hit mechanics work at certain ACs, if you use THACO to calculate what you need to hit these ACs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well if it doesn't feel like D&D, it has to feel like something, right?

Not necessarily, but the odds are good that for any object X presented, any given person will discover that it has resonance with something in his experience, even if it is not the object Y that resonates with you.

IOW, there is nothing inherently more right or wrong, or better or worse, between "X feels like D&D" and "X feels like a video game". And you will note that I used X because this concept of identity/resonance is true for all things, not just the things that are near and dear to you, me, or Captain Crunch.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So it's not just an acronym. It actually changes how the to-hit mechanics work at certain ACs, if you use THACO to calculate what you need to hit these ACs.

Yup.

But THAC0 still predates 2e.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

But THAC0 still predates 2e.

I said as much myself. That's not the issue.

The issue is the claim that both 1E and 2E "use THAC0". That is incorrect. THAC0 was something developed to remove the need for the combat tables. But the 1E combat tables cannot be translated to THAC0 on a 1-for-1 basis, because of the repeating 20s. You remove the need to look up tables, but you also lose some "precision", for lack of a better term.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I said as much myself. That's not the issue.

The issue is the claim that both 1E and 2E "use THAC0". That is incorrect. THAC0 was something developed to remove the need for the combat tables. But the 1E combat tables cannot be translated to THAC0 on a 1-for-1 basis, because of the repeating 20s. You remove the need to look up tables, but you also lose some "precision", for lack of a better term.

Except, of course, that both 1e and 2e do use THAC0, although you did not have to use THAC0 in 1e.

I wish I had my 1e MMII with me right now, because I think THAC0 might have even made it into the official stat blocks. MerricB, or someone else with the info on tap, can confirm or correct me here. Otherwise, I'll check when I get home tonight.


RC