TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Moving Pictures]

Ugggghhhh. I will accept for some people who aren't very good at maths this is actuallyfaster (it's a fundamentally different method not addition with an extra operation as subtraction is) but there is a limit to the speed you can get if you actively need to consult with a table. I can approve of the Rolemaster method (if you're going to use a table make it actually interesting and nuanced in ways you almost can't with dice) but that's just replacing addition with looking things up.

I don't know if it's so slow as to make things problematic.

This leads to a side-discussion on preparation - let's say I have four different potential rolls to hit for the group. I know they're going to be, I dunno, going up against twelve zombies and a wight or something. It's not hard to write down the required to hits ahead of time and be done with it.

I occasionally look at the table(s).... usually when I've just had a player level up and change their fighter-level equivalents, juuuust to check my math. Part of that is that I spent the better part of a decade doing a different formula using the old "lower-is-better" AC of 1e/2e, and I'm still not 100 per cent muscle (or is it neuron) memory on the 10+AC-F formula I use now.

Although this thread is gonna probably be the kick in the pants I need to get better at it.

 

[Voadam]

We find the look up charts faster than either AAC or THAC0. For the bonuses and minuses you dont even have to do the math... just move your finger left or right.

Adding a +3 bonus is finding the THAC0 roll result on the chart and then counting over three places in the right direction.

That last part is still math

 

[Voadam]

Basically, THAC0 is more effort at the front end, but less effort once that's figured out.

Having the specific character chart with all modifiers already thrown in is more effort at the front end and less effort once that work is done.

Such charts can be equally easily done with both THAC0 and ascending AC. Ascending AC is generally easier to do the math in your head though so the chart is not as much of a benefit compared with THAC0.

 

[Willie the Duck]

In AD&D, there just aren't that many modifiers that change from round to round that you deal with. I'd argue that more than 90% of attack rolls are just made with your THAC0 (with weapon bonus and ability bonus already factored in). And the only step there is looking at your weapon's THAC0 chart, as the modifiers are already factored in---no math at all, not even addition.

This might be another one of those vary-by-group things like we keep finding about gaming BitD. I strongly recall always looking for ways to get the elevation bonus, back-attack, and so on. Other than choosing to shoot/rush into melee, or trying to cycle low-hp melee types back to the second rank, that was about the only toggles you had to work with with the non-casters much of the time. Mind you, I'm not sure how much influence we actually had on the outcomes by doing this*, but I recall an inordinate amount of thought going into it.

 

[Voadam]

For me it was actually faster, as I didn't have to look at any modifiers. I looked at what I rolled, and looked at what AC it hit. No math at all since every weapon had it's THAC0 chart next to it with modifiers already figured in.

Common situational modifiers for my 1e games that could change round to round were things like the +4 for backstabbing (two assassins in my years long 1e campaign), +2 for rear attacks (DMG 70), the +2 for charging (DMG 66), and the page PH 38 and DMG 28 adjustments for weapons versus specific armor or armor equivalent ACs (for while I used those adjustments).

The attacks with two weapons modifiers (DMG 70) were usually an all the time kind of thing for melee weapon choice for most characters in my campaign who used two weapons so those could usually be baked in as standard.

 

[Voadam]

I strongly recall always looking for ways to get the elevation bonus, back-attack, and so on.

Was there a 1e elevation/high ground bonus?

I know 3.0 and 3.5 had a +1 bonus for being on higher ground.

I don't remember one in 1e but a lot of 1e rules were in weird one off spots in the books.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For THAC0 to be of much use it requires the player to know the target's AC,

How do you figure?

Player: "I hit AC 4."
DM (knowing monster is AC 2): "Miss."

--or--

DM (knowing monster AC is 7): "Hit."

Seems the same with ascending AC. You call out what the best AC is you hit. The player doesn't need to know what the target's AC is, just what the best AC is they would have hit.

Having the specific character chart with all modifiers already thrown in is more effort at the front end and less effort once that work is done.

Such charts can be equally easily done with both THAC0 and ascending AC. Ascending AC is generally easier to do the math in your head though so the chart is not as much of a benefit compared with THAC0.

IME (which is not universal), I have found that since 3e, when ascending AC is a thing, there seems to be a lot more things that give you bonuses or penalties to your attack rolls. Not just situational things, but more spells, feats, and powers. At least it feels like in the games I've played that we modify attack rolls more now that we do (present tense since I still play AD&D) in AD&D.

 

[James Gasik]

I had a DM who often imposed "situational modifiers" in 1e/2e games for things like "you're using a sword in kobold tunnels, -2 to hit" or "you're fighting on the deck of a ship, -1 to hit" fairly often. Sometimes adventures would impose modifiers for specific scenarios as well.

This got worse in the 2e era, of course, especially if you were using the Complete series ("That's a Called Shot, -4 to hit, +1 initiative modifier!", "ok, so you want to fire a bow while hanging upside down in a tree? We have rules for that!").

And there were a lot of arbitrary modifiers scattered about: a good character fighting an Anti-Paladin? -1 to hit! The evil cleric casts Dispel Good? Your summoned monsters are at -7 to hit!