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!

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

Hmm.

I'm not immediately finding it in my DMG. I see that 1E (DMG pp. 64-66) had to-hit bonuses and penalties for charging; cover; flanking; invisibility; rear-attacks; and opponents who are encumbered, held by both legs, held by one leg, motionless, off balance, partially bound, prone, slowed, and stunned.

I'm seeing in 2e (PHB, p.90) much of the same stuff, but also has a +1 for 'attacker on higher ground.' So either that's what I'm thinking of, or 1e had it as well and just has it elsewhere (2e didn't honestly invent much of those kind of things, so much as consolidate them).

 

[Voadam]

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.

3e power attack feat was pretty common allowing different adjustments every round and 3e barbarian rage and bardic inspiration were core easy ways to get temporary bonuses along with a bunch of more common buff spells compared to 1e IME. 4e built buffs into a lot of class powers with granting them being a core thing for the leader classes and a lot of the others giving self buffs as common powers. 5e made them pretty common but mostly just advantage or disadvantage (but then adding back in fiddly things like bless and bardic inspiration).

1e had a decently sized list of modifiers though, more so on the AC end than on the attack side IMO.

DMG page 70:

Flank Attacks: All flank attacks negate any defender armor class addition for shield. Attacks against a rear flank, where the opponent is virtually unable to view the attackers, negate dexterity armor class bonus.

Rear Attacks: Opponents attacking from the rear gain a +2 to hit, negate any consideration for shield, and also negate any consideration for dexterity.

Stunned, Prone or Motionless Opponents: Treat all such opponents as if being attacked from the rear, but in this case the “to hit” bonus is +4 rather than +2.

Magically Sleeping or Held Opponents: If a general melee is in progress, and the attacker is subject to enemy actions, then these opponents are automatically struck by any attack to which they would normally be subject, and the maximum damage possible according to the weapon type is inflicted each time such an opponent is so attacked. The number of attacks or attack routines possible against such an opponent is twice the number normally allowed in a round. Otherwise, such opponents may be automatically slain, or bound as appropriate to materials at hand and size, at a rate of one per round. Note that this does not include normally sleeping opponents (see ASSASSINS’ TABLE FOR ASSASSINATIONS).

Invisible Opponents: Invisible opponents are always at an advantage. They can only be attacked if they are attacking or otherwise detected somehow. These opponents always cause the attacker to attack at a –4 on “to hit” rolls because of the invisibility. They can never be attacked from flank or rear positions unless the attacker can see them (thus they are, in fact, visible!).

Breaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

DMG page 64:

Special Note Regarding Giant And Machine Missiles:
When giants hurl boulders or any of the various siege machines (ballistae, catapults, etc.) fire missiles, target characters do not gain dexterity bonus considerations to armor class when “to hit” computations are made. Consider this as follows: Character A has an armor class rating of –2, but as dexterity accounts for 2 of these factors, AC rating drops to 0 if a giant is hurling rocks at the character or if some machine is discharging missiles at him or her.

Missile Fire Cover And Concealment Adjustments:
Adjust the armor class of the target creature as follows if cover (hard substances which protect) or concealment (soft substances which screen) exists:
TARGET HAS ABOUT ARMOR CLASS BONUS
25% cover +2
50% cover +4
75% cover +7
90% cover +10
25% concealment +1
50% concealment +2
75% concealment +3
90% concealment +4
25% is cover or concealment to the knees, or part of the left or right side of the body screened; it might also be a target which is seen for only three-quarters of a round. Men on a walled parapet would typically be 25% covered. 50% cover or concealment equals protection or screening to the waist, half of one side of the body, or being seen for only half the round. Figures in thick brush would be at least 50% concealed; men on a castle wall with embrasures and merlons would be at least 50% covered. Shuttered embrasures and narrow windows would provide 75% cover, while arrow slits offer 90% cover.