TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Sacrosanct]

3e also made ascending math harder because different attacks had different bonuses. So you really couldn't do something like a pre-made THAC0 chart.

 

[Voadam]

3e also made ascending math harder because different attacks had different bonuses. So you really couldn't do something like a pre-made THAC0 chart.

I'm not sure how you are saying this is different from 1e. In both stuff like applicable dex bonuses versus strength bonuses, magic bonuses on individual weapons, weapon specialization, etc. could make the base THAC0/attack bonus different for different attacks.

For instance here is something I put down on a 3.5 ranger wizard eldritch knight character sheet for myself for the character's attacks.

Unarmed Strike +21 d3+13 (good, magic +2d6 against evil +2/+2 vs [EVIL])
Adamantine Scimitar +17 d6+8 (magic, adamantine, +2/+2 vs [EVIL]) crit 18-20+2d6 bleed
Hand of the Apprentice +18 30’ R standard action 7/day for scimitar
Long Spear +1 of throwing and returning +17 10’ RI d8+9 (magic, +2/+2 vs[EVIL]) crit x3
Ray +16 touch (+2/+2 vs [EVIL])

It would be trivial to plug these modifiers into an AC chart like from the 1e character sheet you posted earlier.

Are you talking about iterative attacks having a progressively increasing -5 penalty for each one? That does not seem qualitatively different than having different penalties apply to each weapon used in two weapon fighting in 1e.

 

[jonesymat]

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.

The two weapon attack a player can put the modified to hit in the sheet, no problem. The other modifiers exists with thac0 or AAC too. It does not change much, you roll the dice plus modifiers and look at the table. The table already in the sheet makes this fast. I play like this for years and never this slow down the game

But anyway, the reason I play 1e has nothing to do with descending or ascending AC or thac0. 2e change a lot of things in the feel of the game, rules demoted to no more than a footnote, and others vanished entirely

 

[Voadam]

The two weapon attack a player can put the modified to hit in the sheet, no problem.

Right, as I said.

The other modifiers exists with thac0 or AAC too. It does not change much, you roll the dice plus modifiers and look at the table. The table already in the sheet makes this fast. I play like this for years and never this slow down the game

Right, you have to add the modifiers to your roll in both. In AAC however you do one less step, you add all the modifiers to your roll and you get the AC you hit. You don't need to look it up in the chart to see what AC you hit.

A small difference but I found repeated small differences could make an impact on the pace of the fights I ran in AD&D as I tried to keep things moving swiftly and minimize the time people are waiting for it to be their turn and for resolution of their action to happen. I remember one of my players talking about how he liked D&D more than Palladium because of how quick the resolution was, adding in opposed parrying rolls noticeably slowed down otherwise similar D&D like combat for him.

At the end of 2e WotC put out Dragon Fist which was a free martial arts 2e simplified rule set with slightly higher powered classes and ascending AC. I was really happy at that AC innovation and considering switching over my AD&D games to its ascending AC model.

In descending AC with a chart you have smaller math to do because things like the class level adjustment to THAC0 and modifiers like ability bonuses and magic can be shifted over to the predone chart on the character sheet and you only have to add in something like +2 or +4 instead of stuff like +4 (4th level fighter), +1 (strength bonus), +2 (+2 sword) plus the +2 or +4 situational modifier. You also, however, have to redo every entry in the whole chart every time your level up affects your THAC0 though instead of just adjusting your THAC0/BAB bonus when you level and that changes. So about nine times the entry editing at level ups if your chart goes AC 2-10, or eleven times the editing if it is 0-10.

 

[Pamphylian]

A character sheet that essentially recreates a look-up chart from the DMG is a specialized tool, yes. In the decades since AD&D came out, requiring that level of clerical work to run the game has been replaced by faster resolution systems.

I've played every version of D&D except for 4E. I know about THAC0.

And yes, I do think the d20 resolution system is faster, but as you say, it's not a problem for you, so it's a fix without a big benefit in your case.

I do think it's noteworthy that most games trying to go for an AD&D feel without being beholden to its system don't use look-up charts for basic resolutions. Gaming "technology" has moved on to other resolution systems since then.

The big exception is Dolmenwood, but Gavin Norman knows he's going to have a large audience coming over from OSE, where -- as a retroclone -- the players are using to-hit and saving throw charts.

I will say that I looked a bit askance at the utility of attack matrices for a while, but gained an appreciation during a 5e game where the party was fighting a horde of skeletons and zombies. I found myself writing down the ACs of my PCs and the die roll necessary to hit each of them based on a few different to hit bonuses on the field, so I could avoid the friction of adding modifiers to 6-10 simultaneous undead d20 rolls - looking at the mini-table I had created was a bit of an ah-hah moment for me. In this type of fight, resolution was noticeably sped up. Makes me wonder if the use of attack matrices was partially down stream of a typically higher number of combatants in older edition encounters.

 

[jonesymat]

A small difference but I found repeated small differences could make an impact on the pace of the fights I ran in AD&D as I tried to keep things moving swiftly and minimize the time people are waiting for it to be their turn and for resolution of their action to happen. I remember one of my players talking about how he liked D&D more than Palladium because of how quick the resolution was, adding in opposed parrying rolls noticeably slowed down otherwise similar D&D like combat for him.

This is not my experience. Not significantly anyway. Combat normally are very fast in my games (compared to the modern editions). Only the combat with a lot of characters and monsters takes some time, but it is not that much either. But I think it helps my players are experienced and know to look fast for their number, and know some of them from memory. Each group will have different experiences

Makes me wonder if the use of attack matrices was partially down stream of a typically higher number of combatants in older edition encounters.

These types of matrices are a wargame thing. A lot of units. In wargames they printed the matrices and put them on the side of the table for easy reference. Early D&D just inherited this. Wargame matrices have very complicated calculations behind them. The matrices made sense for that. In RPGs normally the calculations are not that complicated. This is probably why they created Thac0, to replace the attack matrices, but I think the matrices are better than using Thac0 if you have the matrices on the sheet

 

[Lanefan]

As I mentioned earlier this isn't inherent to THAC0; it's just that when they'd tidied up and simplified the system the 3.0 designers decided that all the complexity budget they'd saved was burning a hole in their pocket and that they needed to spend it all.

Which only helps slightly when a "bonus" is irritatingly negative.

It's fairly rare that a known player-side bonus is negative. Most negative modifiers are applied by DM-side things that the players (both in and out of character) don't know about: a cursed item, a Bane effect on an area, that sort of thing.

Player-side negative modifiers pretty much only ever come up if someone's using a non-proficient weapon, rare enough that it's easy to account for.

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 have a chart on my DM screen showing how well each class and level fights as (3e would call this a BAB chart); using that, all I have to do is take the player's roll + bonuses, add their fight level (BAB), and apply any DM-side modifiers (see above re curses etc.). If the result hits a specific and constant threshold, it's a hit. The chart also tells me when each class gains multiple attacks, very handy when they're at the level (like right now) where some do and some don't.

The biggest difference between what I do and 3e SOP is a) that BAB is not player-side information and b) BAB progression isn't quite as smooth or predictable as 3e has it.