| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 10:16:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dreyrugrulfr
A shame that this didn't pan out. I've long been curious as to the differences (if there are even that many!) between 1st and 2nd. :)
Do a quick search on the Dragonsfoot forums and there should be several lists. I think the theme has been discussed to death over there.
There were some differences to the rules, but if you take away the changes to classes, the lacking half orcs and the name changes done to demons and devils, they were relatively minor. Things like kits and proficiencies were optional anyway. But in general it was more a change in overall style and feel of the products; all the products for the TSR editions can easily be used cross-system with some minor tweaks. |
 |
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 10:23:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dreyrugrulfr
A shame that this didn't pan out. I've long been curious as to the differences (if there are even that many!) between 1st and 2nd. :)
Rule-wise, the systems are very similar. They're similar enough that I sometimes wonder why they called it a new edition.
The changes between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were many enough to call it a new edition in my opinion, as there were quite a bit of minor tweaks and modifications all over the system in addition to the major ones. If the changes become to major, like the 3ed. it becomes more of a new system than a new edition, but that's just my opinion. Some game systems, like GURPS, have gone through edition changes with even less of a change.
In addition there was of course also the company politics side of the whole thing that might have been a factor, but Gary had been working on a 2nd edition himself before he was forced out. |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 13:47:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dreyrugrulfr
A shame that this didn't pan out. I've long been curious as to the differences (if there are even that many!) between 1st and 2nd. :)
Rule-wise, the systems are very similar. They're similar enough that I sometimes wonder why they called it a new edition.
The changes between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were many enough to call it a new edition in my opinion, as there were quite a bit of minor tweaks and modifications all over the system in addition to the major ones. If the changes become to major, like the 3ed. it becomes more of a new system than a new edition, but that's just my opinion. Some game systems, like GURPS, have gone through edition changes with even less of a change.
In addition there was of course also the company politics side of the whole thing that might have been a factor, but Gary had been working on a 2nd edition himself before he was forced out.
The changes between 1st and 2nd edition were not that BIG to me. But thats just my humble opinion. The game I am running for my wife is kind of like a hybrid meaning 1st edition rules with some 2nd edition added in and a few house rules. 
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 14:04:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dreyrugrulfr
A shame that this didn't pan out. I've long been curious as to the differences (if there are even that many!) between 1st and 2nd. :)
Rule-wise, the systems are very similar. They're similar enough that I sometimes wonder why they called it a new edition.
The changes between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were many enough to call it a new edition in my opinion, as there were quite a bit of minor tweaks and modifications all over the system in addition to the major ones. If the changes become to major, like the 3ed. it becomes more of a new system than a new edition, but that's just my opinion. Some game systems, like GURPS, have gone through edition changes with even less of a change.
In addition there was of course also the company politics side of the whole thing that might have been a factor, but Gary had been working on a 2nd edition himself before he was forced out.
The changes between 1st and 2nd edition were not that BIG to me. But thats just my humble opinion. The game I am running for my wife is kind of like a hybrid meaning 1st edition rules with some 2nd edition added in and a few house rules.
John
I prefer the 2nd edition myself, as that was the first TSR system I used, although I will be the first to admit that the quality of the modules sunk drastically in 2nd ed and that I never cared that much for many of the ideas that were a part of the period. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 16:55:54
|
I never cared for 2nd Edition all that much over 1st Edition...the only thing I didn't like about 2nd at all were the changes to the Dragons.
With 1st Edition, a party could face a dragon relatively early in their adventuring careers; but the changes to dragons made them become far to powerful for a low level party.
I liked Dragons the way they were in the Realms in 1st Edition: extremely deadly; but capable of being overcome by a competent wizard.
I also didn't like that they took out a few of my favorite classes for 2nd Ed: the loss of the Assassin was a major blow to my Forgotten Realms, and the integration of Illusionists into the Wizard class was also hard to swallow when you have a fella that started his career as an illusionist and then became a wizard...his spells were cut in half.
Later "editions" made it even worse for me: elves couldn't cast in Plate armor any longer...so what good was it to be a Fighter/Wizard any longer eh?
For me, though I can play any edition of the rules, 1st Edition is still nearest and dearest to my heart. I was introduced to it LONG before 2nd Edition came out...and it has now been a long road home; but I am here. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 19:11:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I never cared for 2nd Edition all that much over 1st Edition...the only thing I didn't like about 2nd at all were the changes to the Dragons.
With 1st Edition, a party could face a dragon relatively early in their adventuring careers; but the changes to dragons made them become far to powerful for a low level party.
I liked Dragons the way they were in the Realms in 1st Edition: extremely deadly; but capable of being overcome by a competent wizard.
I also didn't like that they took out a few of my favorite classes for 2nd Ed: the loss of the Assassin was a major blow to my Forgotten Realms, and the integration of Illusionists into the Wizard class was also hard to swallow when you have a fella that started his career as an illusionist and then became a wizard...his spells were cut in half.
Later "editions" made it even worse for me: elves couldn't cast in Plate armor any longer...so what good was it to be a Fighter/Wizard any longer eh?
For me, though I can play any edition of the rules, 1st Edition is still nearest and dearest to my heart. I was introduced to it LONG before 2nd Edition came out...and it has now been a long road home; but I am here.
I agree Dalor. I was playing 1st ed for I guess 6 years before 2nd edition came out. However though I play 3rd edition now, 2nd edition is my 'home' because I really had my DM ability honed in that era.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 22:15:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I never cared for 2nd Edition all that much over 1st Edition...the only thing I didn't like about 2nd at all were the changes to the Dragons.
With 1st Edition, a party could face a dragon relatively early in their adventuring careers; but the changes to dragons made them become far to powerful for a low level party.
I liked Dragons the way they were in the Realms in 1st Edition: extremely deadly; but capable of being overcome by a competent wizard.
I also didn't like that they took out a few of my favorite classes for 2nd Ed: the loss of the Assassin was a major blow to my Forgotten Realms, and the integration of Illusionists into the Wizard class was also hard to swallow when you have a fella that started his career as an illusionist and then became a wizard...his spells were cut in half.
Later "editions" made it even worse for me: elves couldn't cast in Plate armor any longer...so what good was it to be a Fighter/Wizard any longer eh?
For me, though I can play any edition of the rules, 1st Edition is still nearest and dearest to my heart. I was introduced to it LONG before 2nd Edition came out...and it has now been a long road home; but I am here.
I agree Dalor. I was playing 1st ed for I guess 6 years before 2nd edition came out. However though I play 3rd edition now, 2nd edition is my 'home' because I really had my DM ability honed in that era.
I will say one thing. A 1st edition 2nd edition hybrid is very hard to beat IMHO. It just screams PLAY ME!
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Dreyrugrulfr
Acolyte
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 22:59:36
|
| Jorkens, thanks for mentioning Dragonsfoot forums. I've become greatly intrigued by some of the 1st edition material, and I think I might look into integrating some of it into my current 2E game at some point :) |
No man is so good as to be free from all evil, nor so bad as to be worth nothing. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 23:51:06
|
I "grew up" in 2E, but at one point, I had every single hard cover for both 1E and 2E (until they were all lost in the fire). Though 2E is no longer my chosen ruleset, it will always be remembered with great fondness.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 00:31:26
|
To me, there is nothing better than the simplicity of 1st Edition.
I know, "charts this and charts that..." but the classes were very simple and easy...
The essence of 1st Edition seemed to always be about Storytelling the most...and any "rules" were in fact only there if you and your group decided you needed them. Monster stats, and even character levels, were only there to model "what might be" and the game was centered around CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT...I use all caps there for a reason: character development to me is about character depth, story and feeling; and not at all about statistics or crunch of any kind.
When I began playing AD&D it was about the character...just like a movie role.
I'm trying to get back to that now; because I've come to realize that so many folks now ask "how did that character do that? Their stats say they can't..." or "The rules of the game don't allow for that..."
To me, it doesn't matter if the rules say it can be done...it is about story. That is why Drizzt to me is perfectly fine "defying the rules" because he is a story character...not really a game character.
I warn my gamers fully that to expect something to be as it is written in a book you have is to be wholly disappointed when you find out differently.
"Well, what about guidelines! A player in a game should expect some sort of normalcy" to which I simply say: horse-pucky.
When you first encounter something in a game, it should be that way after...but don't expect to be able to read a rule book and know that a Beholder can do so and so, while a dragon at most can only have X amount of Hit Points. How boring, how predictable...I'm sorry there are no cheat codes to story my friends.
So to me, "Gaming" is now more about weaving a good story and enjoying a nice evening with friends munching snacks, laughing a bit, sitting on the edge of our seats a bit, and leaving with the feeling of wanting to be there next week too. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 01:32:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I "grew up" in 2E, but at one point, I had every single hard cover for both 1E and 2E (until they were all lost in the fire). Though 2E is no longer my chosen ruleset, it will always be remembered with great fondness.
I'm old enough to remember working with 1e rules, but it was only when 2e came around, that I started really taking interest in what my PCs could do in terms of stats, abilities, spells, and the like.
In fact, 2e forms the basis of my own homebrew/hodge-podge rules-set that incorporates bits and pieces from other D&D editions, and third-party systems as well. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 12:09:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
To me, there is nothing better than the simplicity of 1st Edition.
I have some pretty warm feelings for the D&D game too (for me that's the Mentzer and Cyclopaedia editions). In many ways the looseness of the system and the archetype structures fit even better there. |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 12:27:55
|
Ah, the heady days of 1st Edition... I'll be the first to admit that I like tinkering with stats and classes and come up with "killer kombos", but it is very true that the (relatively) rules-light approach of 1E (and OD&D before and in parallel with that) made for some more freewheeling development. Same thing in OD&D and 2E. I play a hybrid based mostly on 2E these days, but still... reminiscence of the simpler days. Plus, it also reduced the conscientious objection against killing off player characters, as you could get a new one up and running in under ten minutes ;
In 3E, I get the impression (only an impression - I am ready to be corrected) that if a player says, "I'd like my fighter to a buccaneer-type character", someone will say "OK, where's the prestige class for that?" |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 20:18:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
To me, there is nothing better than the simplicity of 1st Edition.
I have some pretty warm feelings for the D&D game too (for me that's the Mentzer and Cyclopaedia editions). In many ways the looseness of the system and the archetype structures fit even better there.
Nothing is as freeing as flying by the seat of your pants gaming!
So I will say I am +1 with what Jorkens ha said.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 03:55:16
|
Here is mine that just started. What do you think?
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=44334
Thank you for looking.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 04:18:24
|
Looks fun! I wondered, like the other poster in your forum, how she would handle the tougher fights.
Easily enough: Zhentil Keep is full of fodder...and she has not only a Charm Person spell, but looks too!
Easy enough to find an even willing sellsword to act as a meat shield! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 14:17:49
|
Dalor Darden thanks for your kind words. I think it just depends on just what she wants to do and just where she wants to go. And thanks for taking the time to go look.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2011 : 06:14:52
|
| ((Bump)) |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2015 : 23:07:27
|
Also the Grey Box with B/X rules with the B/X Companion or BECM would rock too!
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2015 : 03:56:50
|
I really like the simplicity of BECMI for sure!
I'm just stuck in AD&D... |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2015 : 03:19:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I really like the simplicity of BECMI for sure!
I'm just stuck in AD&D...
Nothing wrong with that.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2017 : 11:38:34
|
| So I got copies of AD&D 1e PHB, DMG, and the Monster Manual and Im just completely baffled. I got, to a point, character creation down but every thing tied to combat, Initiative, attack matrices is all very confusing. Is there a To-Hit system? I see the table for weapons and such with the AC and attack rolls but what does that mean? |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2017 : 22:14:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So I got copies of AD&D 1e PHB, DMG, and the Monster Manual and Im just completely baffled. I got, to a point, character creation down but every thing tied to combat, Initiative, attack matrices is all very confusing. Is there a To-Hit system? I see the table for weapons and such with the AC and attack rolls but what does that mean?
Ah, the attack tables. The attack matrix is bascially the "To hit" system. The attack matrix will indicate which value you need on the d20 roll to hit a particular AC. This corresponds pretty much exactly to 2nd Edition's THAC0. Apply bonuses and maluses for strength, magical bonuses, etc.
The Weapons tables - everyone's favourite bit in AD&D 1st edition. Right - the weapons tables. Gygax & Co developed a detailed matrix of how good particular weapons were versus particular types of armor. The +x / -y of a weapon versus a particular type of armor is the bonus or malus of that weapon. Apply to the D20 roll. Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy (except it's not,really )
AD&D's 2nd Edition's THAC0 approach simplified the combat system soooooo much. You can use the THAC0 system, gleefully ignore the weapons tables, and be done with it (unless you feel like it). |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2017 : 22:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So I got copies of AD&D 1e PHB, DMG, and the Monster Manual and Im just completely baffled. I got, to a point, character creation down but every thing tied to combat, Initiative, attack matrices is all very confusing. Is there a To-Hit system? I see the table for weapons and such with the AC and attack rolls but what does that mean?
Ah, the attack tables. The attack matrix is bascially the "To hit" system. The attack matrix will indicate which value you need on the d20 roll to hit a particular AC. This corresponds pretty much exactly to 2nd Edition's THAC0. Apply bonuses and maluses for strength, magical bonuses, etc.
The Weapons tables - everyone's favourite bit in AD&D 1st edition. Right - the weapons tables. Gygax & Co developed a detailed matrix of how good particular weapons were versus particular types of armor. The +x / -y of a weapon versus a particular type of armor is the bonus or malus of that weapon. Apply to the D20 roll. Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy (except it's not,really )
AD&D's 2nd Edition's THAC0 approach simplified the combat system soooooo much. You can use the THAC0 system, gleefully ignore the weapons tables, and be done with it (unless you feel like it).
So level of character really doesn't affect this table? I rolled up a Paladin (S 15, I 12, W 13, D 12, C 13, Ch 17) but a Str 15 doesn't really do anything besides affect lifitng, carrying, etc.?
Do stats go up at all like d20 systems or higher level effect a better chance of hitting enemies?
Edit: bear with me, i played 2e over 15 years ago a few times and it wasn't exactly a pleasant experience. My D&D exposure has been pretty exclusive to WotC's 3.X, 4e, and 5e so even THAC0 is still alien. If I remember correctly it was basically 3e's Base Attack Bonus system with a (subtract 20) from your roll added in. |
Edited by - Diffan on 11 Nov 2017 22:42:57 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 00:21:33
|
THAC0 and the 1E-2E Armor Class system combined to be a really weird mechanic. If they'd started with AC0 as the worst, instead of being right in the middle, the mechanic would have been a lot easier.
I recall that there was some trick to making THAC0 easier, rather than remembering to add or subtract the AC -- but by the time I heard of that trick, 3E had made it moot. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 01:51:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
THAC0 and the 1E-2E Armor Class system combined to be a really weird mechanic. If they'd started with AC0 as the worst, instead of being right in the middle, the mechanic would have been a lot easier.
I recall that there was some trick to making THAC0 easier, rather than remembering to add or subtract the AC -- but by the time I heard of that trick, 3E had made it moot.
Yea, it's certainly....different if I must say. What confuses me is the notion that level doesn't change you're to-hit chance. An 8th level Fighter is just as capable to hit an AC 3 Monster as a 1st level Fighter but will most likely have a magic weapon to make the chance better..I guess? The biggest difference that I've seen is that higher level characters simply get more attacks per round plus (and this is what I've found so amazing about 1e Fighters) their ability to make any number of attacks equal to their level against monsters with less than d8 hit die  . Wow what a wasted opportunity they had in 3E to make Fighters actually pretty awesome.
EDIT: As a side question, did 2E AD&D retain the Fighter's ability to make any number of attacks = fighter level vs. low Hit Die creatures or was that specifically a 1e thing? |
Edited by - Diffan on 12 Nov 2017 02:07:38 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 02:57:57
|
| I don't know about 1E, but THAC0 did change as characters leveled up in 2E, making it easier to make attacks. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 03:28:47
|
Thac0 also changed in 1e, though 1e used a to hit chart by class. As you went up in level your chance to hit got better every couple of levels. Thac0 was just a shorthand 2e used that gave you one number, your score required to hit an armor class of 0, and then you could extrapolate from there. 1e laid the whole chart out for what AC different rolls would hit.
For a specific example, looking in the DMG page 74, a first level fighter hits an armor class of 3 on a 17, or an armor class of 0 on a 20. An 8th level fighter hits an armor class of 3 on an 11, thac0 of 14. How you use the chart is you roll your d20, add any strength to hit adjustments, magical swords, specialization bonuses, etc and get a final number, which the chart tells you hits a certain armor class.
Using thac0 the easiest way in my opinion is to subtract the armor class of the opponent from your thac0 for a target number. It's also possible to just roll and compare the difference between your rolled score and your thac0 to find what AC you hit and announce that. If you have a thac0 of 20 and you roll a 15 you are 5 worse, so you hit an AC of 5.
Also the fighter attacks allow them to make bonus attacks against monsters of less than 1 hit die. These would be things like goblins and kobolds, ordinary men like generic bandits and pirates, and other less that 1 hit die threats, but not orcs or bugbears or larger threats. Combined with their fairly good saving throws and best armor/weapons fighters are sturdy in 1e, relatively, especially early on. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 07:05:10
|
I recall a big timesaver was to write out a little table on each character sheet which paired all the attack rolls (1 through 20) with the actual Armor Classes they'd hit. For each particular weapon type the character was likely to use, lol. So the player says "I attack with my longsword, I rolled 14, hits AC-2 vs plate or AC0 vs chain or AC3 vs leather, etc". Instead of player says "I attack with my longsword, I rolled a 14 ... wait while I consult four tables in three books to determine which AC I hit". High Str scores do add a bonus to melee attacks, as high Dex scores add a bonus to missile attacks.
If you think the THAC0 mechanics are bad then just wait until the psionics come into play, lol. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 16:20:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
If you think the THAC0 mechanics are bad then just wait until the psionics come into play, lol.
I'm a huge fan of psionics, but they've been poorly integrated into D&D - any edition. Dark Sun is the one exception, because the setting was built from the ground up with psionics in mind.
As much as I like psionics, I've pretty much concluded that they don't belong in D&D. I'm not saying they don't belong in fantasy RPGs -- they just don't belong in a system that was designed around having a sneaky person, a tank, a buffer/healer, and a magical artillery person. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 12 Nov 2017 16:21:58 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
1st Edition AD&D Forgotten Realms Game
