I want AD&D 2nd Edition with cleaned up math

[Jay R]

I could be wrong, but, I think that the idea behind sometimes roll high, sometimes roll low was to iron out any flaws in the dice being used; whether the flaws were deliberate or otherwise. This makes perfect sense from a statistical point of view.

I always like the fact that some rolls were low and some were high, because it sometimes helped disguise the purpose of the roll.

If somebody is casting a Phantasmal Force of archers in the bushes, then you see the archers on a low roll (failed the saving throw) and don't see them on a high roll (made your saving throw).

If there's an actual group of archers in the bushes, then you see the archers on a low roll (made your perception roll) and don't see them on a high roll (failed your perception roll).

So in either case,
DM: Roll a d20.
Player: I got a 4.
DM: You see archers in the bushes.

And the fact that she rolled low doesn't tell her whether they are real or an illusion.

(I have one player who wants to know if he should roll high or low. I often won't tell him, because it gives away too much information.)

[hamlet]

(I have one player who wants to know if he should roll high or low. I often won't tell him, because it gives away too much information.)

I always found players asking that.

My stock reply is "Yes."

Right there on the shelf with "You check for traps and you find none," "seems perfectly safe to you," and "you have no idea."

Players can sometimes quiver with indecision and it makes me giggle when they do.

[Kaervaslol]

If we are discussing using the XP tables as a balance factor

1. That would be a terrible assumption considering that is the weakest way to play and the cleric can do almost anything with its huge list of spells.

2. Why are you using spells that involve saves as clerics have large numbers of self and party buffs that are so much better? Or use spells with no saves.

The reality is that balance was haphazard back then and the rumor is that the cleric was made so powerful to convince players to play it. Clerics are more powerful than warriors at the very high levels in general at the same level so allowing them to be higher in level just seems wonky.

I disagree.

1. Cleric doesn't get to do almost anything with it's large list of spells. In fact, the capabilities of the cleric are quite focused on support and undead specialist.

Sure, he can detect traps. So can the dwarf and the thief, and that's a spell slot wasted. The rest of the spells are either support or healing, with some offensive spells thrown into the mix that are not that good in comparison to the wizard

2. Clerics are supposed to be good party buffers, thats the role they play. Buffing oneself is pointless, because this is not 3.5. Most buffs don't stack or don't help you exceed a 18 in STR. Even after that, you are only throwing one attack per round against the fighter's 3.

I have to laugh at the idea that a cleric is more powerful than a fighter at higher levels, because I have played a cleric in a party were fighters are involved and we complemented each other perfectly. The fighter did and took damage and I buffed, dispelled bad magic and healed.

If I were to go toe to toe against the fighter I would be minced meat in the first round. Greath THAC0, multiple attacks, insane damage bonus and better initiative meant that no matter what I did with an average of 40hp I would end up dead in the first round.

[MeeposFire]

I disagree.

1. Cleric doesn't get to do almost anything with it's large list of spells. In fact, the capabilities of the cleric are quite focused on support and undead specialist.

Sure, he can detect traps. So can the dwarf and the thief, and that's a spell slot wasted. The rest of the spells are either support or healing, with some offensive spells thrown into the mix that are not that good in comparison to the wizard

2. Clerics are supposed to be good party buffers, thats the role they play. Buffing oneself is pointless, because this is not 3.5. Most buffs don't stack or don't help you exceed a 18 in STR. Even after that, you are only throwing one attack per round against the fighter's 3.

I have to laugh at the idea that a cleric is more powerful than a fighter at higher levels, because I have played a cleric in a party were fighters are involved and we complemented each other perfectly. The fighter did and took damage and I buffed, dispelled bad magic and healed.

If I were to go toe to toe against the fighter I would be minced meat in the first round. Greath THAC0, multiple attacks, insane damage bonus and better initiative meant that no matter what I did with an average of 40hp I would end up dead in the first round.

I disagree

1. Clerics can do a lot more than what you give them credit for especially with all the books that came out over time. Secondly we are not comparing him to a wizard as wizards take more XP at high levels (though less at lower levels but that DOES make sense).

2. What spells are you using many do allow you to go over 18 str and the stacking bonuses do not exist like they do in 3e so you can stack things that would never stack in 3e. In fact it was stated in the anniversary book that the concept typed bonuses was to stop all the stacking that 2e magic allowed.

3. This is not a discussion about whether a fighter can compliment a cleric (of course they can) but whether a cleric is more powerful at high levels which is the case overall. The difference is nowhere near as great as it was in 3e (ditto for the wizard by the way) but they still exist to a degree. By the way just to be clear I do not believe that AD&D is like 3e where warriors are mostly superfluous. You want warriors in the party (I like having two myself) and they are very useful. Clerics serve a mostly different role but in terms of full on power a cleric can bring more to the table overall even though they will not be as capable in melee as a warrior (which is the more specialized role).

4. You are showing a lack of understanding of the problem as a cleric does not need to stand toe to toe with a fighter. Clerics have options and using the option that favors warriors over all others is a bad plan. Warriors do not have many options but the cleric can thanks to their spells.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

I took my 2e books, and made hand written notes alongside all of the tables and charts, and 'cleaned up the math". it took awhile, but it was worth it.

[Ozreth]

Again, as somebody else stated:

Minus the 2e AC from 20 and you've now got Ascending AC.
Minus the THAC0 from 20 and you've now got that monster/PC's to hit bonus.

Thats all really.

As for negative modifiers and rolling under for things, literally just flip it all.

[GreyMantle]

Again, as somebody else stated:

Minus the 2e AC from 20 and you've now got Ascending AC.
Minus the THAC0 from 20 and you've now got that monster/PC's to hit bonus.

Thats all really.

As for negative modifiers and rolling under for things, literally just flip it all.

That is still definitionally worse than ascending AC. The human mind is better at addition than it is at subtraction. It's noticeably more intuitive to have a better AC be higher.

As such, THAC0+descending AC is definitionally worse than d20's ascending AC/to-hit. As Ozreth showed, THAC0 involves an extra operation, which takes time to carry out.

Now, you can become good at using and thinking in THAC and minimize the extra resolution time required. But it's still a more unwieldy way of handling AC and attack bonuses.

An analogy I like is QWERTY vs. DVORAK keyboards. DVORAK is faster and better, but QWERTY is still a viable system if you already know it.

Eh? What does that mean?

2E, like every edition of D&D, has some serious design errors. And since M&M is trying to emulate 2E, it's carrying over a lot of legacy rules that are just not very good. 3d6 ability score generation, the general uselessness of Charisma, how the game doesn't really try to make classes equally useful, etc.

I am willing to hear arguments that 3E overformalized and demystified D&D. I think that there are parts of 2E that should not necessarily have been abandoned by WotC in 3E. But a lot of M&M is grognards letting their personal experiences cloud any desire to make a good RPG.

[Chambers]

Is there something like that? Basically the 2nd Edition rules, but with everything converted to be "roll equal or higher". Same classes, same chances, but an easier time to calculate if an attack or save is a success or not.

There's a few OSR games that you might want to look at. Swords and Wizardry is a well-known game. There's also Spellcraft and Swordplay, and a review you can read as it's not free like S&W.

Original Edition Delta is another set of house rules compiled and released, and the basic pdf is free.

Lastly, there's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition by Chris Perkins which includes the PHB and a combined DMG/Unearthed Arcana.

[GreyMantle]

Lastly, there's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition by Chris Perkins which includes the PHB and a combined DMG/Unearthed Arcana.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not use AD&D 3E. It's almost unfathomably bad. It contains almost every bad design feature of AD&D in general, while retaining very little of anything you'd want to play.

So, please, don't try to use it. For the children.


Also, I should note that Swords & Wizardry is an OD&D clone, if I recall correctly. Which makes it very different from 2E.

[Chambers]

Heh. I'll admit that I've only glanced at AD&D3, so I really can't vouch for it. Seemed worth mentioning though.

[Matthew]

That is still definitionally worse than ascending AC. The human mind is better at addition than it is at subtraction. It's noticeably more intuitive to have a better AC be higher.

As such, THAC0+descending AC is definitionally worse than d20's ascending AC/to-hit. As Ozreth showed, THAC0 involves an extra operation, which takes time to carry out.

Now, you can become good at using and thinking in THAC and minimize the extra resolution time required. But it's still a more unwieldy way of handling AC and attack bonuses.

An analogy I like is QWERTY vs. DVORAK keyboards. DVORAK is faster and better, but QWERTY is still a viable system if you already know it.

I have seen this argument made and debunked so many times it is become something of an internet meme. There are various ways of using THAC0, if you are using it so that there is an extra operation involved then you are doing it wrong. Of course, that is not to say there are problems with THAC0, it is just that they do not revolve around the direction that armour class moves.

[MeeposFire]

I have seen this argument made and debunked so many times it is become something of an internet meme. There are various ways of using THAC0, if you are using it so that there is an extra operation involved then you are doing it wrong. Of course, that is not to say there are problems with THAC0, it is just that they do not revolve around the direction that armour class moves.

Agreed I had no problems with THAC0 and I had no extra operations. I just did it in my head with a one step operation. Sadly my aunt and uncle did not so I often did it for them.

Balance in 2e isn't perfect (nor is it in any game) but it is still better overall than than some other versions of D&D...

[hamlet]

2E, like every edition of D&D, has some serious design errors. And since M&M is trying to emulate 2E, it's carrying over a lot of legacy rules that are just not very good. 3d6 ability score generation, the general uselessness of Charisma, how the game doesn't really try to make classes equally useful, etc.

I am willing to hear arguments that 3E overformalized and demystified D&D. I think that there are parts of 2E that should not necessarily have been abandoned by WotC in 3E. But a lot of M&M is grognards letting their personal experiences cloud any desire to make a good RPG.

I think you've missed the purpose of the M&M project. It's a retro-clone designed to emulate 2nd edition D&D, hence it will bear a striking resemblance to that system, perceived warts and all. It wasn't intended to improve or fix it, just imitate it, really.

[GreyMantle]

I have seen this argument made and debunked so many times it is become something of an internet meme. There are various ways of using THAC0, if you are using it so that there is an extra operation involved then you are doing it wrong. Of course, that is not to say there are problems with THAC0, it is just that they do not revolve around the direction that armour class moves.

I don't think that's true. A great number of THAC0's problem can be derived from descending AC.

Consider the example of enchanted armor. Let's say you have some chainmail. That gives you an AC of 5, right? And that's cool. Mildly unintuitive, but nothing wretched. But if your chainmail is actually +1 chainmail, then your AC becomes... 4???? Because having +1 armor gives you -1 AC? That's, like, a srs problem.

(However, if you do have a way of doing THAC0 that has the same number of operations as d20 does, please share it. I'm honestly curious.)



Re: Hamlet.

I get that that is the what the M&M designers are trying to do. But what I'm saying is intentionally including bad design decisions into your RPG is lazy at best, and stupid at worst. That's like saying that, if you were designing a 3E retroclone, you were going to deliberately include feat taxes, number inflation, and character design that totally shafts organic characters.

If you want a game that plays like 2E without improving the experience, then play 2E. If you're taking the time to write a new game, you should at least try to fix any problems your original design had.

[hamlet]

I get that that is the what the M&M designers are trying to do. But what I'm saying is intentionally including bad design decisions into your RPG is lazy at best, and stupid at worst. That's like saying that, if you were designing a 3E retroclone, you were going to deliberately include feat taxes, number inflation, and character design that totally shafts organic characters.

If you want a game that plays like 2E without improving the experience, then play 2E. If you're taking the time to write a new game, you should at least try to fix any problems your original design had.

No.

If you create a clone of an older edition and "fix" things you dont' like, it stops being a clone and starts being your own pet system. You've defeated your own purpose.

And by the way, THAC0 was not "intentional bad design" nor is it even bad design. Nor is descending AC. You simply don't like it. Opinion is different from fact.

[erikun]

I don't think that's true. A great number of THAC0's problem can be derived from descending AC.

Consider the example of enchanted armor. Let's say you have some chainmail. That gives you an AC of 5, right? And that's cool. Mildly unintuitive, but nothing wretched. But if your chainmail is actually +1 chainmail, then your AC becomes... 4???? Because having +1 armor gives you -1 AC? That's, like, a srs problem.

It is a -1 penality to hit a person in +1 armor. That is, it is harder to hit someone in magically superior armor.

The worst part about AD&D's AC is how poorly it was explained, not how it worked. Heck, the exact opposite point you've made came up when D&D3 came out with its positive-scaling AC values. "What do you mean a bonus makes it harder to hit something? It's not a `bonus` then!"

[Chronos]

Quoth nedz:

I could be wrong, but, I think that the idea behind sometimes roll high, sometimes roll low was to iron out any flaws in the dice being used; whether the flaws were deliberate or otherwise. This makes perfect sense from a statistical point of view.

Y'know, there might be something to that. My first d20 was horribly biased: It almost never rolls 20s (and yes, I do have the actual statistics to back that up). I was so excited the first (and only) time I ever saw it come up natural 20 in an actual game situation... Until I realized that what I was rolling was a nonweapon proficiency check.

Of course, the real solution to that problem is high-quality dice.

[GreyMantle]

It is a -1 penality to hit a person in +1 armor. That is, it is harder to hit someone in magically superior armor.

So we have a positive number actually being a negative number. That's what we call bad design.

Consider: 3E. One character is attacking another character. Char A adds up all of his specific boni to his AC. This includes his armor, his Dex, his enhancement bonus... Char B adds up all of her specific boni to her to-hit. This includes her BAB, Str modifier, etc... Notice that each character's bonuses consist of things the player has written down on their character sheet. So you don't actually have to recalculate your AC and to-hit each time you attack based on who your opponent is. (Barring situational modifiers, obvz.)

Using THAC0, we have the same process. But then the MC's all like, "Yo, Player B. Char A is wearing magical armor. Situationally modify your result." You're splitting up your operations for no gain.

The worst part about AD&D's AC is how poorly it was explained, not how it worked. Heck, the exact opposite point you've made came up when D&D3 came out with its positive-scaling AC values. "What do you mean a bonus makes it harder to hit something? It's not a `bonus` then!"

That's just the difficulty of overcoming habits. To use my example from before, QWERTY is a bad keyboard layout. But people become very adept at and used to using it. Even though DVORAK is a much better layout, it's still difficult to switch over.

[olthar]

That's just the difficulty of overcoming habits. To use my example from before, QWERTY is a bad keyboard layout. But people become very adept at and used to using it. Even though DVORAK is a much better layout, it's still difficult to switch over.

Except that was also an internet myth.

The statement about charisma being a useless stat is true inasmuch as people don't use followers. In 2e "high" level characters are supposed to begin to attract followers in much the same way that people who take leadership are supposed to in 3.5. The loyalty and ability of these followers is directly related to the person's charisma stat. This makes charisma a potentially extremely important stat because it roughly describes the size of your army after a while.

Of course, in my experience most people don't use those because they prefer to play their character and not a bunch of not-quite-pc followers, which does make charisma useless.

[Grac]

So we have a positive number actually being a negative number. That's what we call bad design.

That may be bad design, but it is entirely irrelevant. A +1 suit of armor doesn't increase or decrease its AC, it increases the opponents 'to hit' target. This may look the same as increasing AC, and the objection that I've quoted below means that it is easier to just treat it as an inverted AC mod: it is a modifier to the attacker's THAC0/to hit target. So your complaint below is valid, but the idea above is wrong.

Using THAC0, we have the same process. But then the MC's all like, "Yo, Player B. Char A is wearing magical armor. Situationally modify your result." You're splitting up your operations for no gain.

[nedz]

I disagree

1. Clerics can do a lot more than what you give them credit for especially with all the books that came out over time. Secondly we are not comparing him to a wizard as wizards take more XP at high levels (though less at lower levels but that DOES make sense).

2. What spells are you using many do allow you to go over 18 str and the stacking bonuses do not exist like they do in 3e so you can stack things that would never stack in 3e. In fact it was stated in the anniversary book that the concept typed bonuses was to stop all the stacking that 2e magic allowed.

3. This is not a discussion about whether a fighter can compliment a cleric (of course they can) but whether a cleric is more powerful at high levels which is the case overall. The difference is nowhere near as great as it was in 3e (ditto for the wizard by the way) but they still exist to a degree. By the way just to be clear I do not believe that AD&D is like 3e where warriors are mostly superfluous. You want warriors in the party (I like having two myself) and they are very useful. Clerics serve a mostly different role but in terms of full on power a cleric can bring more to the table overall even though they will not be as capable in melee as a warrior (which is the more specialized role).

4. You are showing a lack of understanding of the problem as a cleric does not need to stand toe to toe with a fighter. Clerics have options and using the option that favors warriors over all others is a bad plan. Warriors do not have many options but the cleric can thanks to their spells.

I agree, properly played Cleric was the most powerful class in 2E. Wizards could be very powerful indeed; but the results were often not as planned, and they could be countered by any other class really. Clerics were highly resilient and had options.

Quoth nedz:
Y'know, there might be something to that. My first d20 was horribly biased: It almost never rolls 20s (and yes, I do have the actual statistics to back that up). I was so excited the first (and only) time I ever saw it come up natural 20 in an actual game situation... Until I realized that what I was rolling was a nonweapon proficiency check.

Of course, the real solution to that problem is high-quality dice.

Well Jay_R makes some good points too, but I think they wanted to disuade people from using loaded dice.

I'm not going to wade into the THAC0 arguement other than to say that it could be hard to explain to new players.

[erikun]

So we have a positive number actually being a negative number. That's what we call bad design.

Bad description or labeling, perhaps, but not bad design.

The problem is that it's a roll to hit. It's not a roll to dodge or to armor. You are modifying the results of a roll to hit a target, and so for a superior armor that would make it less likely to hit, it makes sense to apply a penality to hit a target in armor.

Saying that a 'positive number being negative' is bad design is like calling AC bad design because it is named 'Armor Class' but doesn't have anything to do with the character classes.

Consider: 3E. One character is attacking another character. Char A adds up all of his specific boni to his AC. This includes his armor, his Dex, his enhancement bonus... Char B adds up all of her specific boni to her to-hit. This includes her BAB, Str modifier, etc... Notice that each character's bonuses consist of things the player has written down on their character sheet. So you don't actually have to recalculate your AC and to-hit each time you attack based on who your opponent is. (Barring situational modifiers, obvz.)

Using THAC0, we have the same process. But then the MC's all like, "Yo, Player B. Char A is wearing magical armor. Situationally modify your result." You're splitting up your operations for no gain.

Well, my first note is that if Char A is suddenly wearing magical armor, it would situationally modify the results in both systems. Either Char A needs to recalculate his AC in 3E, or Char A needs to... recalculate his AC in AD&D.

My second note is that, unlike with 3E, there isn't going to be a confusion about what value moves in which direction. A bonus to armor will be a -1 penality (-5%, if you prefer) to hit the target. This would be a -1 to hit. This would also be... a -1 to AC. This is contrary to 3E, where a -1 to hit would be a +1 to AC, and thus you'd not only need to know which stat was changed but which direction it was changed in; you've basically doubled the amount you need to keep track of.

This doesn't matter much when it is something rather obvious, such as armor gaining a +1 bonus suddenly. It matters a bit more when we're talking about environmental factors that would apply at the same time. Consider the case of a thick fog impairing visibility: it would likely be a -2 to hit for 3E. Wading through a muddy swamp might slow people down, giving a -3 to AC. 3E asks everyone to remember both factors, both granting a penality to hit and to AC, and remember which is which and factor it in each time. AD&D just combines both for an easier modifier: -2 to hit from the fog, +3 to hit from the mud, for a total +1 to hit for everybody.


And that is the benefit of the AD&D system. You are conveying the same amount of information, with the same number of modifiers to the same degree, using less modifiers. That isn't bad design - by contrast, that is elegance. THAC0 certainly had its problems, but the poor design you accuse it of wasn't one of them.

[Lord Torath]

Originally Posted by GreyMantle View Post
That's just the difficulty of overcoming habits. To use my example from before, QWERTY is a bad keyboard layout. But people become very adept at and used to using it. Even though DVORAK is a much better layout, it's still difficult to switch over.

Except that was also an internet myth.

I'm not quite sure what you're calling an internet myth. That the Dvorak keyboard is better than the Qwerty? That's no myth, and that's not what that article talks about at all.
The DVORAK keyboard was laid out for ease of use. It has the most-used keys on home row, with the least-used keys being hit with the weakest fingers (pinkies).
The "QWERTY" keyboard was laid out to prevent commonly-used keys from binding up in a striker typewriter. It placed commonly used letter far apart, so that when their strikers hit the ink tape, they were less likely to tangle themselves up.
The reason "Qwerty" won the type off, is because its developer had those demonstrating it practice with it for some time before the contest. Those using the Dvorak keyboard were unfamiliar with typewriters at all. With no practice, they just couldn't compete with the Qwerty users.

What exactly this has to do with 2nd Edition AD&D, I'm not really certain.

THAC0 is really just a mathematical formula to describe the "to hit" tables used in AD&D and BECMI (more or less). In any system, a +1 bonus can be either added or subtracted to achieve the desired result. You can add it to your die roll, or subtract it from the target number. Either way, it's just a different way of looking at things. Neither system is better or worse than the other.

[GreyMantle]

Except that was also an internet myth.

I didn't read that link because it wanted me to fill out a survey, but, if your claims are true, then I guess I need to find a new clever example. Dammit.

That may be bad design, but it is entirely irrelevant. A +1 suit of armor doesn't increase or decrease its AC, it increases the opponents 'to hit' target. This may look the same as increasing AC, and the objection that I've quoted below means that it is easier to just treat it as an inverted AC mod: it is a modifier to the attacker's THAC0/to hit target. So your complaint below is valid, but the idea above is wrong.

Then it is extremely unintuitive to have your armor directly modify your opponent's to-hit roll instead of your AC directly. That is unnecessary complexity, which is bad design.

Well, my first note is that if Char A is suddenly wearing magical armor, it would situationally modify the results in both systems. Either Char A needs to recalculate his AC in 3E, or Char A needs to... recalculate his AC in AD&D.

No. That is false. If you are wearing magical armor in d20, you use it for calculating your AC, and then it stays the same, no matter who is attacking you.

If you are attacking two different people, one of whom is wearing +1 chainmail and the other is wearing +2 chainmail, you use the same attack bonus for both targets. And their ACs would be the same even if someone else were attacking them. There is no recalculation.

If you were attacking those two different people with THAC0, you'd have to recalculate your to-hit each time you switched targets. That is bad design.

My second note is that, unlike with 3E, there isn't going to be a confusion about what value moves in which direction. A bonus to armor will be a -1 penality (-5%, if you prefer) to hit the target.

Once again, we have an instance of a positive bonus directly corresponding to what is mechanically a penalty. Do you not realize how unintuitive that is?

This would be a -1 to hit. This would also be... a -1 to AC. This is contrary to 3E, where a -1 to hit would be a +1 to AC, and thus you'd not only need to know which stat was changed but which direction it was changed in; you've basically doubled the amount you need to keep track of.

In 3E, taking -1 to hit means that you subtract 1 from your attack roll. This subtraction is entirely independent of whatever your opponent's AC is. Because it affects your attack bonus.

Likewise, getting +1 to AC means that you increase your AC by one. Regardless of whoever attacks you. The two stats are calculated independently of each other so that you don't have to recalculate your attack bonus each time you switch targets. It's like how the Spell Focus feat adds to your spell's DC's, because it means that you are making your spells more hardcore. Lightning Reflexes adds to your Reflex score because you are becoming more agile.

This doesn't matter much when it is something rather obvious, such as armor gaining a +1 bonus suddenly. It matters a bit more when we're talking about environmental factors that would apply at the same time. Consider the case of a thick fog impairing visibility: it would likely be a -2 to hit for 3E. Wading through a muddy swamp might slow people down, giving a -3 to AC. 3E asks everyone to remember both factors, both granting a penality to hit and to AC, and remember which is which and factor it in each time. AD&D just combines both for an easier modifier: -2 to hit from the fog, +3 to hit from the mud, for a total +1 to hit for everybody.

{Scrubbed} The situation you describe is kind of a mess in 3E because of the reasons you describe, and it's kind of a mess in THAC0 because THAC0 is a bad system. 3E's segregation of attack and defense bonuses is intuitive when a given factor can clearly be seen as independently affecting your defense or independently affecting your offense. But fog and mud are more ambiguous.

[erikun]

In 3E, taking -1 to hit means that you subtract 1 from your attack roll. This subtraction is entirely independent of whatever your opponent's AC is. Because it affects your attack bonus.

Likewise, getting +1 to AC means that you increase your AC by one. Regardless of whoever attacks you. The two stats are calculated independently of each other so that you don't have to recalculate your attack bonus each time you switch targets.

These end up being the same thing. Exactly the same thing. Ignore the names that D&D3 gave the various modifiers; if we're looking at the mechanics, -1 to the roll modifier has the same result as +1 to the target number.

AD&D2 actually has a pretty simple formula for determining hits; it's just

Roll + bonuses + AC vs. THAC0

so it would be easy enough to just write down your attack bonus, add it and the target's AC to the roll, and check if it is equal to or higher than your character's THAC0.

Of course, the THAC0 system has its problems. For one, it isn't very transparent. It forces the DM to calculate the results for the players (or just give out the target's AC). AD&D seemed to love its opacity, finding it a positive quality rather than a detractor, and so considered this a plus. It isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't have the benefit that the D&D3 system has of allowing the character to add all their bonuses independently and present a total value for the DM to compare to the target's AC.

The other problem was that TSR was terrible at conveying this to people. The book actually recommended taking THAC0 and subtracting to-hit bonuses (meaning a positive bonus produced a lower THAC0), writing that down on the character sheet, then having the DM subtract the target's AC from the number before comparing it to the die roll. Sure, it worked, but it caused quite a bit of understandable confusion when people were trying to work out the math at the table. (Especially true when AC/to-hit values suddenly changed.)

[hamlet]

EDIT: Deleting double post due to forum strangeness.

[hamlet]

The other problem was that TSR was terrible at conveying this to people. The book actually recommended taking THAC0 and subtracting to-hit bonuses (meaning a positive bonus produced a lower THAC0), writing that down on the character sheet, then having the DM subtract the target's AC from the number before comparing it to the die roll. Sure, it worked, but it caused quite a bit of understandable confusion when people were trying to work out the math at the table. (Especially true when AC/to-hit values suddenly changed.)

And that, in a nutshell, was the problem.

THAC0 was an elegant system. Literally, DM adds what player rolled to target AC (thus an AC less than 0 subtracts from attack roll, very simple!) and compares to the target number THAC0 of the player. Equal to or greater than hits. Otherwise, miss.

The writers of 2nd edition at TSR either could not or would not explain it well, and the result is decades of people declaring it a horrible, unitutitive, objectively badly designed system and the spawn of the devil when, in fact, they're just ignorant.

Poor explanation of a mechanic and your own miscomprehension does not equate to objectively bad game design.

[Jay R]

Getting back to the topic, which was "I want AD&D 2nd Edition with cleaned up math"... (Yes, it really was. It wasn't keyboards at all. Go back and look.)

Like with every game I play, I have all necessary math worked out on my character sheet, which I produce in Excel. It currently calculates my 'to-hit" roll with every weapon I use, against every AC. I input xps, and it calculates level, "to-hit" rolls, saving throws, etc.

Cleaned-up math means doing a given calculation only once, and saving the result.

[Grac]

Then it is extremely unintuitive to have your armor directly modify your opponent's to-hit roll instead of your AC directly. That is unnecessary complexity, which is bad design.

It's just something that you're not used to. It is no different to, if we look at its war gaming roots, having an attacker suffer some kind of modifier when shooting through fog. In such a case, it is easier to have all the modifiers be on one side, so along with fog modifiers or night modifiers, go magic modifiers. It's really silly to go on this kind of crusade.

[Jay R]

Then it is extremely unintuitive to have your armor directly modify your opponent's to-hit roll instead of your AC directly. That is unnecessary complexity, which is bad design.

I consider it unintuitive for the AC to do anything else except modify your opponent's chance to hit you. That's what it's for.

If you are attacking two different people, one of whom is wearing +1 chainmail and the other is wearing +2 chainmail, you use the same attack bonus for both targets. And their ACs would be the same even if someone else were attacking them. There is no recalculation.

No matter how you describe it, the net result is that I hit one person on a 9 or higher, and I hit the other on an 8 or higher. No description will change that basic fact. I'd prefer to know what I need to hit as I roll the die. When I don't know my opponent's AC, I roll and say, "I hit AC 4 or better", and the DM checks the character. Just because it's not the way you do it doesn't make it difficult, complex, or unintuitive.

In any game, I don't calculate these during combat anyway. My sheet has my "to-hit" number against each AC.

If you were attacking those two different people with THAC0, you'd have to recalculate your to-hit each time you switched targets. That is bad design.

The chance to hit is different. You can modify the "to-hit" number before rolling, or modify the result after rolling. There's no particular design difference (except that if the modification is done before rolling, then I can do it before the game as well).

Once again, we have an instance of a positive bonus directly corresponding to what is mechanically a penalty. Do you not realize how unintuitive that is?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you have trouble convincing people that something is uninituitive, maybe that's because it isn't generally unintuitive. My positive bonus is and should be a penalty for the enemy trying to overcome it, for the same reason that when I buy a D&D book, my amount of cash goes down while the store's goes up.