PLEASE READ:- Wow! This video has inspired a lot more debate and conversation than expected and I love to see it. However, there are a few things to keep in mind to keep the debate respectful:- 1. Be nice. No remarks of insulting people’s choices or insinuating that they are lesser than you. 2. This wasn’t a deep dive into mechanics. This was intended to be an *opinion* piece discussing the differences in play-style which explained some mechanics for context. 3. The divide I’ve seen is mostly in jest and this opinion piece was brought about by years of experiences talking with players of all editions and people who knew the game designers well. 4. Having an opinion that doesn’t agree with someone else’s is still an opinion. Let’s treat it that way. 5. Have fun! I think this discussion is really good and it’s bringing lots of nuance from your individual games for everyone to see.
It's race, not species. I played a days' worth of 2nd edition. I have played a lot of 5th edition as well. I enjoy both games. To me the biggest difference is 5th edition is easier. But not without its own flaws. If I was to make D&D I would make it harder and as a game, it should get increasingly more difficult. But as the players get higher levels it actually gets easier. This is within the various editions. Side note: In my 2nd edition game, you rolled 4d6 and got 1 reroll, that you could use. But kept the order.
I’m an active 2E player. The hardest thing for new players to understand is their adjusted thaco from targets AC. Once you figure it out, it’s so simplistic. But it takes the longest for people to grasp. I always end up making them a chart
How is that different than knowing someone with a 25 AC is badass? Also, using high numbers is more intuitive and psychologically satisfying than low numbers are. To many people struggle with negative numbers anyway and it can be real annoying if you are playing with someone like that.
@@mkklassicmk3895 it is not different. You just have to explain to new players that 25 is not Armor Class but rather "to be hit with Proficiency Bonus 0". I.e. number you should roll on your d20 if your proficiency bonus was 0. But since it's probably not zero, you just take your bonus value, subtract it from monster's tbhwPB0, and now you have a target number to roll on your d20. Easy!
@@mkklassicmk3895 In 3e and 5e, my players roll a number, add all mods, and ask me if rolling 16 hits. In 2e, my players roll a number, add their mods (usually fewer, because 2e has less math going on), and then ask me if a 16 hits. They're the same. In normal combat the players dont know the enemy AC, so The DM just has to - like always - tell the player if they hit or not. Both groups Ive run 2e for in the past two years, all of whom were 3e/5e veterans, couldnt understand why there was so much fuss over thac0 on the internet as they had no issues at my table. If the player has a negative AC only the DM has to worry about it, so the player's personal aversions to negative numbers is typically irrelevant. And when the enemies have negative AC, again only the DM has to worry about it. A DM regardless of game system will have problems if they themselves are math-averse.
you missed a big thing about 2e initiative - players all have to decide what theyre doing each round first, THEN they roll initiative to see who goes first. Initiative was rolled each round because taking different actions could mean having different initiative modifiers. My 5e group that tried out 2e found that this style of initiative made combat much quicker.
Yeah I've always been a fan of declare-first initiative, because it forces everyone to essentially plan their turns simultaneously, and that saves a bunch of time. Where as modern D&D is basically "okay Dave, it's your turn" and then Dave will start thinking. People basically switch their brains off until its their turn because they don't have the final positioning of things until they actually come up.
I remember reading about 3.5rd edition and how there was no longer a casting speed on spells AND there were attacks of opportunity, and thinking any mage casting Magic Missile is going to get interrupted and maybe die trying now, where in 2nd edition you probably got the spell off first.
@@mkklassicmk3895 Because the thinking happens in parallel. The slow part of combat isn't the die rolling, it's the thinking time of people assessing the situation and choosing actions. With declare-first initiative the time lost to thinking equals that of the slowest player. With modern declare-on-turn initiative, the total thinking time is the sum of every player's thinking time at the table.
The primary reason my friends and I prefer 2ed is that it is more down to earth. You start as underdogs. Role playing and tactics are necessary to survive combat. Fleeing or avoiding combat is extremely relevant. When you finally reach level 3 or 5 and get new abilities, you really feel like you've earned it! For us. as we are used to the difficulty level from 2ed, the newer editions feel like being in the world of a cartoon. But I also have friends outside my D&D group who prefer the new systems, who don't like or understand the rationale for the limitations that are in 2ed. In the end, it's just a matter of taste.
In my 3.5 games players were often on their toes and on the run from levels 3-6. First two levels are milk runs, wraping up their apprenticeships and becoming adults; they havent met the villain yet. Around level 7 they progress to the point of taking the fight to the enemey, within reason, and thats when the dungeon delving really begins. (Not that there werent dungeon settings before this)
@@ProZeidon 2E feels like it's more story-based instead of less. You aren't locked into a bunch of obnoxious combat math and min/maxing all the time, you're more at the DM's discretion. Like this guy said, you couldn't lean on your stats or combat math to keep you alive. You had to run away sometimes. You had to be tactical.
I dont agree that 2e was game first / story second and 5e is story first / game second. I played 2e throughout its entirety. The story was never second. The main difference I see in 2e vs 5e is that in 2e you are more or less starting off as a normal person most of the time, lethality was high, and you weren't guaranteed every combat encounter was going to be something you could beat. You pointed out correctly that its high lethality meant you needed a higher level of tactics and strategies. You also had to know when to run away. It took a long time to level as well, so the victories you achieved with those characters meant a lot more. 5e is more for marvel super hero style characters that come out of the proverbial womb as comic book heroes capable of smashing troops of enemies without a second thought, and where combat encounters are all supposed to be beatable through fighting. Lethality is supposed to be a player choice in 5e, meaning that player death should be very rare. As such, victories (for me) don't feel as memorable because its kind of like a pro wrestling match. Its fun to watch but in the end the outcome was already decided. Thats how I see 2e vs 5e ultimately. Yes 5e is more streamlined. I actually prefer AC going up and was never a fan of THAC0 but I can do either. I enjoy games like DUngeon Crawl Classics because it harkens back to old school lethality with modern streamlining.
The deadly nature of 2nd edition tended to force PCs and DMs to put story first as they needed to be creative to twart the threats-light cast in eyeballs, charm person to negate fights, constructing traps, etc. The ease of 5e survivability allows one to lazily *bonk* their way through encounters, putting combat before story.
the "3d6 in order" is a myth. It's only one of 6 methods of rolling for stats, and it's the most brutal and least favorable one, which goes against the original methods that were much more favorable. More tables used Method V (which became the standard ever since) and the other 4 methods were even better, so the brutality of "Method I" aside from being first, wasn't meant as a standard.
My group did 4d6, drop the lowest number, and place the numbers where we wanted. Thus, no one EVER played a paladin -- no one rolled high enough to meet the requirements!
For sure! That’s why I said classic (not most popular): it’s the most associated that doesn’t exist in the rules today. I appreciate you giving more insight into your experience at 2e tables!
Simple math is hard. THAC0 - opponent AC = to hit roll on a d20. Seriously, that is it. Modify d20 roll per negative or positive modifier. What do I want? Open world sandbox classic adventure gaming with massive hexcrawls. The players actions drive the play and the story. The DM is the straight man in the middle narrating the world around them. The players have the choice to go do anything they want. The DM may provide hooks and opportunities, but the players are not obligated to follow along. Open world, open choice, player agency.
Bro, I had Thac0 figured out at 10 years old and played in AD&D tournaments at gencon back then with vietnam vets. These people are poser nerds acting like thac0 is some fucking Brain Buster mechanic. Shows how soft and lame nerd culture has become. Bunch of posers trying to be drama class dorks and youtube $$$ vultures.
The "complexity" of THAC0 is certainly overstated by 5E kids, but ascending AC is a simpler rule when it comes to writing rules and magical effects. It's much easier to write clear and simple rules when you can say "This magical Shield +1 gives a +1 bonus to AC" rather than "This magical Shield +1 gives a -1 bonus to AC." Having +1 be a bonus on the armor and a penalty to the armor class requires a slightly wordier explanation like this: "The bonus of any non-cursed magic armor or shield is subtracted from the character's Armor Class. EXAMPLE: A male fighter wearing plate mail armor and using a shield (but with no Dexterity adjustments) has an Armor Class of 2. If that character uses a shield + 1, his Armor Class becomes 1." [Modlvay Basic] If the game started in 1974 with ascending AC, no one would want to confuse things by changing to descending. The appeal of THAC0 is purely nostalgia.
I prefer the "no subtraction" method. Formula: 1d20 + Modifiers + Target AC vs (unmodified) THAC0 DM adds the target AC on his end, to keep AC secret. Player rolls 1d20 + mods, gives the total. DM adds AC to player's total, declares hit or miss. This method makes descending AC easy to explain to a newcomer. "You want your Armor Class as low as possible, because it's an attack bonus that others get to add against you."
@@AgellI feel like the concept of one of your stats being added to someone else's role is fundamentally more confusing than just a number the other side has to roll to. You want a high defense so you have a high number
Basic arithmetic being "fundamentally confusing" is why this debate exists in the first place, so you're in good company. My reply was to the OP, not the guy above me so your comment is irrelevant to me. Ascending AC is easier than DAC, no argument. Old D&D modules and stats aren't written for AAC, so I have a method modernizing the attack roll that makes conversion to AAC unnecessary. Players roll an attack give me their roll result. I, the DM, add the monster's AC and compare it to the character's base THAC0 number, like a Difficulty Class in 3e onward. I don't know what to tell you if adding two numbers to see if it's equal to or greater than X is confusing for you. If you were a player, the enemy AC is invisible to you anyway.
THACO was never hard for me, but I do recognize it’s harder than the DC method because subtraction is (ever so slightly) slower than addition. But if my THACO is, say, 12, then an AC 6 creature is hit when I roll a 6 or higher. If the enemy is a -1 AC, then it’s 13.
Well, you're in luck. THAC0 can be used as a "To-Hit" DC. Formula: 1d20 + Modifiers + Target AC vs THAC0 (unmodified) All addition, no conversion, works like modern games.
@@Agell - for negative ACs, you’re adding negative numbers, not calling that subtraction is kind of hard for most gamers to swallow. But yes, d20 + modifiers + AC vs. 20 (for everyone) is one way to look at it.
Certainly more straight forward to grok than subtracting a negative number from a die roll. Next time I'll write out all exceptions on the youtube comment instead of relying on people's ability to grasp grade school arithmetic.
2nd edition was my favorite as a DM. Not because it was the best system, but it could get so complex and layered that I could tell PCs anything and we'd roll with it. In essence 2nd edition taught me to be flexible and creative with rules, allowing for more narrative input into what may otherwise be a rigid system. House rules flourished in 2e.
2E veteran here. On NWPs: Modifiers affect the ability score being rolled against, not the roll itself which is a d20 roll low vs ability score. So the Juggling test presented in the video would be vs d20 roll low vs 14, not d20-1 to the roll to beat a 15. That's a full 10% difference which is important. Negative modifiers increases the chance of failure, not success. See Using Nonweapon Proficiencies on page 55 of the PHB. It's the first paragraph on the third column. On ability score rolls: There were six methods presented in the book, 3d6-in-order was merely one of them. In practice at the time, most groups DMs devised their own methods. Nobody used 3d6 in order IME. Nobody. A given method (usually homebrew) was determined by the DM and was universally applied to PCs. On 2E combat: It was drastically simplified for purposes of the video. There were actually multiple optional initiative systems in 2E (default was group initiative meaning the entire group goes on the rolled initiative), and weapon speed factor is optional itself. Monsters also use speed factors given their weapons (should it be used), spells also had casting time which caused initiative to be adjusted (and WASN'T optional), environment adjusted it (wading in shallow water +2, wading in deep water +4, etc), and finally there was the matter of multiple attacks. For multiple attacks with unique weapons they all happened on their initiative (fighting with two weapons = two attacks, monster's claw/claw/bite = three attacks), for PCs who have achieved mastery of a weapon to the point of multiple attacks with a single weapon, you get one attack during your initiative and the rest at the end of the round. Yes, there were conditions on when you could make your multiple attacks. On THAC0: The simplest calculation was roll + modifiers + enemy AC >= THAC0 = hit. This is absolutely more cumbersome than ascending AC regardless of how you slice it, and 3E's only real contribution to the game I would call a near-unanimously determined improvement on the underlying D&D system. At the time it came out I knew DMs who switched ONLY their To Hit/AC system to 3E and otherwise continued playing 2E. On XP: 2E actually had two systems here as well, the group version essentially became core but I argue the individual XP system outlined on page 48 of the DMG is far better to positively reinforce behaviors you want in players portrayal of their characters. So not just is each class's experience chart different, but how they actually accumulate the XP that fills that chart in is different. Example: outside of single combat, only Warriors and Bards gain any experience from defeating monsters. A wizard drops a horde of goblins attacking the party with a fireball? They get (150) experience for casting the spell, but nothing for dropping the monsters (which isn't bad as they were only 15 xp each). They also only get that experience if there was significant danger posed by the goblins as well (which there very well could not be). "Single Combat" vs higher power monsters is really only achievable by fighters and clerics in the system, as it denotes nobody else helps you defeat a foe. This isn't a kill-stealing system, if everybody has to come together to fight something then the Fighter and Bard are the only ones standing to get XP from it's demise. On HD bloat: The reason HD's crap out at 9 in earlier D&D is because it's frankly nonsensical for the mortal frame to be able to take the kind of punishment 20HD creatures can take. If anything I think it's an overshot, PC HD should probably cap at 6. Remember: a 10-16 HD creature is a dragon in this edition. Putting humans on that power level is nonsense. On Healing: The 2E rule is basically bad on purpose to facilitate the use and importance of Clerics, Druids, and other Priests of Specific Mythoi. Also it's a bit of a misnomer that you get 1 HP/day. That's for standard, low impact days. Total bedrest days is 3HP/day, with an additional modifier based on high constitution/week. I've never liked this rule because it treats all HP the same, meaning those with low HP will heal to full much faster than those with high HP. I remember a good houserule for this was based on character HD instead of HP. Roll 2HD, lowest roll is healed, full bedrest means you keep both rolls. Similarly divine magic should scale with HD of who's being healed, so for example a Mage is healed in d4s and a Fighter in d10s. There are many differences between 5E and 2E, I don't think you can narrow it down to "story first vs game first". I would say the real difference is "characters first vs setting first". In 2E it was known that DMs were the worldbuilders and therefore architects of reality, while players are merely... players in that reality. Everything was built around that central conceit, and some DMs were absolutely not worthy of it. 5E's central conceit is more that the characters are protagonists to the point there's baked in plot armor in the form of Death Saves (you did not mention that 2E's baseline mechanic for death is death at 0 HP). But back to the point, everything is built around that central conceit of protagonism, and we're also learning that some players are absolutely not worthy of it. There is no happy medium to be had here. Somebody has to be in charge. I personally prefer it to be the DM. Because players should have minimal investment in the campaign at onset. The play is the thing for them, and that is where their focus should be. Not excessive backstory or bizarre character builds. Because that is what the game has become now. And I'll be honest, it started in late stage 2E, as a reaction to the earlier style and unworthy DMs.
Re: HD bloat, remember making a spellcaster who gets a lowly 1d4 hit points? You could literally just trip over your shoelaces and die from it. But hit points were never really that big a deal if you had a good GM and group. They were used more for dramatic imperative than anything. You have only a couple of hit points left, what do you do? I climb up in the tree. Okay, now you're in the tree, what do you do? Wait for the raiders to leave. Okay, after hours of taunting and throwing rocks at you, they get bored and leave, what now? Climb down. Roll a climbing skill check. Ok, you failed and ended up higher in the tree. Try again. Ooh, you failed again, you got on a springy branch and it catapulted you across the field. vs. Try again. Ooh, you just fell out of the tree and hit your head on a rock, you die. Good GMs made the game fun. There were those that played hardcore, but for that style, you kept a stable of characters to choose from and those characters had a variety of hirelings and henchmen (that was a big part of early D&D), so that death wasn't a sure thing or a final thing.
This was closer to my 2e experience. I disagree 90% on 5e being more based on story over 2e . I think the lack of rules allowed/encouraged more roleplay and theater of the mind. The detailed action economy mechanics of 5e and now 5e 2024 make it closer and closer to a combat simulator. I know there are more complicated TTRPGs, this newest version is like 3.5 tho. I do like 5e a lot, but an example of my point is that the newest 5e 2024 basically took away most flavor from a race/species, feats, and background. It is all mechanical and almost all combat related.
I used to play 1st and 2nd edition. Never understood the THAC0 controversy. There were to-hit charts so you didn't need to ever use THAC0 to determine whether or not a character or monster hit. You could just use the charts.
Even without the charts, the math is barely different than that of 5e (as it is the current). All you gotta do is put it down on paper to show people and they'll realize it was overexaggerated. 2e: d20 + mods +AC > THAC0 5e: d20 + mods + PB > AC
THAC0 is needlessly complex, but it's honestly not that complicated as to be a dealbreaker, so I don't see why it gets so many complaints. Even back in the day my players just converted THAC0 into a bonus to hit equal to 20-THAC0, because remembering one bonus for your attack roll is just easier. "I rolled a 24" versus "I rolled 16, THAC0 18". The first is just easier to process.
I don't think THAC0 is that complex, or better, but it's certainly not "the same math" either. A LOT of American kids have a much harder time with subtraction than addition. My best friend couldn't figure out THAC0 to save his life, but once we switched to 3E he had no issues.
My real introduction to D&D was the Baldur's Gate games. I loved the scaling in them because doing that entire level 1-30 campaign gave an amazing sense of how far you have come and the growth of your character. Also never forget the 10 foot pole! Everyone needs a 10 foot pole!
This. Never buy/play anything D&D related after 2e. 5e is Chuck E Cheese Nickelodeon shit for nerds that wanna be drama class with dice and get massively ego wounded if they die in a game.
@@BlackEcology This is such a weird thing to say. I've seen more death at the table in 5th than in 2nd. Monsters have more hp in 5th whereas it wasn't uncommon to kill a red dragon in one round in 2nd. Don't get me wrong, I love 2nd ed and was running games of it until almost 2020, but this is just needless edition war bs that we as older players should be well beyond by now.
@@BlackEcologyGod what a horrible attitude to have. Why get so pissy about something you don't even like. Why bother getting angry about it. No one's forcing you to play 5e, you're not better for not though
You were also able to achieve much higher levels of epic deeds...if you survived long enough. I recently ran a 2E game with our old characters from the late 90's (yes, I still have the character sheets after all these years)...the Paladin was liberating an island from the control of an entire red dragon clan...the red dragon's humanoid champions were specialists with firearms...but they were only lvl 8, while the paladin was lvl 15... multiple times they shot him point blank, but the bullets ricocheted off the armor, and the paladin was so focused on destroying the catapults so the rest of the party could get past the gate house safely, that he completely ignored/forgot about the dragon champions that were shooting at him...the dragon champion got more upset that he was being ignored than that he couldn't affect the hero...as DM...it was hilarious..."Hey, I'm the BBEG at this castle! QUIT IGNORING ME!"
@@madisonhasson8981 That's awesome. I also have every character I've ever played in a binder starting with my first character from 4th grade, almost 40 years ago (ouch). I even have some of my friends characters and sent them scans so they could have a copy for themselves for nostalgia purposes.
I love 2nd Ed, but I eventually learned to enjoy 3rd (very late in its life) and am playing a 5th ed game now. I loved and still love 2nd ed, but a lot of people who complain about 5th seem to forget that you got extremely powerful long before "epic levels". Like, "It's my turn and I kill the Dragon." levels of powerful. Which just doesn't happen in 5th ed. Simply because everything has more hit points. 2nd ed monsters were hit point starved about as much as the players. A great Wyrm red dragon had on average just over 100 hit points (though to be fair my experience with 5th ed is far more limited than with 2nd so maybe you can solo dragons eventually idk). And it's fairly easy to deal that kind of damage. Another thing that I liked about 2nd that is maybe a part of the problem. 2nd was very customizable. All D&D is, but with 2nd, pretty much no one played it as written. So many rules were listed as optional that most people missed at least a few even if they wanted to play it as written. Ultimately 2nd ed games is fondly remembered because every group was playing the perfect version for their own group . And as DM that also made it feal easy to off the cuff a lot of things. My players fought monsters with abilities that I never bothered to fully figure out what they do. (Ie. animated intestines with fanged mouths in an abandoned temple of orcus that would try to burrow into the Pc's upon a hit. I don't know what would have happened if the monster got all the way in because no player was about to let it happen.) 3rd ed wanted everything clearly defined, which was fine, but made it hard for me to off the cuff games like I used to and required more planning. I think 5th ed recaptures some of that customizability and playing off the cuff as a Dm, but not quite as much as 2nd ed. Sorry, that rambled a bit. I'm old and it's late.
thank you for making a video about 2e, as I feel it's often overlooked by the old guard for the sin(?) of not being their precious 1e, and dismissed by the new guard for the sin(?) of not giving the feel of superheroic fantasy combat.
THAC0 isn't hard. It's actually very simple if you go by this ultra quadratic advanced mathematical formula... THAC0 minus Attack Roll equals Armor Class Hit. Or THAC0 - Attack Roll= AC Hit. So if your THAC0 is 19 and you roll a 12 you hit AC 7. If you roll a 16 you hit AC 3. You just apply all combat modifiers to the attack roll and not the THAC0. Boom. Done. Problem solved. Easy peasy.
In the days of 2E, people didn't troll each othe online, people trolled each other in person. Many trolls would pretend to have common interests as a way to get past your defenses, only to humiliate you more painfully and publicly. In our modern day, we can just turn off the computer, leave the chat, or get off social media. Back then, you couldn't just leave the school, or if you did try to leave, the trolls would follow you home and just keep trolling you. THAC0 and descending AC were how we discovered real life trolls in sheep's clothing. It also helped us learn how much we had to teach someone that genuinely wanted to learn D&D. I will be forever grateful to the service THAC0 provided and wish modern role playing systems had something that served a similar social function.
THAC0 - your roll = AC you hit. Because that's what you should call. Now I'm confused because somes players call their die result without modifier some other with. They even ask for AC but then dont use it to call their hit. To me it's just the players who wants to.call big numbers. And many ppl who talk shit about studf they have no first hand experience with.
Heh. I am from a generation that played from 1E to today. We never realized that the AC added to the to-hit roll adjusted for target. Actually, as I recall we always used the charts that were still around. I do kind of miss the strategy choice of do we keep going or head back to town after a night's rest. The cleric would have to decide how many spells to cast on healing at the start of the day to deal with the damage carried forward, then we look at our HP and spell totals and decide...hmmm, hit a few more rooms or see if we can survive the trip home ?
Since 2015, I have introduced a lot of players to 2nd edition, they seem to prefer 2nd to 5th. Not sure if it's my gm-style, or the fact that they actually feel heroic when they live, lol (excellent video btw)
My experience was different. 2e was much more story and character driven. Because how dangerous combat was and how long healing took, the party was incentivized to roleplay and problem solve. The faster combats also gave us more time for the other pillars of play.
The more dangerous combat is one of the reason I could never consider the old editions story driven. For me the story really goes down the drain in any game, where players seriously consider brining backup-characters. Also characters with randomized stats for me make extremely bad protagonists for any story.
I think the distinction here is Sunday morning cartoon versus narrative. You can have stories with squishy characters that died, but you're not going to get nearly as attached to those characters as you would a character who has been around for a while. You can't have long character arcs if stepping on a random floor tile can instantly kill you
@@nigeladams8321 we had very few PC deaths in 2E. But I think it's because we played with a lot of DM fudging and on-rails story games. That was sort of seemed the "official" way to do it, if you used published adventures. It wasn't until I got on message boards during the 3e era that I learned the "proper" way to run a game (always rolling publicly, never cheat on HP, etc). As a result, following the rules to the letter, all my games since 3e have been meat grinders.
racial class level limits and age effects were also a thing xp per kills in 2e were also much more stringent.... getting a level in 2e was a major occurrence leveling in 5e..... is a joke if you look at kills to level in comparison
Agree most strongly, Gygax was an actuary, he knew all about statistics and how to actually balance something. 3e and beyond tried to standardize things, thinking it made things more balanced when they were in actuality ignorantly removing the balance.
@@roberthradek7100- I don’t think Gary was an actuary, maybe that came from the following blog? dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/coming-to-terms-with-ad.html “…John Zuur Platten, the business partner of Flint Dille, Gary Gygax’s old friend and collaborator. Through Flint, John had had the chance to learn much about Gary Gygax and the origins of D&D. John explained to me that “to understand D&D, you have to understand that Gary thought like an insurance actuary. D&D is fantasy fiction through actuarial science.” That said, I don’t think it completely accounts for caster martial disparity, because by the time that the Wizard and Fighter each have, for example, 250,000 XP, the fighter is 9th, but the wizard is 11th. By the time the wizard has level 5 spells, they are beginning to leave the fighter in the dust. Literally the only thing keeping them down is attrition due to their need for the fighters to protect them (at least until levels 9 and higher.) so while I can understand the argument for the differences between, say, the thief, cleric, and fighter, the Wizard’s XP table is a very uneven progression that at several points starts to outpace the Fighters, and by the time it evens out after level 13 or so, wizards are extremely powerful and outshine in the same group with even higher level fighters. It does work pretty well between levels 1 and 9, though.
No. IT's spell slot management. YOu had more slots, but you had to name your spells. If you said 3 fireballs and you needed a featherfall, you were f**ked. Also no cantrips. Plus the robes were if for armor. Nothing else. No leather armor IIRC, nothing. You also could use a staff or a dagger and little else for weapons unless it was magical. In other words, you were even MORE squishy and MORE dependent on magic and it was a guessing game as to what you might actually need or use each day. Wizards complain but they REALLLLLY have no idea how much resource management you had to do.
I really like Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition. I don't find THAC0 difficult at all. We used to do THAC0 minus armor class, and that was the target number we had to roll, which made it very simple. If it was negative, then we just had to add it, which in that case made it similar to how it works in 5th edition. I don't agree with the distinction made between 2nd edition and 5th edition, implying different emphases between combat in one and story mode in the other, suggesting that one leans more towards one aspect or the other. In role-playing games, it's the DM who determines in their style of play whether to lean more towards one side or the other. In fact, in 2nd edition, there are no minis, which makes it more about theater of the mind, and thus more focused on the story mode. On the other hand, the skill system in 2nd edition was quite ambiguous, however, the skill system in 5th edition seems excellent to me and great improvement that they reduced it compared to 3.5th
I was commenting on the general differences talking about story vs mechanics first and more so talking about why people would stick with 2e - it’s about the crunch! Haha. Totally respect your opinion and experiences though. I do believe that there were official miniatures produced for AD&D 2e.
Of course, for me D&D5e has a lot of good things, but I don't like the rest system, and yes, they released miniatures, specifically Ral Partha, which were made of plumb.
@@NorseFoundry "Storymode" was initially emphasised in TSRs Dragonlance (1984) which was, of course, AD&D 1e. You could play these early editions however you wanted. They weren't that crunchy really when compared to something like RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, or the Hero System at the time - take a look at the 2e spell descriptions compared to those in 5e, for example - unless you adopted all the various splat books with their optional rules. For me, the BIG difference in philosophy between 1e/2e and 5e is the "insta-death" mechanics of the earlier editions and the removal of such things like undead level drain (now that really was terrifying) which players hated, along with the codification of outcomes (which came in in 3e) rather than relying on DM interpretation - I guess so it was seen as fair. Some people say that earlier editions had an adversarial relationship between DM and players, and maybe that's true for some tables, but it wasn't generally true (DMs can always 100% splat a party if they want, can't they?).
I love this analysis and I agree! The insta death and level drain also go back to the heroic character story leaning play-style of 5e too. If you put a ton of effort into creating a multifaceted character with a great backstory on a compelling arc and then get level drained or just WHACKED crazy early in the game… is that fun for most people?
started with dnd 5e, then tried adnd 2e. 2e is way better imo! it gives the dm a lot of tools to work with, and everyone doesn't have dark vision. Humans are very important in the older games. and thac0 is weird but logical. Adnd 2e could be the best edition, next to rules cyclopedia.
I never had a problem with THAC0, but I did like the base attack bonus system of 3rd edition better and am fine with the proficiency bonus system of 5th edition. The only edition I didn’t quite get (despite playing it) was 1st edition because I didn’t have access to the to-hit charts unless I delved into the DMG, and I didn’t play DM until 3rd edition.
The only conclusion I can reach regarding people having a problem with thaco is that they are essentially innumerate (I.e. can’t add or subtract). Thaco was a brilliant innovation that eliminated the need to consult a table for every roll. If you knew one number, you knew what you needed to hit. A person of very modest intelligence could figure it out in their head.
So, I'm going to push back on this. I don't think the problem is THAC0 per say, but it's the using of multiple calculation methods for different things. Admittedly, I don't know 2e specifically, but BECMI has descending AC, D20 roll over for saves, D20 roll under for skills, D6 roll under for abilities and percentile for Thief shenanigans. Turning everything into roll over D20 means you only need to remember one formula and check the numbers. THAC0 is just the flashing neon one can easily point to. And none of this is ragging on BECMI (just about to start a BECMI group myself), but people can have grievances with the systems without being dumb.
Hmmm… Interesting to see that saving throws didn’t make it onto this list. Considering that there are the same number of saving throw types but that the types were so different in conceptualizing what fell into which saving throw category could have made for an interesting discussion. Would have been interesting to hear from others their opinion on which are more their style as well.
The only real complexity to THACO I ever had was that I prefer armor to mitigate DAMAGE rather than the TO HIT number. But, everyone else in the comments have already noted that 2e is harder - as in it’s hard to kill even low level monsters, so you’ve got to be more creative how you play. 5e sets you up with stacking race and class abilities so the by the second episode you’re mowing down whole villages of goblins like you’re in you’re own isekai story. I wouldn’t say that 2e is a game with a story attached vs 5e which is storytelling with gameplay mechanics attached, because they’re both telling stories using game mechanics. The difference is the KIND of stories they’re set up to tell.
It is a bit lacking in nuance to say that it's young players arguing against THAC0 and older players who are nostalgic for it. I learned to play in the era of THAC0, and you can have my ascending armor class when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Hard same. There are a lot of quirks, tone, and power level aspects I still love from 2E when I learned it as a teen in the 1990s. But, even back then, I had a hell of a time keeping straight in my head how the mechanics worked. Like, when reading the game alone, I could puzzle out how it worked. But every time combat actually started in a game, it all turned to gibberish in my head. When 3E came along, the elegance of using d20+Stat+Skill vs. DC/AC was a complete breath of fresh air. Although the word "THAC0" has a sort of magical, nostalgic quality to me, I never want to use the actual system again if there's a more recent option.
You're wrong about rolling stats. You are describing method one. There were five other methods described in the Players Handbook. Now it was the Dms choice which method was used, but there were six altogether, not just the one you described. From what I remember method five was by far the most popular which was roll four and drop the lowest.
@@NorseFoundry You didn't mention any other method of rolling stats for 2E. The clear implication was that 3d6 straight down the line was how 2E rolls stats. You gave, perhaps inadvertently, the wrong impression of how stats are rolled in 2E. Just admit you made a mistake.
In it's most basic form it's literally just add or subtract the target's AC from your d20 attack roll. If that number is higher than your THAC0, you hit. It's not any more complex than 5e, just a different calculation. The most basic form in 5e you add or subtract your to-hit stat modifier(s) to your d20 attack roll, then compare that number to the target's AC. If it's higher than their AC, you hit. AC in 2e goes from 10 (basically naked/just basic clothes), down to 0 (full plate + shield), further down to -10 (with magic armors, abilities and ability modifiers, spells, etc.) AC in 5e goes from 10 (basically naked/basic clothes) up to 20 (full plate + shield) and above 20 (with magic armors, abilities and ability modifiers, spells, etc.) Another way to look at it: An AC -2 in 2e is effectively equivalent to AC 22 in 5e. An AC of 0 in 2e is equivalent to AC 20 in 5e. An AC of 3 in 2e is equivalent to AC 17 in 5e. Basic examples: 2e you're attacking a creature with an AC of -2, and you have a THAC0 of 15. You roll d20 and roll a 16, -2 for the target's AC, making the final result a 14. You miss. 5e you're attacking a creature with an AC of 18, you being a fighter, your to-hit modifier is based on STR, which you have a +4. You roll a d20 and roll a 15, +4 for your STR modifier makes 19. You hit.
@@8BitCerberusyou have to exchange more information though. You have to know what the creatures AC is to subtract from your role. Whereas in the new system all the information for your role is on your sheet. You don't have to ask the DM anything before you get your final total to compare
@@nigeladams8321 In THAC0, the DM does the calculation and tells you if you hit or not. You as the player know what your THAC0 is and can deduce the targets AC by whether or not you or others in your party hit. If you hit on an 18 and your buddy hits on a 15 and you each have a THAC0 of 15 then you know the target's AC is 0 or higher. If the next person hits on a 14 and they also have a THAC0 of 15 now you know the target's AC is 1 or higher, and so on. Old school D&D players aren't supposed to know things like "ok this goblin has 7 HP and an AC of 13" like in modern D&D. You rolled to hit, and the DM told you if you hit or not.
THAC0 may be backwards, but it's not really more complicated. Still, for the sake of my players (who were used to something else), I converted everything in 2nd edition to ascending AC. It's trivial and can be done on the fly.
That only proves that the whole "THAC0 is hard" is a strawman argument to paint older players in a bad light. THAC0 is only hard if you can't do basic math. Subtraction. Simple as that.
@@MedievalFantasyTV Yeah THAC0 is needlessly complex compared to just having an attack bonus, but it's hardly a reason to discount older editions because it's easily converted. Back during the 2E days my players always converted their THACO into an attack bonus, then as the DM I just assumed everyone had 20 THAC0 for determining what they needed. The "OMG, THAC0 is so hard" just became a meme without much truth to it. Some players suck at math, even in 5E I have people get confused as to where their bonuses come from. It baffles me how, but it happens.
0:48 Quick correction (not that it matters for the point of the video, but it confused me when I first read it): -1 is actually bad for skill modifiers because it's applied to the ability score and not the roll, so success is whether your d20 roll is
BG1 introduced me to THACO in 2000. I never played D&D at this point. My First actual TTRPG is 5e in 2017. Now I want to go back to the simpler concept of 4 classes. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Magic user like the Arcade game ( my D&D experience in the 90's) Why? Keeping the game simple is the best way to get into the fun for oneshot's. All the flavor and archetypes can all still be expressed and with less bookflipping.
1. the 2e skills aren't terrible and can be converted, and its basically the same since your stats determine the relevant roll for each skill. The flat numbers are more or less the bugbear, and DMs and players both may feel better about the DM's discretion because the DM can intuitively make judgement calls about situations that may affect the roll, (are you trying to mount the horse from a running start or are you calmly mounting the horse. Is the horse scared or trained to understand what's happening? How are your animal handling skills? 3.5's mistake was trying to make too many skills to cover each case). 1b. actually there were about 6 different ways to roll/generate stats. Roll4 drop the lowest and pick was pretty standard when playing with various family members. They were AD&D/2e players and this was around... 92-94? 2. Speed I think is something people will like and it makes it more controllable for each character to manipulate for consistency, and adds much needed complexity to weapons. In fact, 2nd edition weapons were a nice sweet spot between the oversimplified 5e and the overcomplicated 3.5. 3. THAC0 is the same math. It's roll above and not below. AC 0 was about 19, which is about the same as AC 20 now - only a 20 will hit (without modifiers) 4. Yeah... leveling is just stupid. Milestone is pretty much the better option in both systems. 5. the bigger difference in HP is your death saves. You can go down to -10 HP but then you're dead (or was it 10 plus a modifier?) and some hits could just flat out kill you based on how much damage was done (even if you still had a few HP to spare). 6. resource management! 2e made resources more available, (like spells or special abilities) but there were caveats about how you chose to use them or when you could use them that made it actually more resource intensive... especially without having rests or cantrips. Let's also not forget that spells had to be preselected on a "per spell slot basis", meaning you had to dedicate 3 slots to sleep if you wanted to cast sleep up to 3 times that day. BONUS: 2e was much more theater of the mind. Less things had specific distances and squares. 5e is very specific with AOE's and ranges. It's simply built more for maps.
I remember 2nd coming out. Have a ton of books for it in storage. Some mine, many inherited from my brother Rick. We split getting the whole collection between us. Though I started with D&D and 1st ed. AD&D with the idol cover PHB and Efreet cover DMG. Back in 1979.
The biggest difference between THAC0 and the "to hit" mechanics in D&D 5e is how scaling works across classes. In THAC0, each class scales differently, giving distinct progression for fighters, clerics, rogues, and wizards. This meant that certain classes were inherently better at combat as they leveled up. In 5e, however, almost all classes have the same proficiency bonus progression, resulting in a similar "to hit" bonus across most classes, which I personally find ridiculous.
I have been running 5e adjusted to play like 2e. soon i will implement an thAC0 like method to do to hit that works with ascending AC without affecting hit percentage. You subtact tha attack bonus form the defenders AC to get the target number instead of rolling and adding the attack bonus for every attack in multi-attack. It is my opinion that AD&D 2e is more streamlined in play despite its obtuse presentation in the book.
I'm designing a thaco based system with a 1d30 instead, and starting AC and hit are 40. This allows some enemies too evasive or high level to avoid all but critical hit, and player character need to choose character race and character trades wisely to give additional hit chance bonus. Character trades is what trades they had before becoming an adventurer. Then class is chosen. Say a player chose scout and fisherman as their character trades before adventuring then the class is dancer. They gain bonus perception, tracking, stealth, fishing, cleaning fish, stream current knowledge, and disguises on top of dancer class.
The thing is, THAC0 wasn't a problem. It still exists, but isn't laid out easily for people to see. AC 0 (Armor Class ZERO). Since Armor Class still exists in D&D, to hit Armor Class of NUMBER is still a thing. So THAC0 wasn't removed, it was hidden. Remember kids, as long as Armor Class exists, as a MUMBER, you are still factually bound by THAC0. THAC0 was nothing more than an efficient way for players to understand what was needed for protection or damage. Modifiers still apply, such as Dexterity or Skill bonuses. THAC0 is still a thing in D&D it has just been obfuscated because people are stupid.
Yeah, so they changed the confusing 0 to a round 10 so people could understand the math and scale better without having to apply bonuses inconsistently (a +1 dex bonus lowering THAC0 by 1 is anti-intelligible). You could, instead, say they demystified it and aligned bonuses and rolls clearly. So If you play with THAC0, you're still playing with base 10 AC, by your logic. Lol.
@@rclaws3230yup, the mechanics are ultimately the same at the end of the day, they just detangled it from the needlessly convoluted bits. Like simplifying two sides of equation by removing the needless functions on both sides.
You don't have to make things easier because people are stupid, you can make things easier because it's just less work for everyone even if you're not stupid? This is such a ridiculous line of reasoning. People aren't stupid just because they prefer to use ascending armor class. Having a high defense tied to a higher number makes way more sense intuitively. Optimizing the system isn't making it more stupid
I'm admittedly in the THAC0 camp myself. Not because 5e (technically what started in 3e) is bad, but that there's an inherent bounded accuracy that doesn't break as much later on. It also simply relied on a DM just telling you the armor class of the thing you are fighting, instead of (weirdly) keeping it secret now. Also: Getting an 18 in your Str also didn't mean that you instantly had +4 to hit, but had a sliding scale.. I can see why some would actually find that oddly complicated, but I grew up on it so I'm used to it. I'm also a huge fan of the roll under method. Having the DC based on the ability took a lot of work out of my hands. Scaling a ladder in the rain? Roll under your dex. Scaling a ladder in the rain during a hurricane? Roll under your dex but add four to your roll. I think you got it right, too. 2e was based more on survival. Every level was deadly in its own way. You started as someone who knew how to swing a sword, or cast a singular spell each day, which has a feeling of rising from mere beginnings, and you just as often found ways to avoid fighting if you could. It also allowed for dungeon-crawls in their primordial form. Having to actually plan out moving around dungeons and how supplied you were was a real thing back then. 5e is much more in the line of starting as a super hero. I don't mean this as a bad way, games where you start off far more able to fight, survive, and front-loaded with cool abilities are fun in their own right, but they are vastly different than the grittier survival of 2e. It allows for more high fantasy tales and solidifies a lot of the skills and abilities under a d20 instead of varied tables and dice arrays. And it allows the characters to stand out from the common folk a lot more. Dungeon crawls don't feel anywhere near as meaningful, but the ability to have amazing set-pieces and shorter 'burstier' dungeons with short-rests and recoveries means that the story itself can be moved along quicker. Both systems have their merits. For my group and I, we... play Pathfinder 2e, but when the itch hits us, we go back to 2e D&D for that 'survival' feel :)
I actually feel 5th ed is way more gami-fied. Due to the choices you have, there's more of a "Meta" and optional builds for characters. All classes have more choices what to do in a combat round, but the choices are very much dictated by their class/subclass. As such it feels a bit more like a more moderd video game. All classes do have usefull abilities for the most part, making it easier to play the character you want. I started with 2nd edition and, while I absolutely loved it, I'm not nostalgic for it. My group hasn't touched it since we discovered the World of Darkness ruleset and have been using that for every campaign type since. We played Starwars, wild west, 30's era pulp, you name it with some small houserules. It was a short while before Corona one of us got nostalgic for D&D and we opted for 5th ed. It even got the one player who was never into rules pouring through the rules and starting to get fascinated by character builds. I'm the rules guy of the group and I love it. It does feel game-y, but the story is provided by the group and not the rules. And it feels mostly balanced and fun.
I started with AD&D, and I theorized a system similar to D20 years before 3rd came out with its solution to the THAC0 problem. It was natural parallel thinking many groups went through in a response to a transparent barrier to entry.
I played 2E from 1991 to 2000, when 3.0 was released. My biggest problem with 2E wasn't actually THAC0 or descending Armor Class (although I disliked both), it was the ridiculous XP system. 2E inherited the level progression tables of 1E (backwards compatability being the goal of TSR's marketing department for 2E), but got rid of the primary way to earn XP in 1E, namely finding treasure. Instead you had to fight monsters to level up, but the XP value of monsters was mostly unchanged from the 1E Monster Manual. It took months to level up a PC. Furthermore PCs were incredibly squishy, even at higher levels. Which wasn't a problem in 1E if you played with the goal of stealing a monster's treasure, but 2E players were expected to engage in combat. When 3.0 came out, I stopped playing 2E immediately. 3.X has its problems, but the Core expected gameplay loop isn't one of them. Right now I play 5E, having started way back in 2014. 5E is a simpler version of 2E. It hits many of the same expected gameplay loops without the problems with the rules being expected to conform to 1E rules.
@@NorseFoundryI actually really enjoyed the amount of xo it took to gain levels. It made you get creative with your abilities because you had so long to use it before the next level. With 5th Ed, you get to use your ability once before you get more. You don't get a chance to figure out how to make your abilities apply in many situations before you have more to try out.
Something that might be an interesting topic of discussion is trends in the broader fantasy genre from the 70s to today, and how they've influenced D&D (and D&D has influenced them back), and how that's reflected in the various editions.
lol 2e focused on mechanics? We didn't do super spell-counter-spell-counter counter spell- and i don't know what else nor had action bonus action super action mega action, we didn't have those... what we had was a few spells, fewer magic items, some potions and a lot of wit, strategy and roleplaying.
I'm personally a 3.5 fan due to its almost early lego-type approach to mechanics (doesn't matter what two pieces you have, they are designed to fit together) and that it's relatively easy to get any particular end of the scale for player power relative to the world. However, I am delving back into BECMI right now and I definitely see some of the advantages. Just as I see the advantages to 5e. Then again, I am also one of the people who enjoys 4e, so maybe I've just completely lost my mind.
THAC0 is the best, you peasants! 😆 The system has its drawbacks, but one thing it did right was making martial characters better at *fighting*. By limiting magic users to being inferior with weapons, it forced people to be careful with their spells and gave the fighters their time in the spotlight.
That has nothing to do with THAC0, you could say the same about 5e just because martials get weapon proficiency while casters don't. THAC0 is basically just a needlessly convoluted version of the 5e to hit method. 5e specifically, since both are still bound by what is effectively bounded accuracy.
You forgot to mention that, in second edition, the XP needed to reach a new level depend on tour class. Meaning that a rougue player (the weakest class) could be 1 or even 2 level(s) ahead of the wizard player (the strongest class).
My problem with the THAC0 system was that it had a limit. You could get to AC-10. I worked hard to get my first cleric there.. I still got blasted by stuff we played against often enough. And I had no further room to improve my defensive ability. The same goes in reverse, if you can get to hit AC -10 reliably then you pretty much always hit and the only place the DM has left to go for more resiliant monsters is more HP, or arbitrary penalties on your attack rolls.
I have been playing 2e for 30 years now. In my experience, the -10 AC limit was always ignored. Even the famed Baldur's Gate original series ignored this rule. My warriors always end up the game with -12 AC or so, and many endgame enemies like dragons also presented -12 AC. I guess that some limits in 2e were almost universally ignored. Racial level limits is another example.
Also, we used a homebrewed rule that got passed around to deal with a 20 always being a hit (which defeated the purpose of AC -10 "ish"). If the actual math dictated that you need a 22 to hit, then you rolled the d20. If you luckily rolled a 20, then you could roll a d6-1 and added that to your d20 roll. If you rolled a 6, you got to roll another d6-1, and so on. That's maybe an absurd rule, but it made AC beyond -10 much more relevant, and made any modifier count. No longer "all I need is a 20 anyway"...
@@MedievalFantasyTV While I can appreciate that, homebrew rules don't negate the issue with a chunk of game design. If you have to homebrew a fix for something, and it's a common homebrew, then the thing you're fixing is actually broken and should be redesigned in future versions. Which is exactly what happened.
About hit points: originally i believe they would represent literally that. A measure to evaluate how much the character have been hit (and how severely they have been hit). Not the same as vitality points , that would represent broken legs, cuts, bruises, etc.... Just a narrative tool to represent the adversity in a battle. The problem is that the concept started to blurry when status like bleeding or damage to attributes were introduced in the game... Then suddenly hit points started to get confused with actually health of a character and constitution (attribute number) with body integrity?! Somewhere (i believe during the 3th edition) the game design lost gripe of what was trying to achieve...
old dude here , the fight on my group was AD&D or Vampire/storyteller games, one more focus in the game aspect and other on the history aspect , i guess the second one was viewed as more important in modern rpgs , i still love AD&D second edition thought
RenFaire sensations Buckler & Dirks wrote a song about the differences in D&D editions. An excerpt ... What's the matter with the old-school players? (Don't you know that they're out of touch.) Should I sit & try to calculate THAC0? (If you do then you think too much.) (Donchya know we’ve gone digital, honey, And microtransactions cost a whole lotta money,) Old way, Moldvay, total-party-kill today, It's still D&D to me.
Love AD&D, and I love THAC0. It's different and adds variety, like all the other mechanics in AD&D. You're not just rolling d20/Add mod for everything, and it eliminates rolling in situations where it disrupts the flow of the game to roll, like when searching
I think the problem with THAC0 is the concept. You take the Dragon Quest board game from the 90s, they use thac0 as "fighting value" of your character and this makes much easier for new players to grasp the mechanics. Your fighting value is 18 and during the combat you subtract the oponent's armor class, the result is the number you have to reach on the d20. I've used this way to teach my teenager cousins and worked like a charm.
Oh interesting, I thought that it was the standard and came across from the segments used in AD&D 1e and the optional was to not use it. I could absolutely be wrong but speed factors are used in the main tables for weapons.
@@NorseFoundry you are right that they were listed in the table, which was intended to make people look at the optional rules talked about in the DMG, but I'm 94% certain using those was the optional rule. I had heard many tested it out like I did but dropped those because the extra time it added to the combat.
@@NorseFoundry In 1e Weapon speed is not clunky at all. You actually ignore it except in 2 circumstances - tied initiative between opposing figures with melee weapons (as opposed to natural weaponry which has no WS), and when attacking a spellcaster to disrupt the spell. It's very easy in practice. 2e Weapon speed is a clunky pain in the ass.
That’s good to know. When I did my research for 1e, the segment turn order seemed to run the same as speed factor in 2e. I know most people didn’t use segments or speed factors but I appreciate you explaining.
As an Evil DM, I DM all Edition but one, 4E... I loved all Editions have all the physical books (not 4E, or 6E). Now all my game are with ShadowDark. its faster and as more consequences with characters of 1-10 level. that is my 2 cents opinion ☕☕😉😉
As someone who came in with 3.5e, I had heard all kinds of horror stories of how overly complex and byzantine THAC0 was from my fellow 3.5e players. Then I went back and actually read it, and it was basically the same system. In 3.5e, you roll 1d20, apply your BAB as a modifier to your roll, add your Strength/Dexterity modifier (and attack bonuses from a magic weapon) if you have one, and compare against the enemy's AC, and if it meets or beats that number then you hit. In 2e, you roll 1d20, apply the enemy's AC as a modifier to your roll, add your Strength/Dexterity modifier (and attack bonuses from a magic weapon) if you have one, and compare against your THAC0, and if it meets or beats that number then you hit. It's exactly the same level of complexity.
I play a mix of AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd edition. For me, my philosophy on the choices we make in life involve the circumstances we're put in, which is why I love the older editions more. The flow version of combat feels infinitely more realistic to me because characters on a battlefield can react to each other and move in a more dynamic way (as opposed to movement per person's turn). It makes it harder and much more fun, while requiring more thinking and attempts to reason in equal parts with the combat (holy hell I cannot fight another duergar, I have no spells ((they have magic resistance anyway)) and my party combined has 3hp), which makes it feel much more like a world rather than a video game. If my character dies, that is the harsh reality of a realistic fantasy story. Some hopes and aspirations get fulfilled, while others can't make it. I'm definitely going to cry and go into mourning if my character can't get revived (IT'S LIKE 50,000 GP PER PERSON* ((*mostly if you're an Elf)), but I still wouldn't trade AD&D for the world.
I started with 2e, and we played it for many years, well into the life of 3.0/3.5. The only thing I really didn't like with 2e was how Stats got their modifiers/bonuses differently. Some would get them at 13 while others may start to see them at 15 or 16. I assume the Stats got bonuses at different levels because maybe some were more powerful than others, and it was represented like the EXP to next level for some Classes because some were more powerful than others? But all-in-all, we had a real fun time with 2e.
Even better than THAC0 as in 2E I preferred the combat matrices from 1E because they also made a statement being in the DMG only: As a player, you don't need to know what you need to hit; you describe your action(s), roll the dice, and the DM narrates the result to you (nobody did it even then but it's also why I prefer the DM rolling damage as well). Same principle with saving throws, they were the purview of the DM, not the player.
THAC0 might seems like a weird way to put it, but it itself was an evolution from the previous approach, which was that you had to check against an attack matrix based on level, class and armor class. Which was an evolution from Chainmail's to-hit tables that were instead based on armor and weapon types. Examples of D&D's origin in medieval wargames.
I think the assessment that it’s game first, story second is pretty accurate. Having played both games the mechanics just tell a small part of the story and those who played just 5e and have opinion of 2e without playing it is not fair. A good simulation, take 5e remove Warlock/Sorcerer and all sub-classes; then remove cantrip, then remove swap spell slot tree for 2e (1 at 1st, 2 at 2nd…) then for hit points you always roll and remove the initial amount (always roll) remove feats and ASI; that would get your 5e close to a 2e experience
We'd played 1st ed for a decade when 2e came out. I played a rogue and we played the rules as written. Every skill check: +++ XP. I was introduced to the party as a criminal, so they kept me tied up. Rope use to escape, sneak away, do whatever, sneak back, tie myself back up: 400+ XP each night. Rogue's level gain also requires far less XP. When the party hit level 2, I was level 5... and they didn't know how dangerous I was. I destroyed the campaign when the party was captured and the DM expected me to free them, but I kept gaining levels plotting how to escape the dungeon we were in. It was built for a level 2 party. I was level 7 sneaking past anything and everything. Thieving and planting evidence to frame people. There were the high level "bosses" of the dungeon, but I learned what they wanted and I became their new best friend. Never bothered rescuing the party.
I can see the argument for 2e being more combat vs 5e being more story driven but I think it's really just a matter of the group and mostly the DM's play/story/game running preferences. But I do see how 5e would mechanically be more "fluff" that is primarily for story use vs 2e mechanics seem to be pretty combat oriented. I'm just thinking if I were a high level fighter with my own keep or castle that'd be a great story mechanism for the DM.
I tend to notice that when I play with people in order style of Rpg , 2e, DCC, MCC, Old school Essentials ext. We end up actuallt Rolling for hit points like it say's to do in the book. In newer Rpg like 5e people tend to just go with Max HP per level. To me I think this puts more of strain on newer DM to balance encounters out at higher level's because the player are tougher than they should be. Modules tend to assume the rolled hp. Anyone else notice this?
I started with 2nd Edition. What I liked was the skill exclusivity. Wanna track in the forest better have a ranger. Need to sneak in a city better have a Rogue . I liked as a melee character the chance to disrupt a spell if my initiative was within their casting time. Plus I liked the Lore more back then. 5e is great in that I can make the chuck norris of rogues. Both are good and it’s hard to find a 2nd edition game anymore.
5e story first, mechanics second? Well not on our table. Started with 2e and while progressing to 3e,3.5e,4e,5e every single combat encounter in those versions started to need more time, peaking in 5e. We went back to 2e last year, getting fast character builds, spent less time in combat rounds and got a huge boost in adventuring and playing those characters.
I still like 2e best though I do like story first. I originally learned in 1st edition AD&D. Players did die a lot though lol but the big thing about 1st and 2nd edition I liked was the stat rolls. we rolled 6 stats then put them where we wanted. This opened up the ability to some pretty crazy characters, the one rule with character creation was it had to be done in front of everyone to see the rolls. so that in itself was often our first session. depending on the game or who was DM we would either do 3d6 per stat, going in order of stats you get what you get. or 4d6 taking top 3 dice in order of stats, you get what you get. or rolling for 6 stats and putting them where we wanted. Then depending on our dice we would decide what class to play. That was a fun aspect of 2nd ed that is really lacking in 5e since stats are basically all the same with only slight adjustments. It was rare we would start a new session knowing what our character would be ahead of time. most characters didn't survive that's true, but the ones that did oh they were some pretty awesome characters lol
This weekend had my fist game of 2nd edition. I have to say it feels like a complete different game (the oldest version I played was 3.5), but didn't had any problem understanding the mechanics and gettin' my character ready. We didn't have much of combat, but I have to say after that session I agree that the hate to THACO is not justified.
@@NorseFoundry The lightweight and efficient nature of the system means we spend more time actually playing and making meaningful choices. I can't imagine my group going back to 5e.
As someone who played it a lot of a kid I don’t miss it at all. Other than 4e which is the odd duck, every edition has been an improvement of the last.
LOL. I was introduced to 2E (back in high school!!) and got the hang of THAC0, but I think it's more the subtraction-centric math that's the problem. A lot of kids find addition MUCH easier than subtraction. In any case, I think the newer models using primarily addition are much better.
I came to RPGs as an adult with 2e, and there is nothing I miss from 2e. I remember it fondly, but I don't want any of its rules: THAC0 and AC, proficirncies, the different XP tables... I jumped to Werewolf as soon as I discovered the game and once 3e came out I moved to it and never looked back.
No offense, but if you play Werewolf (and the other Storyteller games, I assume), 2e was never the issue. It is just that D&D wasn't for you. It is a D&D issue, not a 2e issue. In my 30 years of gaming, I have met a lot of Storyteller players, and I can say confidently that D&D could never satisfy their specific needs and tastes, no matter the edition. The reverse is also true.
@@MedievalFantasyTV maybe that's true, I don't think what I wrote doesn't necessarily exclude it. I truly believe you can have fun with any system, I just find AD&D complicated in areas where it shouldn't be. And dont take this is as a complain, i truly enjoyed the time with AD&D, and my homebrewed world of over 2 decades started there. I feel that AD&D (and old OSR) exists in a space where players are looking to feel a challenge, which in more D&D modern games, this is not always conveyed as good as before (yeah, I remember the dragon breath of a red dragon was scary no matter what level you were), but I feel, for me, it sacrifices rules consistency for that sense of danger. This may just be me, but since the d20 games have been my most used systems since AD&D, I have seen the evolution and in general welcome the more streamlined rules of modern games in the d20 family (I am mostly talking D&D and Pathfinder here).
@@MedievalFantasyTV this is completely subjective, as it is proven there are many people that love the OSR. But if it was up to me I would say the following related to AD&D: 1. More customization for characters. Not just allow more choices of clases each, but also allow each race to have some options to choose from. 2. Skills. I hated proficiencies. They were not equivalent as you could choose to know how to drive a carriage or know astrology. It doesn't need to be long list of skills, but enough to add more customization and in turn allow for each player to fill a space in the party. 3. More standardized rules. If Thaco is the main mechanic, then make everything roll a d20. Always found absurd the percentile for rogue and bard abilities. 4. More consistent rules for GM in all fronts. I learned the hard way just by doing, but more details on how challenges and monsters are built and how to manage magic items that is balanced to the game. I really don't like THAC0, but I am not against it in a game. And if I am not mistaken, some of these ideas were implemented in later books. But I am looking at this from the time I learned to play. In my country there were no game stores, D&D was essentially non existant and we had to rely on people who traveled abroad to get books. With that in mind, my first set of books were second hand from a guy who bought them in Panama from a friend. I didn't have anything except the 2 main books and the monster compendium. I didn't jump to other games bc of the focus on story. I have made the story a focus since the days of Hero Quest, but more and more I found the newer games were progressing in the direction of those ideas. If you had asked me at the time why I preferred games like 3e, Alternity or World of Darkness (which where some of the games I played at the time) I would probably had said just that I felt I had more options as a player or more ideas as a DM, but obviously I wasn't aware of how games are built or even how the story of the industry played a major role on how games were developed. The little I learned of DMing was in part to older DMS, common sense and photocopies of Dragon Magazine articles that my friend was able to bring from abroad
Here's my two cents, mechanics first and story second. 1. It's a TTRPG, mechanics can more reliably push narratives than narratives can push mechanics. 2. Mechanics are also more essential to the nature of the genre. I can take away the narrative and still have a tabletop game. However, if i take away the mechanics, I just have a book.
I played 2E as a kid. I’ve never played 5E but I still watch many lore videos about D&D. 5E is more streamlined but 2E absolutely rules when it comes to lore, adventures, modules, etc. I’m not counting the homemade/3rd party material available thanks largely to the internet of course.
"Martha, some is defending THACO on the internet again, git my bat." Kidding aside as someone who started with the BECMI I was all too happy when the d20 rules came in. The less charts the better as they always slowed down combat. The irony is with the latest iteration of 5e combat takes even longer with action/move/free action/reaction/bonus action......suffice to say I have left 5e. 😅
You also didnt mention 5e not only has more HPs but get Death Saves, 1e you lose those few Hps you have and well your rolling a new character up. (I play 1e twice a week, thursday as player and Sundays as DM), Not only do we know there is a good chance our character will die, Most of us Keep spare characters made and ready.
In my opinion, for what it is worth. As some one who started on 1st ed and played most my time as a teen, and other versions in my older adult life . It seem to me the 2ed stayed to it roots of table top war gaming. A tradition that goes back 100 or so years. Modern Dungeons and Dragons, is more played like a computer game on table top. With the way the game is going I sadly wouldn`t be surprised to see the game morph into something that resembles a smaller level mmo if that makes sense. So its a generational preference I think.
I wasn't a fan of THAC0 but really it's not as bad as I remember. Really it's still just a d20 plus (or perhaps minus!) your modifier vs a target number. I think mainly the reason they updated it in 3rd edition is in order to use the same system for combat as for non-combat skills.
Having to have the opponents AC to do the math adds complexity to it. In five you don't need to know the enemy's armor class at all you just roll a d20 add your modifier and then ask the DM if it's greater or less than the number they already know
There's a reason why THACO was dropped since 3rd edition, simply less complicated. But it scales efficiently, since 3rd edition balance in scale-up was thrown out the window.
The other thing about the THAC0 value is your value changed predictably. If memory serves it went like this Warrior went down 1 point every level. Priest down 2 every 3. Rouge 1 every 2 and wizard .... why were they in melee range? What went wrong? Did we have a tpk?!? And as far as leveling goes this is what made humans viable and why (since this is a game sent in the past) why we don't see the other species in the modern age. Every other race had bonuses to affinities. But they limited at the top end. Meaning you get a jump start, but eventually your character would max out. Only humans were considered crazy enough to just keep pushing. The gods built these short lived critters different In one campaign setting you actually played as full dragons (not dragon born full adult dragons). Included in it was a subclass for warriors. Dragon hunter. You got huge bonuses for hunting dragons. The in universe explanation from the dragons was that THE dragon god IO had seen the wars between dragons and created a race of pure determination to help him keep the dragons in line. To limit them he made them weak and short lived but if they truly devoted thselves they could be more fearsome than any wyrm I liked that idea. Humans are space orks. They are fundamentally not niche and you play the game on a harder starting mode, but they can push past limits that the other races "knew" couldn't be passed.
There are a couple lines in the BECMI table that don't follow that. I think it was line 5 that went up by 2 and line 11 doesn't have an increase (I'd have to double check).
I mean TTRPG did start as an offshoot of strategy game and so it stands to reason that the pioneers were basically strategy game with story attached to it. But, it also stand to reason that as people realize what the activity is actually good at and provide to us that if you"re here for the mechanics..Strategy game on tabletop or video with story attached to it are fundamentally unbeatable quality wise. As such the only usage left of the two when you use 2 cent of critical thinking(or more into infinity) is story first, mechanic second : Aka, the mechanic are here in service of the story not the other way around. The reason being that the flexibility story wise offered by a human is something no video game (not even BG3) will ever be able to equal. Any other usage of TTRPGs is basically using a tool that may work but is clearly not the best tool for the job meaning you're factually doing it wrong. It would be like using the handle of a knife to hammer a nail down while having an actual hammer right beside it : it is dumb.
My words may have been taken too literally. RPG gives the stance that story is a major factor regardless of the wide spectrum between people who love the mechanics and have the most fun optimizing character abilities or exploring the like vs people who lean heavily towards the story aspect and the mechanics are what make it a game instead of just playing pretend. But yes the war gaming origins of D&D is absolutely what I was pointing towards. It’s a good discussion!
@@NorseFoundry And my point is that TTRPG strength lies in it's flexibility which is far more applicable to story on the fly then rules. (making rules on the fly usually open a can of worms) Ergo being there for the mechanic first story second makes no sense. As there are other type of game that answer those type of itch in a much better manner then TTRPGs will ever be able to do. That's an itch you can have completed in : Any action rpg with a decent story.
@@TrueAryador I agree with a lot of what you are saying, in that if you just want mechanics computer games are just a better choice than TTRPGs, but my experience with modern players is too many people resent having mechanics limiting their ability to do whatever they want in the moment, and the design of the books seems to support that mindset, with WOTC not wanting to limit player creativity, and thereby making the DM have to be the "bad guy" who says no, because the player facing books sure don't. That is a huge difference between the systems imo; how well they support the DM. 5E is not a rules light system, but it encourages players to think of it that way. DMs who have lots of experience and are willing to house rule until the system is usable do fine, but new DMs are just left to figure it out with basically no guidance. Matt Mercer uses a ton of house rules but I run into tons of people who have no idea that it isn't RAW, and then are disappointed and feel betrayed if you don't run it just like him. 5E, RAW, isn't even playable, but with some house rules the system can be made to do whatever you want. I see people trying to make enough house rules to run a murder/mystery type campaign and honestly question why they don't just play a different TTRPG that was designed to do what they are aiming for, but people have been told that other RPGs are harder to learn so they don't want to try anything else. That is one of the big misconceptions, imo, that other systems are universally harder to learn than 5E. I would say few games are harder to learn to DM/GM/referee/etc. than 5E.
@@atheistsquid 5E is not open ended by default WTF am I reading ? The whole design philosophy of it is literally to reduce the amount of choices available to you and to make sure you're stuck with a specific set of skill (that's what subclass are) and only those who use multi class can break the mold to some extent but also break the game along with it. 5E is literally designed in a way that defines your options as to what is in the book. It is extremely restrictive if you apply the philosophy inside of it. It is much more streamlined and easy to understand then in the past but it is by no means open ended. Also RAW and RAI is actually playable. WTF am I reading here. Like very rarely have I ever read something so full of confidence yet so wrong about what it's talking about. Now if you want an open ended system try the following : Anime was a mistake Powered by the abyss Anima beyond fantasy 5E anime version (complete overhaul of 5E) Talislanta GURP Role Master Aventure Those are system that are open ended that are meant for you to personalize your character, abilities/skills and so on. (with varying degree of learning curves) 5E is child play, it's basic but functional. It's baby's first TTRPG. It's actually it's main quality, it's simple.. If you think 5E is hard to learn then I invite you to go back to : D&D 3.0, 3.5 pathfinder 1st, 2nd Shadow run cyberpunk anima beyond fantasy role master War hammer fantasy, all 40k version vampire the masquerade. Just to name a few from the top of my head. All those systems have much more nuanced (sometimes confusing as well) mechanics and interaction that require not only knowledge of how each individual ability work but how they interact with one another to even be able to make a character that does what you want without wasting too much resources doing it. Now where I will agree with you is that people should learn new system instead of spending 2 months (or more) making their own version of 5E when they lack the skill to do it. (which most of them do lack) Because the end result will, the vast majority of the time, be of lower quality and take more time then just learning a new system.
The biggest change we made to the base rules was parrying. Thet just didnt work at all. The base rules made no sense as you would never parry short of im stuffed and i need a round for someone to heal me. You lost all your attacks and just increased your armor. It was a bit complicated but we made parrying a "to hit" role based on a difference in levels to represent the skill of the character, you could split attacks and parries any way you wanted. It made combat really tactical.
@@MedievalFantasyTV I can't remember the exact thing we came up with being almost 20 years ago but it was something like target roll was 10 with half the difference in levels between the characters added or subtracted. Multi class used their highest. So for 2 fighters you could block about half the time with +- 2 levels, it only became a guarantee parry if you were +-20 level difference (nat 20 always count as a parry). If you wanted to add some flavour with weapon mods, i.e. you could add some weapon bonuses for things that are hard to block like flails and whips but we generally didn't because it got complicated.
From someone who started with 3.5 (and my favorite system is Call of Cthulhu and Cyberpunk Red), my only game of 2e was one of my worst. The DM was bad and I hated my character. My cleric/priest was an heal bot since my magic sucks and even if I was a war priest I couldn't do a thing in combat. I respect game that want weaker character, but with the OSR movement, I feel AD&D isn't the best option except if you are nostalagic. Like Dungeon Crawl Classic rocks and is way easier to play.
PLEASE READ:-
Wow! This video has inspired a lot more debate and conversation than expected and I love to see it. However, there are a few things to keep in mind to keep the debate respectful:-
1. Be nice. No remarks of insulting people’s choices or insinuating that they are lesser than you.
2. This wasn’t a deep dive into mechanics. This was intended to be an *opinion* piece discussing the differences in play-style which explained some mechanics for context.
3. The divide I’ve seen is mostly in jest and this opinion piece was brought about by years of experiences talking with players of all editions and people who knew the game designers well.
4. Having an opinion that doesn’t agree with someone else’s is still an opinion. Let’s treat it that way.
5. Have fun! I think this discussion is really good and it’s bringing lots of nuance from your individual games for everyone to see.
Races, not species.
Don't insult 2nd edition players with your 5e woke terminology.
#EvilRacesMatter
It's race, not species.
I played a days' worth of 2nd edition. I have played a lot of 5th edition as well. I enjoy both games.
To me the biggest difference is 5th edition is easier. But not without its own flaws.
If I was to make D&D I would make it harder and as a game, it should get increasingly more difficult. But as the players get higher levels it actually gets easier. This is within the various editions.
Side note: In my 2nd edition game, you rolled 4d6 and got 1 reroll, that you could use. But kept the order.
I’m an active 2E player. The hardest thing for new players to understand is their adjusted thaco from targets AC. Once you figure it out, it’s so simplistic. But it takes the longest for people to grasp. I always end up making them a chart
When you found out someone had -3 AC, you knew they were badass. THACO forever.
Yep. It was easy to remember that negative AC was really good.
How is that different than knowing someone with a 25 AC is badass? Also, using high numbers is more intuitive and psychologically satisfying than low numbers are. To many people struggle with negative numbers anyway and it can be real annoying if you are playing with someone like that.
This is the way!
@@mkklassicmk3895 it is not different. You just have to explain to new players that 25 is not Armor Class but rather "to be hit with Proficiency Bonus 0". I.e. number you should roll on your d20 if your proficiency bonus was 0. But since it's probably not zero, you just take your bonus value, subtract it from monster's tbhwPB0, and now you have a target number to roll on your d20. Easy!
@@mkklassicmk3895 In 3e and 5e, my players roll a number, add all mods, and ask me if rolling 16 hits.
In 2e, my players roll a number, add their mods (usually fewer, because 2e has less math going on), and then ask me if a 16 hits.
They're the same. In normal combat the players dont know the enemy AC, so The DM just has to - like always - tell the player if they hit or not. Both groups Ive run 2e for in the past two years, all of whom were 3e/5e veterans, couldnt understand why there was so much fuss over thac0 on the internet as they had no issues at my table.
If the player has a negative AC only the DM has to worry about it, so the player's personal aversions to negative numbers is typically irrelevant. And when the enemies have negative AC, again only the DM has to worry about it. A DM regardless of game system will have problems if they themselves are math-averse.
you missed a big thing about 2e initiative - players all have to decide what theyre doing each round first, THEN they roll initiative to see who goes first. Initiative was rolled each round because taking different actions could mean having different initiative modifiers. My 5e group that tried out 2e found that this style of initiative made combat much quicker.
Yeah, we changed to that too, back when we played 5e in person.
Yeah I've always been a fan of declare-first initiative, because it forces everyone to essentially plan their turns simultaneously, and that saves a bunch of time. Where as modern D&D is basically "okay Dave, it's your turn" and then Dave will start thinking. People basically switch their brains off until its their turn because they don't have the final positioning of things until they actually come up.
I remember reading about 3.5rd edition and how there was no longer a casting speed on spells AND there were attacks of opportunity, and thinking any mage casting Magic Missile is going to get interrupted and maybe die trying now, where in 2nd edition you probably got the spell off first.
How can that possibly be quicker than the standard way? There are literally an extra step to doing it the 2e way.
@@mkklassicmk3895 Because the thinking happens in parallel. The slow part of combat isn't the die rolling, it's the thinking time of people assessing the situation and choosing actions. With declare-first initiative the time lost to thinking equals that of the slowest player. With modern declare-on-turn initiative, the total thinking time is the sum of every player's thinking time at the table.
The primary reason my friends and I prefer 2ed is that it is more down to earth. You start as underdogs. Role playing and tactics are necessary to survive combat. Fleeing or avoiding combat is extremely relevant. When you finally reach level 3 or 5 and get new abilities, you really feel like you've earned it!
For us. as we are used to the difficulty level from 2ed, the newer editions feel like being in the world of a cartoon. But I also have friends outside my D&D group who prefer the new systems, who don't like or understand the rationale for the limitations that are in 2ed. In the end, it's just a matter of taste.
You’re definitely not starting as superheroes in 2e!
And undead energy drain is LETHAL.
2e = Conan
5e = Steven Universe
In my 3.5 games players were often on their toes and on the run from levels 3-6.
First two levels are milk runs, wraping up their apprenticeships and becoming adults; they havent met the villain yet.
Around level 7 they progress to the point of taking the fight to the enemey, within reason, and thats when the dungeon delving really begins. (Not that there werent dungeon settings before this)
@@ProZeidon 2E feels like it's more story-based instead of less. You aren't locked into a bunch of obnoxious combat math and min/maxing all the time, you're more at the DM's discretion. Like this guy said, you couldn't lean on your stats or combat math to keep you alive. You had to run away sometimes. You had to be tactical.
I dont agree that 2e was game first / story second and 5e is story first / game second. I played 2e throughout its entirety. The story was never second.
The main difference I see in 2e vs 5e is that in 2e you are more or less starting off as a normal person most of the time, lethality was high, and you weren't guaranteed every combat encounter was going to be something you could beat. You pointed out correctly that its high lethality meant you needed a higher level of tactics and strategies. You also had to know when to run away.
It took a long time to level as well, so the victories you achieved with those characters meant a lot more.
5e is more for marvel super hero style characters that come out of the proverbial womb as comic book heroes capable of smashing troops of enemies without a second thought, and where combat encounters are all supposed to be beatable through fighting. Lethality is supposed to be a player choice in 5e, meaning that player death should be very rare. As such, victories (for me) don't feel as memorable because its kind of like a pro wrestling match. Its fun to watch but in the end the outcome was already decided.
Thats how I see 2e vs 5e ultimately. Yes 5e is more streamlined. I actually prefer AC going up and was never a fan of THAC0 but I can do either. I enjoy games like DUngeon Crawl Classics because it harkens back to old school lethality with modern streamlining.
The deadly nature of 2nd edition tended to force PCs and DMs to put story first as they needed to be creative to twart the threats-light cast in eyeballs, charm person to negate fights, constructing traps, etc. The ease of 5e survivability allows one to lazily *bonk* their way through encounters, putting combat before story.
the "3d6 in order" is a myth. It's only one of 6 methods of rolling for stats, and it's the most brutal and least favorable one, which goes against the original methods that were much more favorable. More tables used Method V (which became the standard ever since) and the other 4 methods were even better, so the brutality of "Method I" aside from being first, wasn't meant as a standard.
My group did 4d6, drop the lowest number, and place the numbers where we wanted. Thus, no one EVER played a paladin -- no one rolled high enough to meet the requirements!
For sure! That’s why I said classic (not most popular): it’s the most associated that doesn’t exist in the rules today. I appreciate you giving more insight into your experience at 2e tables!
For 5e, I use 4d6 drop the lowest for 2x columns of 6. Then I have the player choose which column they prefer.
We definitely did 4d6 drop the lowest. And then -2 for a +1.
its not a myth.... it was the base..... with a few options presented to actually use to make functional characters
Simple math is hard.
THAC0 - opponent AC = to hit roll on a d20. Seriously, that is it. Modify d20 roll per negative or positive modifier.
What do I want? Open world sandbox classic adventure gaming with massive hexcrawls. The players actions drive the play and the story. The DM is the straight man in the middle narrating the world around them. The players have the choice to go do anything they want. The DM may provide hooks and opportunities, but the players are not obligated to follow along. Open world, open choice, player agency.
Bro, I had Thac0 figured out at 10 years old and played in AD&D tournaments at gencon back then with vietnam vets. These people are poser nerds acting like thac0 is some fucking Brain Buster mechanic.
Shows how soft and lame nerd culture has become. Bunch of posers trying to be drama class dorks and youtube $$$ vultures.
The "complexity" of THAC0 is certainly overstated by 5E kids, but ascending AC is a simpler rule when it comes to writing rules and magical effects. It's much easier to write clear and simple rules when you can say "This magical Shield +1 gives a +1 bonus to AC" rather than "This magical Shield +1 gives a -1 bonus to AC." Having +1 be a bonus on the armor and a penalty to the armor class requires a slightly wordier explanation like this:
"The bonus of any non-cursed magic armor or shield is subtracted from the character's Armor Class. EXAMPLE: A male fighter wearing plate mail armor and using a shield (but with no Dexterity adjustments) has an Armor Class of 2. If that character uses a shield + 1, his Armor Class becomes 1." [Modlvay Basic]
If the game started in 1974 with ascending AC, no one would want to confuse things by changing to descending. The appeal of THAC0 is purely nostalgia.
I prefer the "no subtraction" method.
Formula: 1d20 + Modifiers + Target AC vs (unmodified) THAC0
DM adds the target AC on his end, to keep AC secret.
Player rolls 1d20 + mods, gives the total.
DM adds AC to player's total, declares hit or miss.
This method makes descending AC easy to explain to a newcomer. "You want your Armor Class as low as possible, because it's an attack bonus that others get to add against you."
@@AgellI feel like the concept of one of your stats being added to someone else's role is fundamentally more confusing than just a number the other side has to roll to. You want a high defense so you have a high number
Basic arithmetic being "fundamentally confusing" is why this debate exists in the first place, so you're in good company.
My reply was to the OP, not the guy above me so your comment is irrelevant to me.
Ascending AC is easier than DAC, no argument. Old D&D modules and stats aren't written for AAC, so I have a method modernizing the attack roll that makes conversion to AAC unnecessary.
Players roll an attack give me their roll result. I, the DM, add the monster's AC and compare it to the character's base THAC0 number, like a Difficulty Class in 3e onward.
I don't know what to tell you if adding two numbers to see if it's equal to or greater than X is confusing for you. If you were a player, the enemy AC is invisible to you anyway.
THACO was never hard for me, but I do recognize it’s harder than the DC method because subtraction is (ever so slightly) slower than addition.
But if my THACO is, say, 12, then an AC 6 creature is hit when I roll a 6 or higher. If the enemy is a -1 AC, then it’s 13.
THAC0 minus die roll equals Armor Class hit. That's literally all there is to it.
Well, you're in luck.
THAC0 can be used as a "To-Hit" DC.
Formula: 1d20 + Modifiers + Target AC vs THAC0 (unmodified)
All addition, no conversion, works like modern games.
@@Agell - for negative ACs, you’re adding negative numbers, not calling that subtraction is kind of hard for most gamers to swallow.
But yes, d20 + modifiers + AC vs. 20 (for everyone) is one way to look at it.
Certainly more straight forward to grok than subtracting a negative number from a die roll.
Next time I'll write out all exceptions on the youtube comment instead of relying on people's ability to grasp grade school arithmetic.
2nd edition was my favorite as a DM. Not because it was the best system, but it could get so complex and layered that I could tell PCs anything and we'd roll with it. In essence 2nd edition taught me to be flexible and creative with rules, allowing for more narrative input into what may otherwise be a rigid system. House rules flourished in 2e.
Flexibility and house rules are the way forward!
2E veteran here.
On NWPs: Modifiers affect the ability score being rolled against, not the roll itself which is a d20 roll low vs ability score. So the Juggling test presented in the video would be vs d20 roll low vs 14, not d20-1 to the roll to beat a 15. That's a full 10% difference which is important. Negative modifiers increases the chance of failure, not success. See Using Nonweapon Proficiencies on page 55 of the PHB. It's the first paragraph on the third column.
On ability score rolls: There were six methods presented in the book, 3d6-in-order was merely one of them. In practice at the time, most groups DMs devised their own methods. Nobody used 3d6 in order IME. Nobody. A given method (usually homebrew) was determined by the DM and was universally applied to PCs.
On 2E combat: It was drastically simplified for purposes of the video. There were actually multiple optional initiative systems in 2E (default was group initiative meaning the entire group goes on the rolled initiative), and weapon speed factor is optional itself. Monsters also use speed factors given their weapons (should it be used), spells also had casting time which caused initiative to be adjusted (and WASN'T optional), environment adjusted it (wading in shallow water +2, wading in deep water +4, etc), and finally there was the matter of multiple attacks. For multiple attacks with unique weapons they all happened on their initiative (fighting with two weapons = two attacks, monster's claw/claw/bite = three attacks), for PCs who have achieved mastery of a weapon to the point of multiple attacks with a single weapon, you get one attack during your initiative and the rest at the end of the round. Yes, there were conditions on when you could make your multiple attacks.
On THAC0: The simplest calculation was roll + modifiers + enemy AC >= THAC0 = hit. This is absolutely more cumbersome than ascending AC regardless of how you slice it, and 3E's only real contribution to the game I would call a near-unanimously determined improvement on the underlying D&D system. At the time it came out I knew DMs who switched ONLY their To Hit/AC system to 3E and otherwise continued playing 2E.
On XP: 2E actually had two systems here as well, the group version essentially became core but I argue the individual XP system outlined on page 48 of the DMG is far better to positively reinforce behaviors you want in players portrayal of their characters. So not just is each class's experience chart different, but how they actually accumulate the XP that fills that chart in is different. Example: outside of single combat, only Warriors and Bards gain any experience from defeating monsters. A wizard drops a horde of goblins attacking the party with a fireball? They get (150) experience for casting the spell, but nothing for dropping the monsters (which isn't bad as they were only 15 xp each). They also only get that experience if there was significant danger posed by the goblins as well (which there very well could not be). "Single Combat" vs higher power monsters is really only achievable by fighters and clerics in the system, as it denotes nobody else helps you defeat a foe. This isn't a kill-stealing system, if everybody has to come together to fight something then the Fighter and Bard are the only ones standing to get XP from it's demise.
On HD bloat: The reason HD's crap out at 9 in earlier D&D is because it's frankly nonsensical for the mortal frame to be able to take the kind of punishment 20HD creatures can take. If anything I think it's an overshot, PC HD should probably cap at 6. Remember: a 10-16 HD creature is a dragon in this edition. Putting humans on that power level is nonsense.
On Healing: The 2E rule is basically bad on purpose to facilitate the use and importance of Clerics, Druids, and other Priests of Specific Mythoi. Also it's a bit of a misnomer that you get 1 HP/day. That's for standard, low impact days. Total bedrest days is 3HP/day, with an additional modifier based on high constitution/week. I've never liked this rule because it treats all HP the same, meaning those with low HP will heal to full much faster than those with high HP. I remember a good houserule for this was based on character HD instead of HP. Roll 2HD, lowest roll is healed, full bedrest means you keep both rolls. Similarly divine magic should scale with HD of who's being healed, so for example a Mage is healed in d4s and a Fighter in d10s.
There are many differences between 5E and 2E, I don't think you can narrow it down to "story first vs game first". I would say the real difference is "characters first vs setting first". In 2E it was known that DMs were the worldbuilders and therefore architects of reality, while players are merely... players in that reality. Everything was built around that central conceit, and some DMs were absolutely not worthy of it. 5E's central conceit is more that the characters are protagonists to the point there's baked in plot armor in the form of Death Saves (you did not mention that 2E's baseline mechanic for death is death at 0 HP). But back to the point, everything is built around that central conceit of protagonism, and we're also learning that some players are absolutely not worthy of it.
There is no happy medium to be had here. Somebody has to be in charge. I personally prefer it to be the DM. Because players should have minimal investment in the campaign at onset. The play is the thing for them, and that is where their focus should be. Not excessive backstory or bizarre character builds. Because that is what the game has become now. And I'll be honest, it started in late stage 2E, as a reaction to the earlier style and unworthy DMs.
Re: HD bloat, remember making a spellcaster who gets a lowly 1d4 hit points? You could literally just trip over your shoelaces and die from it.
But hit points were never really that big a deal if you had a good GM and group. They were used more for dramatic imperative than anything.
You have only a couple of hit points left, what do you do? I climb up in the tree. Okay, now you're in the tree, what do you do? Wait for the raiders to leave. Okay, after hours of taunting and throwing rocks at you, they get bored and leave, what now? Climb down. Roll a climbing skill check. Ok, you failed and ended up higher in the tree. Try again. Ooh, you failed again, you got on a springy branch and it catapulted you across the field.
vs.
Try again. Ooh, you just fell out of the tree and hit your head on a rock, you die.
Good GMs made the game fun. There were those that played hardcore, but for that style, you kept a stable of characters to choose from and those characters had a variety of hirelings and henchmen (that was a big part of early D&D), so that death wasn't a sure thing or a final thing.
This was closer to my 2e experience. I disagree 90% on 5e being more based on story over 2e . I think the lack of rules allowed/encouraged more roleplay and theater of the mind. The detailed action economy mechanics of 5e and now 5e 2024 make it closer and closer to a combat simulator. I know there are more complicated TTRPGs, this newest version is like 3.5 tho. I do like 5e a lot, but an example of my point is that the newest 5e 2024 basically took away most flavor from a race/species, feats, and background. It is all mechanical and almost all combat related.
I used to play 1st and 2nd edition. Never understood the THAC0 controversy. There were to-hit charts so you didn't need to ever use THAC0 to determine whether or not a character or monster hit. You could just use the charts.
That’s a good point!
Even without the charts, the math is barely different than that of 5e (as it is the current). All you gotta do is put it down on paper to show people and they'll realize it was overexaggerated.
2e: d20 + mods +AC > THAC0
5e: d20 + mods + PB > AC
THAC0 is needlessly complex, but it's honestly not that complicated as to be a dealbreaker, so I don't see why it gets so many complaints.
Even back in the day my players just converted THAC0 into a bonus to hit equal to 20-THAC0, because remembering one bonus for your attack roll is just easier. "I rolled a 24" versus "I rolled 16, THAC0 18". The first is just easier to process.
I don't think THAC0 is that complex, or better, but it's certainly not "the same math" either. A LOT of American kids have a much harder time with subtraction than addition. My best friend couldn't figure out THAC0 to save his life, but once we switched to 3E he had no issues.
All the calculations and table references take precious second while the players devolve into Monty python quotes….
My real introduction to D&D was the Baldur's Gate games. I loved the scaling in them because doing that entire level 1-30 campaign gave an amazing sense of how far you have come and the growth of your character.
Also never forget the 10 foot pole! Everyone needs a 10 foot pole!
As an older player I hate the newer stuff after 2nd edition.
This. Never buy/play anything D&D related after 2e.
5e is Chuck E Cheese Nickelodeon shit for nerds that wanna be drama class with dice and get massively ego wounded if they die in a game.
@@BlackEcology This is such a weird thing to say. I've seen more death at the table in 5th than in 2nd. Monsters have more hp in 5th whereas it wasn't uncommon to kill a red dragon in one round in 2nd. Don't get me wrong, I love 2nd ed and was running games of it until almost 2020, but this is just needless edition war bs that we as older players should be well beyond by now.
@@BlackEcologyGod what a horrible attitude to have. Why get so pissy about something you don't even like. Why bother getting angry about it. No one's forcing you to play 5e, you're not better for not though
2e and earlier is survival horror adventure...5e+ is easy mode power fantasy....
It’s much harder to give a sense of impending doom in 5e. It can be done but much more difficult.
You were also able to achieve much higher levels of epic deeds...if you survived long enough.
I recently ran a 2E game with our old characters from the late 90's (yes, I still have the character sheets after all these years)...the Paladin was liberating an island from the control of an entire red dragon clan...the red dragon's humanoid champions were specialists with firearms...but they were only lvl 8, while the paladin was lvl 15... multiple times they shot him point blank, but the bullets ricocheted off the armor, and the paladin was so focused on destroying the catapults so the rest of the party could get past the gate house safely, that he completely ignored/forgot about the dragon champions that were shooting at him...the dragon champion got more upset that he was being ignored than that he couldn't affect the hero...as DM...it was hilarious..."Hey, I'm the BBEG at this castle! QUIT IGNORING ME!"
TOTALLY agree.
@@madisonhasson8981 That's awesome. I also have every character I've ever played in a binder starting with my first character from 4th grade, almost 40 years ago (ouch). I even have some of my friends characters and sent them scans so they could have a copy for themselves for nostalgia purposes.
I love 2nd Ed, but I eventually learned to enjoy 3rd (very late in its life) and am playing a 5th ed game now. I loved and still love 2nd ed, but a lot of people who complain about 5th seem to forget that you got extremely powerful long before "epic levels". Like, "It's my turn and I kill the Dragon." levels of powerful. Which just doesn't happen in 5th ed. Simply because everything has more hit points. 2nd ed monsters were hit point starved about as much as the players. A great Wyrm red dragon had on average just over 100 hit points (though to be fair my experience with 5th ed is far more limited than with 2nd so maybe you can solo dragons eventually idk). And it's fairly easy to deal that kind of damage.
Another thing that I liked about 2nd that is maybe a part of the problem. 2nd was very customizable. All D&D is, but with 2nd, pretty much no one played it as written. So many rules were listed as optional that most people missed at least a few even if they wanted to play it as written. Ultimately 2nd ed games is fondly remembered because every group was playing the perfect version for their own group . And as DM that also made it feal easy to off the cuff a lot of things. My players fought monsters with abilities that I never bothered to fully figure out what they do. (Ie. animated intestines with fanged mouths in an abandoned temple of orcus that would try to burrow into the Pc's upon a hit. I don't know what would have happened if the monster got all the way in because no player was about to let it happen.) 3rd ed wanted everything clearly defined, which was fine, but made it hard for me to off the cuff games like I used to and required more planning. I think 5th ed recaptures some of that customizability and playing off the cuff as a Dm, but not quite as much as 2nd ed.
Sorry, that rambled a bit. I'm old and it's late.
thank you for making a video about 2e, as I feel it's often overlooked by the old guard for the sin(?) of not being their precious 1e, and dismissed by the new guard for the sin(?) of not giving the feel of superheroic fantasy combat.
I mostly only ever hear about 3.5 - maybe because it was the schism point for Paizo
Some of use that started with 1st ed aren't dead yet. Some of us even played chainmail and Arduin
Lol...that makes 2 of us...
THAC0 isn't hard. It's actually very simple if you go by this ultra quadratic advanced mathematical formula... THAC0 minus Attack Roll equals Armor Class Hit.
Or THAC0 - Attack Roll= AC Hit.
So if your THAC0 is 19 and you roll a 12 you hit AC 7. If you roll a 16 you hit AC 3. You just apply all combat modifiers to the attack roll and not the THAC0.
Boom. Done. Problem solved. Easy peasy.
Hahaha 😂
But math is opressive...😢
In the days of 2E, people didn't troll each othe online, people trolled each other in person. Many trolls would pretend to have common interests as a way to get past your defenses, only to humiliate you more painfully and publicly. In our modern day, we can just turn off the computer, leave the chat, or get off social media. Back then, you couldn't just leave the school, or if you did try to leave, the trolls would follow you home and just keep trolling you. THAC0 and descending AC were how we discovered real life trolls in sheep's clothing. It also helped us learn how much we had to teach someone that genuinely wanted to learn D&D.
I will be forever grateful to the service THAC0 provided and wish modern role playing systems had something that served a similar social function.
THAC0 - your roll = AC you hit.
Because that's what you should call. Now I'm confused because somes players call their die result without modifier some other with.
They even ask for AC but then dont use it to call their hit.
To me it's just the players who wants to.call big numbers. And many ppl who talk shit about studf they have no first hand experience with.
Heh. I am from a generation that played from 1E to today. We never realized that the AC added to the to-hit roll adjusted for target. Actually, as I recall we always used the charts that were still around. I do kind of miss the strategy choice of do we keep going or head back to town after a night's rest. The cleric would have to decide how many spells to cast on healing at the start of the day to deal with the damage carried forward, then we look at our HP and spell totals and decide...hmmm, hit a few more rooms or see if we can survive the trip home ?
Haha! The good ol’ days!
Since 2015, I have introduced a lot of players to 2nd edition, they seem to prefer 2nd to 5th. Not sure if it's my gm-style, or the fact that they actually feel heroic when they live, lol
(excellent video btw)
My experience was different. 2e was much more story and character driven. Because how dangerous combat was and how long healing took, the party was incentivized to roleplay and problem solve. The faster combats also gave us more time for the other pillars of play.
The more dangerous combat is one of the reason I could never consider the old editions story driven. For me the story really goes down the drain in any game, where players seriously consider brining backup-characters. Also characters with randomized stats for me make extremely bad protagonists for any story.
I think the distinction here is Sunday morning cartoon versus narrative. You can have stories with squishy characters that died, but you're not going to get nearly as attached to those characters as you would a character who has been around for a while. You can't have long character arcs if stepping on a random floor tile can instantly kill you
@@nigeladams8321 we had very few PC deaths in 2E. But I think it's because we played with a lot of DM fudging and on-rails story games. That was sort of seemed the "official" way to do it, if you used published adventures.
It wasn't until I got on message boards during the 3e era that I learned the "proper" way to run a game (always rolling publicly, never cheat on HP, etc). As a result, following the rules to the letter, all my games since 3e have been meat grinders.
I think a big part of the Martial/Spell caster divide in 5e, is a side effect from not having different Xp for classes like in AD&D2ed.
Oh, now THAT is an interesting point…
racial class level limits and age effects were also a thing
xp per kills in 2e were also much more stringent.... getting a level in 2e was a major occurrence
leveling in 5e..... is a joke if you look at kills to level in comparison
Agree most strongly, Gygax was an actuary, he knew all about statistics and how to actually balance something. 3e and beyond tried to standardize things, thinking it made things more balanced when they were in actuality ignorantly removing the balance.
@@roberthradek7100- I don’t think Gary was an actuary, maybe that came from the following blog?
dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/coming-to-terms-with-ad.html
“…John Zuur Platten, the business partner of Flint Dille, Gary Gygax’s old friend and collaborator. Through Flint, John had had the chance to learn much about Gary Gygax and the origins of D&D. John explained to me that “to understand D&D, you have to understand that Gary thought like an insurance actuary. D&D is fantasy fiction through actuarial science.”
That said, I don’t think it completely accounts for caster martial disparity, because by the time that the Wizard and Fighter each have, for example, 250,000 XP, the fighter is 9th, but the wizard is 11th. By the time the wizard has level 5 spells, they are beginning to leave the fighter in the dust.
Literally the only thing keeping them down is attrition due to their need for the fighters to protect them (at least until levels 9 and higher.) so while I can understand the argument for the differences between, say, the thief, cleric, and fighter, the Wizard’s XP table is a very uneven progression that at several points starts to outpace the Fighters, and by the time it evens out after level 13 or so, wizards are extremely powerful and outshine in the same group with even higher level fighters. It does work pretty well between levels 1 and 9, though.
No. IT's spell slot management. YOu had more slots, but you had to name your spells. If you said 3 fireballs and you needed a featherfall, you were f**ked. Also no cantrips. Plus the robes were if for armor. Nothing else. No leather armor IIRC, nothing. You also could use a staff or a dagger and little else for weapons unless it was magical. In other words, you were even MORE squishy and MORE dependent on magic and it was a guessing game as to what you might actually need or use each day.
Wizards complain but they REALLLLLY have no idea how much resource management you had to do.
I really like Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition. I don't find THAC0 difficult at all. We used to do THAC0 minus armor class, and that was the target number we had to roll, which made it very simple. If it was negative, then we just had to add it, which in that case made it similar to how it works in 5th edition. I don't agree with the distinction made between 2nd edition and 5th edition, implying different emphases between combat in one and story mode in the other, suggesting that one leans more towards one aspect or the other. In role-playing games, it's the DM who determines in their style of play whether to lean more towards one side or the other. In fact, in 2nd edition, there are no minis, which makes it more about theater of the mind, and thus more focused on the story mode. On the other hand, the skill system in 2nd edition was quite ambiguous, however, the skill system in 5th edition seems excellent to me and great improvement that they reduced it compared to 3.5th
I was commenting on the general differences talking about story vs mechanics first and more so talking about why people would stick with 2e - it’s about the crunch! Haha. Totally respect your opinion and experiences though. I do believe that there were official miniatures produced for AD&D 2e.
Of course, for me D&D5e has a lot of good things, but I don't like the rest system, and yes, they released miniatures, specifically Ral Partha, which were made of plumb.
Long rest is absolutely OP!
@@NorseFoundry "Storymode" was initially emphasised in TSRs Dragonlance (1984) which was, of course, AD&D 1e. You could play these early editions however you wanted. They weren't that crunchy really when compared to something like RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, or the Hero System at the time - take a look at the 2e spell descriptions compared to those in 5e, for example - unless you adopted all the various splat books with their optional rules. For me, the BIG difference in philosophy between 1e/2e and 5e is the "insta-death" mechanics of the earlier editions and the removal of such things like undead level drain (now that really was terrifying) which players hated, along with the codification of outcomes (which came in in 3e) rather than relying on DM interpretation - I guess so it was seen as fair. Some people say that earlier editions had an adversarial relationship between DM and players, and maybe that's true for some tables, but it wasn't generally true (DMs can always 100% splat a party if they want, can't they?).
I love this analysis and I agree! The insta death and level drain also go back to the heroic character story leaning play-style of 5e too.
If you put a ton of effort into creating a multifaceted character with a great backstory on a compelling arc and then get level drained or just WHACKED crazy early in the game… is that fun for most people?
started with dnd 5e, then tried adnd 2e. 2e is way better imo! it gives the dm a lot of tools to work with, and everyone doesn't have dark vision. Humans are very important in the older games. and thac0 is weird but logical. Adnd 2e could be the best edition, next to rules cyclopedia.
I never had a problem with THAC0, but I did like the base attack bonus system of 3rd edition better and am fine with the proficiency bonus system of 5th edition. The only edition I didn’t quite get (despite playing it) was 1st edition because I didn’t have access to the to-hit charts unless I delved into the DMG, and I didn’t play DM until 3rd edition.
The only conclusion I can reach regarding people having a problem with thaco is that they are essentially innumerate (I.e. can’t add or subtract). Thaco was a brilliant innovation that eliminated the need to consult a table for every roll. If you knew one number, you knew what you needed to hit. A person of very modest intelligence could figure it out in their head.
So, I'm going to push back on this. I don't think the problem is THAC0 per say, but it's the using of multiple calculation methods for different things. Admittedly, I don't know 2e specifically, but BECMI has descending AC, D20 roll over for saves, D20 roll under for skills, D6 roll under for abilities and percentile for Thief shenanigans. Turning everything into roll over D20 means you only need to remember one formula and check the numbers. THAC0 is just the flashing neon one can easily point to.
And none of this is ragging on BECMI (just about to start a BECMI group myself), but people can have grievances with the systems without being dumb.
You'ld be amazed at how many players I've seen struggle to add two numbers together quickly and accurately.
2e is to this day my favourite version of the game. I am old ..grognard mode on lol.
Just a different style of game compared to 5e.
Exactly!
Hmmm… Interesting to see that saving throws didn’t make it onto this list. Considering that there are the same number of saving throw types but that the types were so different in conceptualizing what fell into which saving throw category could have made for an interesting discussion. Would have been interesting to hear from others their opinion on which are more their style as well.
I was first introduced to THAC0 by the OG Baldur's Gate games. Thanks to that, I have a mild understanding of how 2e works
The only real complexity to THACO I ever had was that I prefer armor to mitigate DAMAGE rather than the TO HIT number.
But, everyone else in the comments have already noted that 2e is harder - as in it’s hard to kill even low level monsters, so you’ve got to be more creative how you play. 5e sets you up with stacking race and class abilities so the by the second episode you’re mowing down whole villages of goblins like you’re in you’re own isekai story.
I wouldn’t say that 2e is a game with a story attached vs 5e which is storytelling with gameplay mechanics attached, because they’re both telling stories using game mechanics. The difference is the KIND of stories they’re set up to tell.
It is a bit lacking in nuance to say that it's young players arguing against THAC0 and older players who are nostalgic for it. I learned to play in the era of THAC0, and you can have my ascending armor class when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Hard same.
There are a lot of quirks, tone, and power level aspects I still love from 2E when I learned it as a teen in the 1990s.
But, even back then, I had a hell of a time keeping straight in my head how the mechanics worked. Like, when reading the game alone, I could puzzle out how it worked. But every time combat actually started in a game, it all turned to gibberish in my head.
When 3E came along, the elegance of using d20+Stat+Skill vs. DC/AC was a complete breath of fresh air.
Although the word "THAC0" has a sort of magical, nostalgic quality to me, I never want to use the actual system again if there's a more recent option.
I played 2e for many years and I still hate thaco. Basic Dungeons & Dragons all day long for me
2nd Ed ran so much smoother than 5E. Combat was quicker, roleplaying was easier (because skill rolls weren’t used to replace roleplaying as in 5E).
You're wrong about rolling stats. You are describing method one. There were five other methods described in the Players Handbook. Now it was the Dms choice which method was used, but there were six altogether, not just the one you described. From what I remember method five was by far the most popular which was roll four and drop the lowest.
Sure! But I didn’t state that it was the only way to roll up stats 😊
@@NorseFoundry You didn't mention any other method of rolling stats for 2E. The clear implication was that 3d6 straight down the line was how 2E rolls stats. You gave, perhaps inadvertently, the wrong impression of how stats are rolled in 2E. Just admit you made a mistake.
“It was designed to be simple” mentions all the steps required to figure out whether you succeeded or not.
Thac0 - d20 = AC hit
In it's most basic form it's literally just add or subtract the target's AC from your d20 attack roll. If that number is higher than your THAC0, you hit. It's not any more complex than 5e, just a different calculation. The most basic form in 5e you add or subtract your to-hit stat modifier(s) to your d20 attack roll, then compare that number to the target's AC. If it's higher than their AC, you hit.
AC in 2e goes from 10 (basically naked/just basic clothes), down to 0 (full plate + shield), further down to -10 (with magic armors, abilities and ability modifiers, spells, etc.)
AC in 5e goes from 10 (basically naked/basic clothes) up to 20 (full plate + shield) and above 20 (with magic armors, abilities and ability modifiers, spells, etc.)
Another way to look at it: An AC -2 in 2e is effectively equivalent to AC 22 in 5e. An AC of 0 in 2e is equivalent to AC 20 in 5e. An AC of 3 in 2e is equivalent to AC 17 in 5e.
Basic examples:
2e you're attacking a creature with an AC of -2, and you have a THAC0 of 15. You roll d20 and roll a 16, -2 for the target's AC, making the final result a 14. You miss.
5e you're attacking a creature with an AC of 18, you being a fighter, your to-hit modifier is based on STR, which you have a +4. You roll a d20 and roll a 15, +4 for your STR modifier makes 19. You hit.
@@8BitCerberus yes, that also works as a formula
D20+AC>=thacO =Hit
@@8BitCerberusyou have to exchange more information though. You have to know what the creatures AC is to subtract from your role. Whereas in the new system all the information for your role is on your sheet. You don't have to ask the DM anything before you get your final total to compare
@@nigeladams8321 In THAC0, the DM does the calculation and tells you if you hit or not. You as the player know what your THAC0 is and can deduce the targets AC by whether or not you or others in your party hit. If you hit on an 18 and your buddy hits on a 15 and you each have a THAC0 of 15 then you know the target's AC is 0 or higher. If the next person hits on a 14 and they also have a THAC0 of 15 now you know the target's AC is 1 or higher, and so on.
Old school D&D players aren't supposed to know things like "ok this goblin has 7 HP and an AC of 13" like in modern D&D. You rolled to hit, and the DM told you if you hit or not.
THAC0 may be backwards, but it's not really more complicated. Still, for the sake of my players (who were used to something else), I converted everything in 2nd edition to ascending AC. It's trivial and can be done on the fly.
Exactly!
That only proves that the whole "THAC0 is hard" is a strawman argument to paint older players in a bad light. THAC0 is only hard if you can't do basic math. Subtraction. Simple as that.
@@MedievalFantasyTV Yeah THAC0 is needlessly complex compared to just having an attack bonus, but it's hardly a reason to discount older editions because it's easily converted. Back during the 2E days my players always converted their THACO into an attack bonus, then as the DM I just assumed everyone had 20 THAC0 for determining what they needed. The "OMG, THAC0 is so hard" just became a meme without much truth to it. Some players suck at math, even in 5E I have people get confused as to where their bonuses come from. It baffles me how, but it happens.
Very thorough. I designed for 2nd edition and you know it better than I do. Bravo. --Professor DM, Dungeoncraft
Ah thank you so much! I always get nervous releasing these early edition overviews
0:48 Quick correction (not that it matters for the point of the video, but it confused me when I first read it): -1 is actually bad for skill modifiers because it's applied to the ability score and not the roll, so success is whether your d20 roll is
BG1 introduced me to THACO in 2000. I never played D&D at this point. My First actual TTRPG is 5e in 2017. Now I want to go back to the simpler concept of 4 classes. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Magic user like the Arcade game ( my D&D experience in the 90's) Why? Keeping the game simple is the best way to get into the fun for oneshot's. All the flavor and archetypes can all still be expressed and with less bookflipping.
1. the 2e skills aren't terrible and can be converted, and its basically the same since your stats determine the relevant roll for each skill. The flat numbers are more or less the bugbear, and DMs and players both may feel better about the DM's discretion because the DM can intuitively make judgement calls about situations that may affect the roll, (are you trying to mount the horse from a running start or are you calmly mounting the horse. Is the horse scared or trained to understand what's happening? How are your animal handling skills? 3.5's mistake was trying to make too many skills to cover each case).
1b. actually there were about 6 different ways to roll/generate stats. Roll4 drop the lowest and pick was pretty standard when playing with various family members. They were AD&D/2e players and this was around... 92-94?
2. Speed I think is something people will like and it makes it more controllable for each character to manipulate for consistency, and adds much needed complexity to weapons. In fact, 2nd edition weapons were a nice sweet spot between the oversimplified 5e and the overcomplicated 3.5.
3. THAC0 is the same math. It's roll above and not below. AC 0 was about 19, which is about the same as AC 20 now - only a 20 will hit (without modifiers)
4. Yeah... leveling is just stupid. Milestone is pretty much the better option in both systems.
5. the bigger difference in HP is your death saves. You can go down to -10 HP but then you're dead (or was it 10 plus a modifier?) and some hits could just flat out kill you based on how much damage was done (even if you still had a few HP to spare).
6. resource management! 2e made resources more available, (like spells or special abilities) but there were caveats about how you chose to use them or when you could use them that made it actually more resource intensive... especially without having rests or cantrips. Let's also not forget that spells had to be preselected on a "per spell slot basis", meaning you had to dedicate 3 slots to sleep if you wanted to cast sleep up to 3 times that day.
BONUS: 2e was much more theater of the mind. Less things had specific distances and squares. 5e is very specific with AOE's and ranges. It's simply built more for maps.
I remember 2nd coming out. Have a ton of books for it in storage. Some mine, many inherited from my brother Rick. We split getting the whole collection between us. Though I started with D&D and 1st ed. AD&D with the idol cover PHB and Efreet cover DMG. Back in 1979.
The biggest difference between THAC0 and the "to hit" mechanics in D&D 5e is how scaling works across classes. In THAC0, each class scales differently, giving distinct progression for fighters, clerics, rogues, and wizards. This meant that certain classes were inherently better at combat as they leveled up. In 5e, however, almost all classes have the same proficiency bonus progression, resulting in a similar "to hit" bonus across most classes, which I personally find ridiculous.
I have been running 5e adjusted to play like 2e. soon i will implement an thAC0 like method to do to hit that works with ascending AC without affecting hit percentage.
You subtact tha attack bonus form the defenders AC to get the target number instead of rolling and adding the attack bonus for every attack in multi-attack.
It is my opinion that AD&D 2e is more streamlined in play despite its obtuse presentation in the book.
🤯
I'm designing a thaco based system with a 1d30 instead, and starting AC and hit are 40. This allows some enemies too evasive or high level to avoid all but critical hit, and player character need to choose character race and character trades wisely to give additional hit chance bonus. Character trades is what trades they had before becoming an adventurer. Then class is chosen. Say a player chose scout and fisherman as their character trades before adventuring then the class is dancer. They gain bonus perception, tracking, stealth, fishing, cleaning fish, stream current knowledge, and disguises on top of dancer class.
The thing is, THAC0 wasn't a problem. It still exists, but isn't laid out easily for people to see.
AC 0 (Armor Class ZERO). Since Armor Class still exists in D&D, to hit Armor Class of NUMBER is still a thing.
So THAC0 wasn't removed, it was hidden.
Remember kids, as long as Armor Class exists, as a MUMBER, you are still factually bound by THAC0.
THAC0 was nothing more than an efficient way for players to understand what was needed for protection or damage.
Modifiers still apply, such as Dexterity or Skill bonuses.
THAC0 is still a thing in D&D it has just been obfuscated because people are stupid.
Yeah, so they changed the confusing 0 to a round 10 so people could understand the math and scale better without having to apply bonuses inconsistently (a +1 dex bonus lowering THAC0 by 1 is anti-intelligible).
You could, instead, say they demystified it and aligned bonuses and rolls clearly.
So If you play with THAC0, you're still playing with base 10 AC, by your logic. Lol.
@@rclaws3230yup, the mechanics are ultimately the same at the end of the day, they just detangled it from the needlessly convoluted bits. Like simplifying two sides of equation by removing the needless functions on both sides.
You don't have to make things easier because people are stupid, you can make things easier because it's just less work for everyone even if you're not stupid? This is such a ridiculous line of reasoning. People aren't stupid just because they prefer to use ascending armor class. Having a high defense tied to a higher number makes way more sense intuitively. Optimizing the system isn't making it more stupid
I've been playing 2nd edition since it came out. I still play it. I definitely prefer it.
I'm admittedly in the THAC0 camp myself. Not because 5e (technically what started in 3e) is bad, but that there's an inherent bounded accuracy that doesn't break as much later on. It also simply relied on a DM just telling you the armor class of the thing you are fighting, instead of (weirdly) keeping it secret now. Also: Getting an 18 in your Str also didn't mean that you instantly had +4 to hit, but had a sliding scale.. I can see why some would actually find that oddly complicated, but I grew up on it so I'm used to it.
I'm also a huge fan of the roll under method. Having the DC based on the ability took a lot of work out of my hands. Scaling a ladder in the rain? Roll under your dex. Scaling a ladder in the rain during a hurricane? Roll under your dex but add four to your roll.
I think you got it right, too. 2e was based more on survival. Every level was deadly in its own way. You started as someone who knew how to swing a sword, or cast a singular spell each day, which has a feeling of rising from mere beginnings, and you just as often found ways to avoid fighting if you could. It also allowed for dungeon-crawls in their primordial form. Having to actually plan out moving around dungeons and how supplied you were was a real thing back then.
5e is much more in the line of starting as a super hero. I don't mean this as a bad way, games where you start off far more able to fight, survive, and front-loaded with cool abilities are fun in their own right, but they are vastly different than the grittier survival of 2e. It allows for more high fantasy tales and solidifies a lot of the skills and abilities under a d20 instead of varied tables and dice arrays. And it allows the characters to stand out from the common folk a lot more. Dungeon crawls don't feel anywhere near as meaningful, but the ability to have amazing set-pieces and shorter 'burstier' dungeons with short-rests and recoveries means that the story itself can be moved along quicker.
Both systems have their merits. For my group and I, we... play Pathfinder 2e, but when the itch hits us, we go back to 2e D&D for that 'survival' feel :)
I actually feel 5th ed is way more gami-fied. Due to the choices you have, there's more of a "Meta" and optional builds for characters. All classes have more choices what to do in a combat round, but the choices are very much dictated by their class/subclass.
As such it feels a bit more like a more moderd video game.
All classes do have usefull abilities for the most part, making it easier to play the character you want.
I started with 2nd edition and, while I absolutely loved it, I'm not nostalgic for it. My group hasn't touched it since we discovered the World of Darkness ruleset and have been using that for every campaign type since. We played Starwars, wild west, 30's era pulp, you name it with some small houserules.
It was a short while before Corona one of us got nostalgic for D&D and we opted for 5th ed.
It even got the one player who was never into rules pouring through the rules and starting to get fascinated by character builds.
I'm the rules guy of the group and I love it. It does feel game-y, but the story is provided by the group and not the rules. And it feels mostly balanced and fun.
I started with AD&D, and I theorized a system similar to D20 years before 3rd came out with its solution to the THAC0 problem. It was natural parallel thinking many groups went through in a response to a transparent barrier to entry.
I played 2E from 1991 to 2000, when 3.0 was released. My biggest problem with 2E wasn't actually THAC0 or descending Armor Class (although I disliked both), it was the ridiculous XP system. 2E inherited the level progression tables of 1E (backwards compatability being the goal of TSR's marketing department for 2E), but got rid of the primary way to earn XP in 1E, namely finding treasure. Instead you had to fight monsters to level up, but the XP value of monsters was mostly unchanged from the 1E Monster Manual. It took months to level up a PC. Furthermore PCs were incredibly squishy, even at higher levels. Which wasn't a problem in 1E if you played with the goal of stealing a monster's treasure, but 2E players were expected to engage in combat.
When 3.0 came out, I stopped playing 2E immediately. 3.X has its problems, but the Core expected gameplay loop isn't one of them.
Right now I play 5E, having started way back in 2014. 5E is a simpler version of 2E. It hits many of the same expected gameplay loops without the problems with the rules being expected to conform to 1E rules.
Thanks for your insight on your experiences through the editions! We’ll be looking at 3rd edition next.
@@NorseFoundryI actually really enjoyed the amount of xo it took to gain levels. It made you get creative with your abilities because you had so long to use it before the next level. With 5th Ed, you get to use your ability once before you get more. You don't get a chance to figure out how to make your abilities apply in many situations before you have more to try out.
Actually the treasure = XP was an optional rule in 2ed. I think using it is essential to a good 2ed game.
Thats what I LIKE about 2nd ed, you were NEVER god like at high levels.
@@Carcearion GP = XP is an optional rule for the Rogue classes only in 2E. The other class groups had their own optional ways of earning XP.
Looks like you may have watched one of my old videos. Thanks for giving the older stuff a fair shake.
Something that might be an interesting topic of discussion is trends in the broader fantasy genre from the 70s to today, and how they've influenced D&D (and D&D has influenced them back), and how that's reflected in the various editions.
lol 2e focused on mechanics? We didn't do super spell-counter-spell-counter counter spell- and i don't know what else nor had action bonus action super action mega action, we didn't have those... what we had was a few spells, fewer magic items, some potions and a lot of wit, strategy and roleplaying.
I'm personally a 3.5 fan due to its almost early lego-type approach to mechanics (doesn't matter what two pieces you have, they are designed to fit together) and that it's relatively easy to get any particular end of the scale for player power relative to the world. However, I am delving back into BECMI right now and I definitely see some of the advantages. Just as I see the advantages to 5e.
Then again, I am also one of the people who enjoys 4e, so maybe I've just completely lost my mind.
THAC0 is the best, you peasants! 😆
The system has its drawbacks, but one thing it did right was making martial characters better at *fighting*. By limiting magic users to being inferior with weapons, it forced people to be careful with their spells and gave the fighters their time in the spotlight.
That has nothing to do with THAC0, you could say the same about 5e just because martials get weapon proficiency while casters don't.
THAC0 is basically just a needlessly convoluted version of the 5e to hit method. 5e specifically, since both are still bound by what is effectively bounded accuracy.
You forgot to mention that, in second edition, the XP needed to reach a new level depend on tour class. Meaning that a rougue player (the weakest class) could be 1 or even 2 level(s) ahead of the wizard player (the strongest class).
My problem with the THAC0 system was that it had a limit. You could get to AC-10. I worked hard to get my first cleric there.. I still got blasted by stuff we played against often enough. And I had no further room to improve my defensive ability.
The same goes in reverse, if you can get to hit AC -10 reliably then you pretty much always hit and the only place the DM has left to go for more resiliant monsters is more HP, or arbitrary penalties on your attack rolls.
I have been playing 2e for 30 years now. In my experience, the -10 AC limit was always ignored. Even the famed Baldur's Gate original series ignored this rule. My warriors always end up the game with -12 AC or so, and many endgame enemies like dragons also presented -12 AC. I guess that some limits in 2e were almost universally ignored. Racial level limits is another example.
Also, we used a homebrewed rule that got passed around to deal with a 20 always being a hit (which defeated the purpose of AC -10 "ish"). If the actual math dictated that you need a 22 to hit, then you rolled the d20. If you luckily rolled a 20, then you could roll a d6-1 and added that to your d20 roll. If you rolled a 6, you got to roll another d6-1, and so on. That's maybe an absurd rule, but it made AC beyond -10 much more relevant, and made any modifier count. No longer "all I need is a 20 anyway"...
@@MedievalFantasyTV While I can appreciate that, homebrew rules don't negate the issue with a chunk of game design. If you have to homebrew a fix for something, and it's a common homebrew, then the thing you're fixing is actually broken and should be redesigned in future versions. Which is exactly what happened.
About hit points: originally i believe they would represent literally that. A measure to evaluate how much the character have been hit (and how severely they have been hit). Not the same as vitality points , that would represent broken legs, cuts, bruises, etc.... Just a narrative tool to represent the adversity in a battle. The problem is that the concept started to blurry when status like bleeding or damage to attributes were introduced in the game... Then suddenly hit points started to get confused with actually health of a character and constitution (attribute number) with body integrity?! Somewhere (i believe during the 3th edition) the game design lost gripe of what was trying to achieve...
Yeah I like the idea of hardiness - how much you can get hit and keep pushing
The problem is, if decrease of HP doesn't mean losing health, why is the spell that returns HP called healing and cure wounds?
old dude here , the fight on my group was AD&D or Vampire/storyteller games, one more focus in the game aspect and other on the history aspect , i guess the second one was viewed as more important in modern rpgs , i still love AD&D second edition thought
RenFaire sensations Buckler & Dirks wrote a song about the differences in D&D editions. An excerpt ...
What's the matter with the old-school players?
(Don't you know that they're out of touch.)
Should I sit & try to calculate THAC0?
(If you do then you think too much.)
(Donchya know we’ve gone digital, honey,
And microtransactions cost a whole lotta money,)
Old way, Moldvay, total-party-kill today,
It's still D&D to me.
👏👏👏
Love AD&D, and I love THAC0. It's different and adds variety, like all the other mechanics in AD&D. You're not just rolling d20/Add mod for everything, and it eliminates rolling in situations where it disrupts the flow of the game to roll, like when searching
I think the problem with THAC0 is the concept. You take the Dragon Quest board game from the 90s, they use thac0 as "fighting value" of your character and this makes much easier for new players to grasp the mechanics. Your fighting value is 18 and during the combat you subtract the oponent's armor class, the result is the number you have to reach on the d20. I've used this way to teach my teenager cousins and worked like a charm.
My memory is that speed factor, along with casting times being added to initiative was an optional rule & not the default.
Oh interesting, I thought that it was the standard and came across from the segments used in AD&D 1e and the optional was to not use it. I could absolutely be wrong but speed factors are used in the main tables for weapons.
@@NorseFoundry you are right that they were listed in the table, which was intended to make people look at the optional rules talked about in the DMG, but I'm 94% certain using those was the optional rule. I had heard many tested it out like I did but dropped those because the extra time it added to the combat.
Yeah it was super clunky in 1e. I’ll absolutely believe you though!
@@NorseFoundry In 1e Weapon speed is not clunky at all. You actually ignore it except in 2 circumstances - tied initiative between opposing figures with melee weapons (as opposed to natural weaponry which has no WS), and when attacking a spellcaster to disrupt the spell. It's very easy in practice. 2e Weapon speed is a clunky pain in the ass.
That’s good to know. When I did my research for 1e, the segment turn order seemed to run the same as speed factor in 2e. I know most people didn’t use segments or speed factors but I appreciate you explaining.
Also advantage disadvantage discourages the DM from making creative encounters.
As an Evil DM, I DM all Edition but one, 4E... I loved all Editions have all the physical books (not 4E, or 6E). Now all my game are with ShadowDark. its faster and as more consequences with characters of 1-10 level. that is my 2 cents opinion ☕☕😉😉
As someone who came in with 3.5e, I had heard all kinds of horror stories of how overly complex and byzantine THAC0 was from my fellow 3.5e players. Then I went back and actually read it, and it was basically the same system. In 3.5e, you roll 1d20, apply your BAB as a modifier to your roll, add your Strength/Dexterity modifier (and attack bonuses from a magic weapon) if you have one, and compare against the enemy's AC, and if it meets or beats that number then you hit. In 2e, you roll 1d20, apply the enemy's AC as a modifier to your roll, add your Strength/Dexterity modifier (and attack bonuses from a magic weapon) if you have one, and compare against your THAC0, and if it meets or beats that number then you hit. It's exactly the same level of complexity.
People don't seem to realize that proclaiming you have trouble with elementary subtraction is a massive self-own.
I play a mix of AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd edition. For me, my philosophy on the choices we make in life involve the circumstances we're put in, which is why I love the older editions more.
The flow version of combat feels infinitely more realistic to me because characters on a battlefield can react to each other and move in a more dynamic way (as opposed to movement per person's turn). It makes it harder and much more fun, while requiring more thinking and attempts to reason in equal parts with the combat (holy hell I cannot fight another duergar, I have no spells ((they have magic resistance anyway)) and my party combined has 3hp), which makes it feel much more like a world rather than a video game.
If my character dies, that is the harsh reality of a realistic fantasy story. Some hopes and aspirations get fulfilled, while others can't make it. I'm definitely going to cry and go into mourning if my character can't get revived (IT'S LIKE 50,000 GP PER PERSON* ((*mostly if you're an Elf)), but I still wouldn't trade AD&D for the world.
I started with 2e, and we played it for many years, well into the life of 3.0/3.5.
The only thing I really didn't like with 2e was how Stats got their modifiers/bonuses differently.
Some would get them at 13 while others may start to see them at 15 or 16.
I assume the Stats got bonuses at different levels because maybe some were more powerful than others, and it was represented like the EXP to next level for some Classes because some were more powerful than others?
But all-in-all, we had a real fun time with 2e.
Even better than THAC0 as in 2E I preferred the combat matrices from 1E because they also made a statement being in the DMG only: As a player, you don't need to know what you need to hit; you describe your action(s), roll the dice, and the DM narrates the result to you (nobody did it even then but it's also why I prefer the DM rolling damage as well). Same principle with saving throws, they were the purview of the DM, not the player.
In 2E non-proficiencies, you add the check modifier first to the Ability, then you roll a check. (PHB p.55) Minor quibble, I know. lol
THAC0 might seems like a weird way to put it, but it itself was an evolution from the previous approach, which was that you had to check against an attack matrix based on level, class and armor class. Which was an evolution from Chainmail's to-hit tables that were instead based on armor and weapon types. Examples of D&D's origin in medieval wargames.
I’ve got 2e and 5e, if/when I run a game again, I’ll primarily be running it as 2e, but I’ll be bringing a lot of 5e stuff into it.
I think the assessment that it’s game first, story second is pretty accurate. Having played both games the mechanics just tell a small part of the story and those who played just 5e and have opinion of 2e without playing it is not fair. A good simulation, take 5e remove Warlock/Sorcerer and all sub-classes; then remove cantrip, then remove swap spell slot tree for 2e (1 at 1st, 2 at 2nd…) then for hit points you always roll and remove the initial amount (always roll) remove feats and ASI; that would get your 5e close to a 2e experience
We'd played 1st ed for a decade when 2e came out. I played a rogue and we played the rules as written. Every skill check: +++ XP. I was introduced to the party as a criminal, so they kept me tied up. Rope use to escape, sneak away, do whatever, sneak back, tie myself back up: 400+ XP each night. Rogue's level gain also requires far less XP. When the party hit level 2, I was level 5... and they didn't know how dangerous I was. I destroyed the campaign when the party was captured and the DM expected me to free them, but I kept gaining levels plotting how to escape the dungeon we were in. It was built for a level 2 party. I was level 7 sneaking past anything and everything. Thieving and planting evidence to frame people. There were the high level "bosses" of the dungeon, but I learned what they wanted and I became their new best friend. Never bothered rescuing the party.
I can see the argument for 2e being more combat vs 5e being more story driven but I think it's really just a matter of the group and mostly the DM's play/story/game running preferences. But I do see how 5e would mechanically be more "fluff" that is primarily for story use vs 2e mechanics seem to be pretty combat oriented. I'm just thinking if I were a high level fighter with my own keep or castle that'd be a great story mechanism for the DM.
I tend to notice that when I play with people in order style of Rpg , 2e, DCC, MCC, Old school Essentials ext. We end up actuallt Rolling for hit points like it say's to do in the book. In newer Rpg like 5e people tend to just go with Max HP per level. To me I think this puts more of strain on newer DM to balance encounters out at higher level's because the player are tougher than they should be. Modules tend to assume the rolled hp. Anyone else notice this?
I started with 2nd Edition. What I liked was the skill exclusivity. Wanna track in the forest better have a ranger. Need to sneak in a city better have a Rogue . I liked as a melee character the chance to disrupt a spell if my initiative was within their casting time. Plus I liked the Lore more back then. 5e is great in that I can make the chuck norris of rogues. Both are good and it’s hard to find a 2nd edition game anymore.
5e story first, mechanics second? Well not on our table. Started with 2e and while progressing to 3e,3.5e,4e,5e every single combat encounter in those versions started to need more time, peaking in 5e. We went back to 2e last year, getting fast character builds, spent less time in combat rounds and got a huge boost in adventuring and playing those characters.
I still like 2e best though I do like story first. I originally learned in 1st edition AD&D. Players did die a lot though lol but the big thing about 1st and 2nd edition I liked was the stat rolls. we rolled 6 stats then put them where we wanted. This opened up the ability to some pretty crazy characters, the one rule with character creation was it had to be done in front of everyone to see the rolls. so that in itself was often our first session. depending on the game or who was DM we would either do 3d6 per stat, going in order of stats you get what you get. or 4d6 taking top 3 dice in order of stats, you get what you get. or rolling for 6 stats and putting them where we wanted. Then depending on our dice we would decide what class to play. That was a fun aspect of 2nd ed that is really lacking in 5e since stats are basically all the same with only slight adjustments. It was rare we would start a new session knowing what our character would be ahead of time. most characters didn't survive that's true, but the ones that did oh they were some pretty awesome characters lol
This weekend had my fist game of 2nd edition. I have to say it feels like a complete different game (the oldest version I played was 3.5), but didn't had any problem understanding the mechanics and gettin' my character ready. We didn't have much of combat, but I have to say after that session I agree that the hate to THACO is not justified.
I started with basic and Ad&d, but most of my game time is in 2e. I gave up on it for decades and came back two years ago. Now I play Shadowdark.
How are you enjoying that?
@@NorseFoundry The lightweight and efficient nature of the system means we spend more time actually playing and making meaningful choices. I can't imagine my group going back to 5e.
Since when has their been a huge divide between 2E players and ANY other edition players in the last couple decades, let alone 5E?
As someone who played it a lot of a kid I don’t miss it at all. Other than 4e which is the odd duck, every edition has been an improvement of the last.
LOL. I was introduced to 2E (back in high school!!) and got the hang of THAC0, but I think it's more the subtraction-centric math that's the problem. A lot of kids find addition MUCH easier than subtraction. In any case, I think the newer models using primarily addition are much better.
I came to RPGs as an adult with 2e, and there is nothing I miss from 2e. I remember it fondly, but I don't want any of its rules: THAC0 and AC, proficirncies, the different XP tables... I jumped to Werewolf as soon as I discovered the game and once 3e came out I moved to it and never looked back.
No offense, but if you play Werewolf (and the other Storyteller games, I assume), 2e was never the issue. It is just that D&D wasn't for you. It is a D&D issue, not a 2e issue. In my 30 years of gaming, I have met a lot of Storyteller players, and I can say confidently that D&D could never satisfy their specific needs and tastes, no matter the edition. The reverse is also true.
@@MedievalFantasyTV maybe that's true, I don't think what I wrote doesn't necessarily exclude it. I truly believe you can have fun with any system, I just find AD&D complicated in areas where it shouldn't be. And dont take this is as a complain, i truly enjoyed the time with AD&D, and my homebrewed world of over 2 decades started there. I feel that AD&D (and old OSR) exists in a space where players are looking to feel a challenge, which in more D&D modern games, this is not always conveyed as good as before (yeah, I remember the dragon breath of a red dragon was scary no matter what level you were), but I feel, for me, it sacrifices rules consistency for that sense of danger. This may just be me, but since the d20 games have been my most used systems since AD&D, I have seen the evolution and in general welcome the more streamlined rules of modern games in the d20 family (I am mostly talking D&D and Pathfinder here).
@@MalkavX What are some areas you think could have been improved?
@@MedievalFantasyTV this is completely subjective, as it is proven there are many people that love the OSR.
But if it was up to me I would say the following related to AD&D:
1. More customization for characters. Not just allow more choices of clases each, but also allow each race to have some options to choose from.
2. Skills. I hated proficiencies. They were not equivalent as you could choose to know how to drive a carriage or know astrology. It doesn't need to be long list of skills, but enough to add more customization and in turn allow for each player to fill a space in the party.
3. More standardized rules. If Thaco is the main mechanic, then make everything roll a d20. Always found absurd the percentile for rogue and bard abilities.
4. More consistent rules for GM in all fronts. I learned the hard way just by doing, but more details on how challenges and monsters are built and how to manage magic items that is balanced to the game.
I really don't like THAC0, but I am not against it in a game.
And if I am not mistaken, some of these ideas were implemented in later books. But I am looking at this from the time I learned to play. In my country there were no game stores, D&D was essentially non existant and we had to rely on people who traveled abroad to get books. With that in mind, my first set of books were second hand from a guy who bought them in Panama from a friend. I didn't have anything except the 2 main books and the monster compendium.
I didn't jump to other games bc of the focus on story. I have made the story a focus since the days of Hero Quest, but more and more I found the newer games were progressing in the direction of those ideas. If you had asked me at the time why I preferred games like 3e, Alternity or World of Darkness (which where some of the games I played at the time) I would probably had said just that I felt I had more options as a player or more ideas as a DM, but obviously I wasn't aware of how games are built or even how the story of the industry played a major role on how games were developed.
The little I learned of DMing was in part to older DMS, common sense and photocopies of Dragon Magazine articles that my friend was able to bring from abroad
Here's my two cents, mechanics first and story second.
1. It's a TTRPG, mechanics can more reliably push narratives than narratives can push mechanics.
2. Mechanics are also more essential to the nature of the genre. I can take away the narrative and still have a tabletop game. However, if i take away the mechanics, I just have a book.
I played 2E as a kid. I’ve never played 5E but I still watch many lore videos about D&D. 5E is more streamlined but 2E absolutely rules when it comes to lore, adventures, modules, etc. I’m not counting the homemade/3rd party material available thanks largely to the internet of course.
"Martha, some is defending THACO on the internet again, git my bat."
Kidding aside as someone who started with the BECMI I was all too happy when the d20 rules came in. The less charts the better as they always slowed down combat. The irony is with the latest iteration of 5e combat takes even longer with action/move/free action/reaction/bonus action......suffice to say I have left 5e. 😅
You also didnt mention 5e not only has more HPs but get Death Saves, 1e you lose those few Hps you have and well your rolling a new character up. (I play 1e twice a week, thursday as player and Sundays as DM), Not only do we know there is a good chance our character will die, Most of us Keep spare characters made and ready.
In my opinion, for what it is worth. As some one who started on 1st ed and played most my time as a teen, and other versions in my older adult life .
It seem to me the 2ed stayed to it roots of table top war gaming.
A tradition that goes back 100 or so years.
Modern Dungeons and Dragons, is more played like a computer game on table top.
With the way the game is going I sadly wouldn`t be surprised to see the game morph
into something that resembles a smaller level mmo if that makes sense.
So its a generational preference I think.
I wasn't a fan of THAC0 but really it's not as bad as I remember. Really it's still just a d20 plus (or perhaps minus!) your modifier vs a target number. I think mainly the reason they updated it in 3rd edition is in order to use the same system for combat as for non-combat skills.
THAC0 is a difficult concept for people?
target# = base - opponent AC
Everyone rolls an attack. PC1: I got a 12! PC2: I hit AC 3! PC3 l: What's the enemy AC? PC4: I missed an AC 0 by 2 points.
Having to have the opponents AC to do the math adds complexity to it. In five you don't need to know the enemy's armor class at all you just roll a d20 add your modifier and then ask the DM if it's greater or less than the number they already know
There's a reason why THACO was dropped since 3rd edition, simply less complicated. But it scales efficiently, since 3rd edition balance in scale-up was thrown out the window.
The other thing about the THAC0 value is your value changed predictably. If memory serves it went like this
Warrior went down 1 point every level. Priest down 2 every 3. Rouge 1 every 2 and wizard .... why were they in melee range? What went wrong? Did we have a tpk?!?
And as far as leveling goes this is what made humans viable and why (since this is a game sent in the past) why we don't see the other species in the modern age.
Every other race had bonuses to affinities. But they limited at the top end. Meaning you get a jump start, but eventually your character would max out. Only humans were considered crazy enough to just keep pushing. The gods built these short lived critters different
In one campaign setting you actually played as full dragons (not dragon born full adult dragons). Included in it was a subclass for warriors. Dragon hunter. You got huge bonuses for hunting dragons. The in universe explanation from the dragons was that THE dragon god IO had seen the wars between dragons and created a race of pure determination to help him keep the dragons in line. To limit them he made them weak and short lived but if they truly devoted thselves they could be more fearsome than any wyrm
I liked that idea. Humans are space orks. They are fundamentally not niche and you play the game on a harder starting mode, but they can push past limits that the other races "knew" couldn't be passed.
There are a couple lines in the BECMI table that don't follow that. I think it was line 5 that went up by 2 and line 11 doesn't have an increase (I'd have to double check).
THACO was never a hard rule to learn. I don't get the hate for it.
I mean TTRPG did start as an offshoot of strategy game and so it stands to reason that the pioneers were basically strategy game with story attached to it. But, it also stand to reason that as people realize what the activity is actually good at and provide to us that if you"re here for the mechanics..Strategy game on tabletop or video with story attached to it are fundamentally unbeatable quality wise. As such the only usage left of the two when you use 2 cent of critical thinking(or more into infinity) is story first, mechanic second : Aka, the mechanic are here in service of the story not the other way around. The reason being that the flexibility story wise offered by a human is something no video game (not even BG3) will ever be able to equal. Any other usage of TTRPGs is basically using a tool that may work but is clearly not the best tool for the job meaning you're factually doing it wrong. It would be like using the handle of a knife to hammer a nail down while having an actual hammer right beside it : it is dumb.
My words may have been taken too literally. RPG gives the stance that story is a major factor regardless of the wide spectrum between people who love the mechanics and have the most fun optimizing character abilities or exploring the like vs people who lean heavily towards the story aspect and the mechanics are what make it a game instead of just playing pretend.
But yes the war gaming origins of D&D is absolutely what I was pointing towards.
It’s a good discussion!
@@NorseFoundry
And my point is that TTRPG strength lies in it's flexibility which is far more applicable to story on the fly then rules. (making rules on the fly usually open a can of worms)
Ergo being there for the mechanic first story second makes no sense. As there are other type of game that answer those type of itch in a much better manner then TTRPGs will ever be able to do.
That's an itch you can have completed in :
Any action rpg with a decent story.
@@TrueAryador I agree with a lot of what you are saying, in that if you just want mechanics computer games are just a better choice than TTRPGs, but my experience with modern players is too many people resent having mechanics limiting their ability to do whatever they want in the moment, and the design of the books seems to support that mindset, with WOTC not wanting to limit player creativity, and thereby making the DM have to be the "bad guy" who says no, because the player facing books sure don't. That is a huge difference between the systems imo; how well they support the DM. 5E is not a rules light system, but it encourages players to think of it that way. DMs who have lots of experience and are willing to house rule until the system is usable do fine, but new DMs are just left to figure it out with basically no guidance. Matt Mercer uses a ton of house rules but I run into tons of people who have no idea that it isn't RAW, and then are disappointed and feel betrayed if you don't run it just like him. 5E, RAW, isn't even playable, but with some house rules the system can be made to do whatever you want. I see people trying to make enough house rules to run a murder/mystery type campaign and honestly question why they don't just play a different TTRPG that was designed to do what they are aiming for, but people have been told that other RPGs are harder to learn so they don't want to try anything else. That is one of the big misconceptions, imo, that other systems are universally harder to learn than 5E. I would say few games are harder to learn to DM/GM/referee/etc. than 5E.
@@atheistsquid
5E is not open ended by default WTF am I reading ? The whole design philosophy of it is literally to reduce the amount of choices available to you and to make sure you're stuck with a specific set of skill (that's what subclass are) and only those who use multi class can break the mold to some extent but also break the game along with it.
5E is literally designed in a way that defines your options as to what is in the book. It is extremely restrictive if you apply the philosophy inside of it. It is much more streamlined and easy to understand then in the past but it is by no means open ended.
Also RAW and RAI is actually playable. WTF am I reading here.
Like very rarely have I ever read something so full of confidence yet so wrong about what it's talking about.
Now if you want an open ended system try the following :
Anime was a mistake
Powered by the abyss
Anima beyond fantasy
5E anime version (complete overhaul of 5E)
Talislanta
GURP
Role Master
Aventure
Those are system that are open ended that are meant for you to personalize your character, abilities/skills and so on. (with varying degree of learning curves)
5E is child play, it's basic but functional. It's baby's first TTRPG. It's actually it's main quality, it's simple.. If you think 5E is hard to learn then I invite you to go back to :
D&D 3.0, 3.5
pathfinder 1st, 2nd
Shadow run
cyberpunk
anima beyond fantasy
role master
War hammer fantasy, all 40k version vampire the masquerade.
Just to name a few from the top of my head.
All those systems have much more nuanced (sometimes confusing as well) mechanics and interaction that require not only knowledge of how each individual ability work but how they interact with one another to even be able to make a character that does what you want without wasting too much resources doing it.
Now where I will agree with you is that people should learn new system instead of spending 2 months (or more) making their own version of 5E when they lack the skill to do it. (which most of them do lack) Because the end result will, the vast majority of the time, be of lower quality and take more time then just learning a new system.
The biggest change we made to the base rules was parrying. Thet just didnt work at all. The base rules made no sense as you would never parry short of im stuffed and i need a round for someone to heal me. You lost all your attacks and just increased your armor.
It was a bit complicated but we made parrying a "to hit" role based on a difference in levels to represent the skill of the character, you could split attacks and parries any way you wanted. It made combat really tactical.
Could you elaborate? I've always wanted to implement parrying in 2e. What was the target number?
@@MedievalFantasyTV I can't remember the exact thing we came up with being almost 20 years ago but it was something like target roll was 10 with half the difference in levels between the characters added or subtracted. Multi class used their highest. So for 2 fighters you could block about half the time with +- 2 levels, it only became a guarantee parry if you were +-20 level difference (nat 20 always count as a parry). If you wanted to add some flavour with weapon mods, i.e. you could add some weapon bonuses for things that are hard to block like flails and whips but we generally didn't because it got complicated.
From someone who started with 3.5 (and my favorite system is Call of Cthulhu and Cyberpunk Red), my only game of 2e was one of my worst. The DM was bad and I hated my character. My cleric/priest was an heal bot since my magic sucks and even if I was a war priest I couldn't do a thing in combat.
I respect game that want weaker character, but with the OSR movement, I feel AD&D isn't the best option except if you are nostalagic. Like Dungeon Crawl Classic rocks and is way easier to play.
Sorry to hear about your experience! Yeah we covered DCC a while back at GaryCon - GREAT alternative
I DM'ed 2nd edition for over 25 years. I loved it!