Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: [Wargamer] DnD fans debate whether sushi is unrealistic in a
 make-believe game
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:34:59 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <vc2emj$12iph$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vbebkr$u3v$4@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <vbf0d5$r4ij$2@dont-email.me>
 <olamdj5l7mj6lbcutbsekuv339n01ul45t@4ax.com>
 <vbfte9$lgt$3@ereborbbs.duckdns.org>
 <25vodj9se18cp1sghn18uk0rbv83t9gu7k@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 00:35:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cc019e4d5765303314c91efbbf59926";
	logging-data="1133361"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19g395cqaPHXiz4KY5Do8DS0xYrvyahaC4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M6d1q68ZzLcZOLkli3oGPHim2Fg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <25vodj9se18cp1sghn18uk0rbv83t9gu7k@4ax.com>
Bytes: 3978

On 9/7/2024 9:28 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:50:01 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/6/2024 6:31 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Although maybe it's all just lingering resentment over 2nd edition
>>> D&D's much-maligned attack-roll system that is the cause of it all.
>>> Taco is only one letter away from THACO, after all. ;-)
> 
>> I occasionally understand THAC0, but even when I was playing with it it
>> felt like an enormous kludge. Either the old table-lookup method or the
>> simple Attack-roll system from 3rd edition always made more sense (and
>> were mathematically equivalent.
>> DnD has had this habit of keeping utterly baffling artifacts from the
>> early times of the hobby for way too long, long after everyone else
>> already switched to something way easier.
>> The same actually with descending AC. I know the arguments for it, I
>> just don't know why anyone would be making them in good faith.
> 
> I'm a firm supporter of descending AC, but I can't in any way argue
> for its inclusion in good faith. As much as I dislike a lot of stuff
> in 3E+, I can't disagree that many of the changes they made _were_ for
> the better. Especially stuff like changing AC going up as it improved.
> Old-school D&D was really weird in how, in some cases, lower numbers
> were better and in other cases, you wanted to roll high. 3E (and
> onwards) fixed a lot of these oddities.
> 
> My preference for AC-going-down is almost entirely nostalgic. I like
> it because it's what I learned, and I feel oddities like that are one
> of the things that gave D&D its own character.
> 
>      [There's maybe a little gatekeeping involved too; a bit of
>       "keeping the rules weird to keep the normies out." But
>       I'm not proud of that bit ;-)]
> 
> But, yeah, mostly when I argue in favor of AC-goes-down, it's meant
> pretty tongue-in-cheek. Same with THAC0. I mean, I can do it in my
> head and enjoy it, but boy did it discourage a lot of people from
> engaging with the game. I mean, it was better than the constant table-
> look-ups of 1E but not by much.


My only defense is it's to prevent players using loaded dice.  As A DM 
it was no issue as that's how I learned it (well thac0 with 2e) and I 
just tell you if you hit or miss, you don't need to know it at all.

That and reverse compatibility.  Easy enough to change it on the fly if 
using the opposite for monsters or whatever.

The only other improvement I can think 3e+ made was allowing M-Us to 
cast more than one spell at first level (not withstanding 2e specialists 
and 1e cantrips)

-- 
-Justisaur

  ø-ø
(\_/)\
  `-'\ `--.___,
   ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
        \\
        ^'