Your Least Favorite Thing?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Chuck Mount wrote:
I rarely have characters with 18 attributes and I've never had a problem or any less fun playing with. Try playing AD&D... a cleric with his highest stat (Wisdom) as a 13. I had a blast with that character. Now, since Wizards butchered the game (my opinion, so don't get angry), It seems that most players have to have high stats or the character is unplayable. The d20 system has made it waaay to easy for powergaming instead of roleplaying.

one is not limiting to the other, but even in Ad+d if all you had was a 13 in wisdom i think you were limited to what, 3rd level cleric spells?


I feel like one of the other things that speaks to people's desire to play uncommon races is that they sometimes have a conflict built into them that a player might think is interesting. Like "I want to overcome the darkness in my nature, and convince people they're wrong about their preconceptions of me, which I will do by becoming a hero" is a motivation available moreso to Changelings and Tieflings than Humans and Dwarves.

Cecaelias have "we are gregarious, and curious, and friendly, and want to know learn about everybody, and aren't remotely shy about our weird anatomy" just built into their nature that might feel odd if we played a human that way. Since we know, intuitively that humans and things that are very close to human that might feel unrealistic but if all we have to go on about "what are these things like" is a few paragraphs of text, then that's invariably going to give us a stereotype that serves as a lens we can project the rest of our character through. Just in general in fiction it feels less off-putting when it's a space alien who is weirdly naive and lacks cultural taboos about nudity than it is if it's just "Steve from Cleveland" acting that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have quite a few pet peeves of my own.

I find myself dreading large groups, wether as a player or GM. Beyond the usual table time issues, I enjoy immersing myself in stories and my character's, and when the group is big enough that no one can remember each other beyond "that tiefking" or "the one with a mask," it really brings me out of it.

I also don't like when players' language revolves into memes and jokes. You can only respond to so many requests or comments with "that's racist" or "raep" before I stop talking to you.

Somewhat tied to the former, people that show up but clearly aren't there to game. I understand you just want to have fun, but five other people have set these four hours aside to dedicate to having fun together in a specific way. You don't have to be here if you don't want, but if you do, we do kind of expect you to participate or at least not detract from the game.


Ryan Freire said wrote:
one is not limiting to the other, but even in Ad+d if all you had was a 13 in wisdom i think you were limited to what, 3rd level cleric spells?

Actually, you're thinking of wizards and with a 13 INT, it's more like 6th or 7th level spells. Classes had ability score requirements to to take them, not to use their abilities... except for wizards. And the requirements to take the classes were pretty low... except for paladins and rangers. Bards and Druids were annoying, but not too high.


Nope, Clerics had stat requirements for how high a level spell they could cast too, and also no, you had to have an 18 to do 9th for wizards and it dropped down 1 spell level per stat point all the way to 9 int which was the minimum requirement to qualify for the class.

Clerics also had bonus spells and had sphere access.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

[u]...migraines...[/u]


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dread starting a new campaign, mainly from the player side. No one wants to do a session 0, and if we do, it is "tutorial island" with us fighting an oversized crab with 20ish AC at either level 1 or level 3.

No one in the group ever wants to try to work together and do a theme or even have backstories and personalities that could fit together. No one ever wants to be anywhere near support, because then they become the heal bot no matter what else they can do.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate that 90% of campaigns almost immediately devolve into wacky stuff. It's rare that there's a group that plays things serious. Don't get me wrong, I like the wacky stuff as much as anyone, but not Every. Single. Time.


Ryan Freire said wrote:

Nope, Clerics had stat requirements for how high a level spell they could cast too, and also no, you had to have an 18 to do 9th for wizards and it dropped down 1 spell level per stat point all the way to 9 int which was the minimum requirement to qualify for the class.

Clerics also had bonus spells and had sphere access.

I love when people flat out make a "factual" claim without actually knowing if they're right or not. I don't actually know where my 2e PHB is. I have my DMG in sight, but no idea where my PHB is. I will say that I don't remember minimum stat requirements for cleric spells. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd bet you are. If you can prove it, I'd be impressed.

As for Wizard spells, you actually are wrong. My main character was a Wizard. Created in Basic D&D (as an elf) and moved up through 3.5. I know, it doesn't drop down 1 spell level / stat point from 18. Fact is, a 16 AND 17 INT gave access to 8th level spells. I believe it dropped down 1 spell level / 2 stat points until it stopped at INT 9 at 3rd or 4th level spells. Again, I can't put eyes on my PHB, but it's not what you think.

Clerics did get bonus spells for high wisdom so at least you got that right. We house-ruled that wizards got bonus spells for high INT that mirrored the cleric's.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Yeah, Ultimate Wilderness totally ruined Wolf Style. And it was one of my favorite styles!

ultimate wilderness ruined a lot of things


Chuck Mount wrote:
Ryan Freire said wrote:

Nope, Clerics had stat requirements for how high a level spell they could cast too, and also no, you had to have an 18 to do 9th for wizards and it dropped down 1 spell level per stat point all the way to 9 int which was the minimum requirement to qualify for the class.

Clerics also had bonus spells and had sphere access.

I love when people flat out make a "factual" claim without actually knowing if they're right or not. I don't actually know where my 2e PHB is. I have my DMG in sight, but no idea where my PHB is. I will say that I don't remember minimum stat requirements for cleric spells. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd bet you are. If you can prove it, I'd be impressed.

As for Wizard spells, you actually are wrong. My main character was a Wizard. Created in Basic D&D (as an elf) and moved up through 3.5. I know, it doesn't drop down 1 spell level / stat point from 18. Fact is, a 16 AND 17 INT gave access to 8th level spells. I believe it dropped down 1 spell level / 2 stat points until it stopped at INT 9 at 3rd or 4th level spells. Again, I can't put eyes on my PHB, but it's not what you think.

Clerics did get bonus spells for high wisdom so at least you got that right. We house-ruled that wizards got bonus spells for high INT that mirrored the cleric's.

I do have my 2e PHB handy, so I checked:

- Chuck has correctly described the rule for determining a wizard's maximum spell level. INT 18 allows for level 9 spells, INT 16/17 allows for level 8 spells, INT 14/15 allows for level 7 spells, etc. INT also determines the wizard's chance to successfully learn a spell (35% at INT 9, +5% for each additional point of INT) and their max # of spells known at each level.

- There is no limit for WIS-based casters in terms of the highest-level spell they can cast, but there *is* a percentage-based chance of spell failure for casters with a WIS lower than 13 (it starts at 5% at WIS 12 and reaches 50% at WIS 3). Bonus spells are available for priests with WIS 13+.


Okay, I actually went to the trouble to dig out my old 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook. The above (from Chuck Mount and Plasticity) is correct for Magic-Users (what they used to call Wizards). For Clerics, the entire range of Wisdom from 9 through 16 allows use of spells all the way up to 5th level (however, with a spell-level-independent risk of spell failure at low Wisdom scores, from 20% at 9 down to 5% at 12, with bonus spellcasting capacity starting at 13); Wisdom 17 is required for 6th level spells; and Wisdom 18 is required for 7th level spells (the highest that Cleric spells went in 1st Edition, and gained only at 16th level, not at 13th level like you would expect from the earlier parts of the progression). Oddly, although the class table titles and descriptive text said that Illusionists and Druids were sub-classes of Magic-Users and Clerics, respectively, the Druid spellcasting progression table (unlike the Cleric spellcasting progression table) didn't have the asterisks to indicate that 6th and 7th level spells required exceptional Wisdom to use.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Okay, I actually went to the trouble to dig out my old 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook. The above (from Chuck Mount and Plasticity) is correct for Magic-Users (what they used to call Wizards). For Clerics, the entire range of Wisdom from 9 through 16 allows use of spells all the way up to 5th level (however, with a spell-level-independent risk of spell failure at low Wisdom scores, from 20% at 9 down to 5% at 12, with bonus spellcasting capacity starting at 13); Wisdom 17 is required for 6th level spells; and Wisdom 18 is required for 7th level spells (the highest that Cleric spells went in 1st Edition, and gained only at 16th level, not at 13th level like you would expect from the earlier parts of the progression). Oddly, although the class table titles and descriptive text said that Illusionists and Druids were sub-classes of Magic-Users and Clerics, respectively, the Druid spellcasting progression table (unlike the Cleric spellcasting progression table) didn't have the asterisks to indicate that 6th and 7th level spells required exceptional Wisdom to use.

sounds like complete and utter chaos


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, they expected you to understand THAC0 right away so they weren't exactly aiming these things at a casual audience, back in those days.


It really was pretty chaotic.


It was. We did try to play some 1st edition ad@d again a while back. It took ages to roll up a PC. The systems were real ugly as well

The neater modern d20 is something I do like. Which is the opposite of the OP!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If smelly food is the worst thing on your list, I want to be in your games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Okay, I actually went to the trouble to dig out my old 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook. The above (from Chuck Mount and Plasticity) is correct for Magic-Users (what they used to call Wizards). For Clerics, the entire range of Wisdom from 9 through 16 allows use of spells all the way up to 5th level (however, with a spell-level-independent risk of spell failure at low Wisdom scores, from 20% at 9 down to 5% at 12, with bonus spellcasting capacity starting at 13); Wisdom 17 is required for 6th level spells; and Wisdom 18 is required for 7th level spells (the highest that Cleric spells went in 1st Edition, and gained only at 16th level, not at 13th level like you would expect from the earlier parts of the progression). Oddly, although the class table titles and descriptive text said that Illusionists and Druids were sub-classes of Magic-Users and Clerics, respectively, the Druid spellcasting progression table (unlike the Cleric spellcasting progression table) didn't have the asterisks to indicate that 6th and 7th level spells required exceptional Wisdom to use.

sounds like complete and utter chaos

It was. And if you think that's bad, good luck trying to find things in the Dungeon Master's Guide -- especially basics such as how often you can refresh spells. I've lost count of the number of games I've played in with an accidental house rule that you could refresh spells whenever you had downtime, because WE COULDN'T FIND where in the Dungeon Master's Guide it says that this is once per day (matching later editions). I finally found this after years of playing . . . and now I've forgotten where it was again (I even tried to look for this, just out of curiosity, when I was writing the previous post -- no luck). The Dungeon Master's Guide was crafted in Limbo . . . .


Yeah. I've used my 1e PHB more recently, so I checked and you're right. Clerics needed 17 & 18 to get the 2 highest level of spells. I was referring to 2e. Sorry. that's my favorite edition although I do like Basic D&D for it's simplicity, too. I don't remember the earlier editions being so chaotic. I will admit that they were probably high when they came up with THAC0, but After a few game sessions, it was just as easy as adding up points to ad to a d20. And that was for a 12-year-old boy, so it can't be that hard. There were fewer things to add to you roll because THAC0 scaled with your character. I actually like it better. It "felt" like D&D because that's what I was raised on and used for 15 years before WotC bought it and it was another years before my friends bullied me into converting.
I've found that making a character with the d20 system takes longer than earlier editions. There's weren't as many options to go through. The hardest part was determining what spells you would have as a magic-user. I also liked it better BECAUSE you didn't have all the options. You simply said you wanted to do something and the DM determined your chances. Something I had done in earlier editions, I could no longer do unless I picked up the feat. No chance at all. Simply can't do it. I think 2e made it better because, with the proficiency system, you could have a wizard with a sword or other combinations that 1e didn't allow for. SOME more options. Not hundreds of feats and prestige classes to pour through and have to plan your character out through multiple levels at character creation or risk missing something when it's time rto level later.
I understand that I'm mostly alone in this. I'm not trying to bash anything. I like Pathfinder. I just like the earlier editions better and I always will. It's what I grew up on, so to me, it "feels" more like D&D. If WotC called it something else, I might have been more accepting. But they just changed too much and they set the new standard.
I've since sold / gave away my 3 & 3.5 stuff. All I have is my TSR D&D (and AD&D) and Pathfinder. Though I've stopped buying that since they're cranked out waaaay more books and resources than TSR ever did. I simply can't keep up and have a family life.

Another thing I did like, was the random demon roll-up charts in the back of the 1e DMG. That was fun. I also made a dungeon by using the random dungeon generator once. It was very.... Gygaxian. Fun and weird and I only did it once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Players so scared of acting on any kind of meta knowledge that they just defy common sense entirely.

Antagonistic DMs.


CMB-based builds. I think they're silly, and with all feats available, they can become OP very fast.


pjrogers said wrote:
CMB-based builds. I think they're silly, and with all feats available, they can become OP very fast.

I have to agree with this. I played in the Second Darkness AP shortly after it came out. The fight with the main wizard in book 1 was laughable because the grappler fighter with spiked armor grabbed her and didn't stop until she was jelly. The rest of us just kinda stood back was watched. The DM was a little frustrated, but he scaled future encounters to take that into account. The player also saw how broken it was and switched to fighting with a glaive guisarm. Enlarged with combat reflexes and high dex... he was brutal that way too. Then he took the feat that let him take a 5 foot step to get an AoO.


Slim Jim wrote:
If smelly food is the worst thing on your list, I want to be in your games.

My group doesn't even have smelly food - although the Bombay snacks are rather spicy!

While I recognise some of the gripes in this thread it's been years since we had any real problems. We all get on well, turn up more or less on time, and concentrate on the game as soon as the GM and at least four out of six players arrive.

Reading this thread, I feel like I'm blessed!


Chuck Mount wrote:
Then he took the feat that let him take a 5 foot step to get an AoO.

There's a feat that lets you move in the middle of someone else's provoking action so you can take the AoO? What's it called?


Moving on from disliking farts and over to version preferences - I prefer 3.5/Pathfinder to the older editions since it is easier to make your PC different on a mechanical level rather than just through RP. For instance, in many older editions Fighter A and Fighter B would tend to be mechanically quite similar whereas in Pathfinder their capabilities could be very different (like the grapple you to jelly guy mentioned above - whether or not you like that particular tactic - could just as easily be somebody who decides to push people around with Shield Slam, demoralize them, etc...)

Something I don't like as much about Pathfinder is how easy it is to develop overwhelming offense and end encounters pretty much instantly (I guess what some call "rocket tag"). I suppose there should be some fights which are quick and brutal, but a good battle with a struggle for tactical advantages appeals to me too (and that might involve some use of CMB to debuff the enemy)

@pjrogers - I'd think that a black leopard should like grappling

@Fuzzy-Wuzzy - Step Up let you follow an enemy who 5 foot steps away and has some follow up feats


Devilkiller wrote:
@Fuzzy-Wuzzy - Step Up let you follow an enemy who 5 foot steps away and has some follow up feats

Specifically, I think they're referring to Step Up and Strike.


Avoron wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
@Fuzzy-Wuzzy - Step Up let you follow an enemy who 5 foot steps away and has some follow up feats
Specifically, I think they're referring to Step Up and Strike.

Oh, that. I thought it meant something more general. Thanks for the clarifications.


Sorry. It was Combat Patrol. I never used it. I just saw him use it and it seemed like he was always taking a five foot step to smack somebody when they thought they were moving outside his threatened area.


Chuck Mount wrote:
Sorry. It was Combat Patrol. I never used it. I just saw him use it and it seemed like he was always taking a five foot step to smack somebody when they thought they were moving outside his threatened area.

Ah, I know that one. Everyone seems to think it's not worth the full-round action to set up every round. Good for him if he managed to make it effective.


I think he did more just because he could than actually needing to. LOL It was a long time ago and I don't remember exactly what he was doing, but when he was enlarged, he was tripping and smacking people in a 30-foot-radius with his guisarme. I can't remember which combat it was or what we were fighting, but I remember there were a lot or enemies and the DM was getting frustrated. He was laughing, but frustrated.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think I played once with a Large PC with a reach weapon that had a giant circle of smack down, too! I felt kind of bad for the DM, but the DM was savvy enough to make those encounters fun.


People pulling phones out at the table, or other devices.

Dark Archive

When dc's are scaled in such a way they are not possible. Can't tell you how many times we have had things be Dc 35 disable device to open the door or Dc 30 Str check. F%$#ing metal doors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate how in order to do something well in the game, you end up falling into a cookie-cutter build. Case in point: blasters all end up having levels of Crossblooded Sorcerer with either Elemental, Draconic, or Orcish bloodlines with mutated genes thrown in there for good measure. Yea, I know you don't HAVE to do that but it's always there, in the back of my mind; if I don't take a level of Crossblooded Sorc, I'd be losing out on a lot of damage.

I guess the short of it is I hate feeling like I'm being pigeonholed into a mechanical decision to make something work, if that makes any sense.

Also, I hate people that call their characters "toons."

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
sounds like complete and utter chaos

One thing third edition really, really got right was making stat bonuses both consistent, and also rewarding for people with stats as low as 12 (where you get a +1). 1st edition had some stats start gaining bonuses at 13 (for Charisma) and others at 16 (for Strength where you got +1 to damage, but not +1 to hit, which happened at 17).

I really liked that change, as it made attributes lower than 15 or 16 relevant (and added some consistency, which I also like).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Toons is a Wow thing. I use it from time to time. Hate on me all you want. I'ts ok I forgive you.


TheMagicIndian wrote:

I hate how in order to do something well in the game, you end up falling into a cookie-cutter build. Case in point: blasters all end up having levels of Crossblooded Sorcerer with either Elemental, Draconic, or Orcish bloodlines with mutated genes thrown in there for good measure. Yea, I know you don't HAVE to do that but it's always there, in the back of my mind; if I don't take a level of Crossblooded Sorc, I'd be losing out on a lot of damage.

I guess the short of it is I hate feeling like I'm being pigeonholed into a mechanical decision to make something work, if that makes any sense.

Also, I hate people that call their characters "toons."

you fool you take orc and goblin bloodlines for your cross blooded dip


Set wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
sounds like complete and utter chaos

One thing third edition really, really got right was making stat bonuses both consistent, and also rewarding for people with stats as low as 12 (where you get a +1). 1st edition had some stats start gaining bonuses at 13 (for Charisma) and others at 16 (for Strength where you got +1 to damage, but not +1 to hit, which happened at 17).

I really liked that change, as it made attributes lower than 15 or 16 relevant (and added some consistency, which I also like).

The 1e Basic D&D (the Moldvay edition from 1980) actually did this, more or less.

You also could play a wizard that had spells up to 9th level (assuming you bought the higher level books since basic was only levels 1-3) with only a 9 INT. The only limiting factor was that a higher INT gave you bonus XP.

In 1e basic, if I rolled an 18 STR and then got 9s for all my other scores, I would play a cleric.


Hmm you sure on that one? even back then I was pretty sure you needed a higher int for higher level spells.

Dark Archive

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Hmm you sure on that one? even back then I was pretty sure you needed a higher int for higher level spells.

It was buried in the text and not on the table, so it was easier to miss, but you could only cast 1st - 4th level spells with a 9 Int. The table showed that you needed 10 Int for 5th level spells, and then 2 more Int for each spell level, to 18 Int for 9th level spells.

And for clerics, 9 Wisdom was enough for 1st through 5th level spells. 17 Wisdom was required for 6th level spells and 18 Wisdom for 7th level spells. (And that's not even getting into the wonkiness of playing a cleric of a lesser god or demigod, and not even getting the highest level cleric spells!)

Again, I prefer how 3rd edition standardized things.


Also, I have seen an Expert D&D Cleric class table that gave access to 3rd and 4th level spells at the same class level (I don't remember what that level was).


TheMagicIndian wrote:
Also, I hate people that call their characters "toons."

I wouldn't call it hate, but I am not a fan either. While D&D and PF make a bad habit of using cryptic abbrevations (making life for newbies more difficult), that's around for so long that it's a part of the gaming culture. Catchy one-syllable words immediately feel off - and it doesn't help if these words also exist in other contexts, but with other meanings.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In B/X and BECMI there was no minimum Int or Wis score for magic-users and clerics respectively - theoretically in BECMI a 3 Int magic-user could cast any 9th level spell except wish. IIRC elves required a 9 Int to qualify for the class (nonhuman races were classes in B/X and BECMI), and only got up to 5th level spells anyway.

Firmer restrictions on spell levels by ability score were an AD&D thing. (Maybe OD&D as well, that was before my time.) Clerics needed 17/18 for 6th/7th level spells, and magic-users ended up needing "double spell level" in Int. There were other odd things too - 6th/7th level cleric spells were directly granted by a cleric's deity, and the DM was vaguely encouraged to change around the PC's spell choices if the deity thought there were better options. Lower level spells came through intermediaries or simply pure faith for 1st/2nd level spells. Magic-users got four semi-random spells at character creation, and in 1e, free spells stopped after level 4 or so. After that you had to find everything as treasure. Imagine playing a 7th level wizard with no 3rd level spells at all, and your only 4th level spell makes a small army look like trees (massmorph). And no filling high level slots with lower levels spells(not allowed!) Good times!

There was very little logic to ability score modifiers in 1e/2e. Also remember that THACO was added in late in the 1e cycle. Originally 1e just had big "to hit" tables where you had to cross-reference attack rolls with AC. THACO was introduced as a simplification.

My least favorite thing in Pathfinder is probably Antagonize. Games with a live GM do not need a compulsory "aggro" mechanic. Especially one that can force a noncombatant to attack a dragon because the dragon is super scary.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

My least favorite things are random lists and rolling on tables. Rolling on tables is the only reason I would never run a Wild Magic sorcerer in 5th Edition, I hate using wandering monster tables in play (but they can be inspirational in designing mini side quests; I particularly like the non-monster options in Xanathar's Guide to Everything), and I'm annoyed by random magic items like the Deck of Many Things and Rod of Wonder. Most PCs are chaotic enough!!! Even the paladins, LOL!

One of my favorite things about PF is how they changed Turn Undead (besides getting feats every odd levels and streamlining skills and getting rid of dead levels).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Chuck Mount wrote:
In game, I hate how there are hundreds of races. Every group now has, maybe, one human. The rest are exotic rare races that players think are neat and unusual with really cool special abilities. I understand the draw to them. I really do, but I play message board games exclusively now due to time constraints and every game I'm in has several exotics running around with no good campaign reason to be there. We're in a city. "Hey. Here's a new player. They're playing a Nymph urban druid". WHAT??? How about a sverfneblin when we're all good and meet for the first time to root out evil. Okay... I'll trust the goblin to not cause a ruckus or get us ostracized in a human city.

Since I run my own world, I get around this with the Freak of Nature. I've created the list of standard, playable races. Any race that falls outside of that list is playable, at my discretion, but will be a Freak of Nature.

EXAMPLE: Want to be a kitsune? Fine. A natural werewolf in wolf form mated with a fox and, presto, your character is born. There is no race of kitsunes, you're a one-off. You have the traits of the race, without me having to go through the trouble of establishing their homeland and how they relate with the other races/city-states in the area.

A wizard's experiment gone horribly wrong is an easy way to shoe-horn in almost any exotic race.

This can have a profound impact on my world. For instance, a guy was playing the first Ironborn (AKA: warforged) to exist on my world. At the end of the campaign he was critically hit (confirmed) and then a 100 was rolled on the Critical Hit Chart: "Fine pink mist. Unloved by the gods. Cannot be resurrected by any means, not even a wish, true ressurrection, nor miracle will bring this being back to life." And now no one else can play an Ironborn.

On the other hand, during Shackled City AP, in Bhal-Hamatugn, the players wiped out every last kuo-toan (AKA: ulat-kini), but didn't lay a finger on Dhorlot's fingerlings. So, now ulat-kini are extinct, but Dhorlot's half-dragon ulat-kini are thriving.


ryric said wrote:
Also remember that THACO was added in late in the 1e cycle. Originally 1e just had big "to hit" tables where you had to cross-reference attack rolls with AC. THACO was introduced as a simplification.

This confuses me because I started playing with Basic D&D and I used THAC0 for that. When I started playing AD&D, there was still THAC0. Maybe you're thinking of Chainmail? I don't know what system they used for that as that was before my time.


Chuck Mount wrote:
ryric said wrote:
Also remember that THACO was added in late in the 1e cycle. Originally 1e just had big "to hit" tables where you had to cross-reference attack rolls with AC. THACO was introduced as a simplification.
This confuses me because I started playing with Basic D&D and I used THAC0 for that. When I started playing AD&D, there was still THAC0. Maybe you're thinking of Chainmail? I don't know what system they used for that as that was before my time.

No, it was definitely late to 1e. I don’t believe it appears at all in the first two publications - Monster Manual and Players Handbook. And it’s in an appendix in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Plus, it isn’t even an exact fit in 1e because of the series of repeated 20s on the combat tables.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

...the Druid spellcasting progression table (unlike the Cleric spellcasting progression table) didn't have the asterisks to indicate that 6th and 7th level spells required exceptional Wisdom to use.

Well, the druids did have a different mechanism throttling access to high level spells. They had to fight to gain those levels or be stuck not advancing at all.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Chuck Mount wrote:
ryric said wrote:
Also remember that THACO was added in late in the 1e cycle. Originally 1e just had big "to hit" tables where you had to cross-reference attack rolls with AC. THACO was introduced as a simplification.
This confuses me because I started playing with Basic D&D and I used THAC0 for that. When I started playing AD&D, there was still THAC0. Maybe you're thinking of Chainmail? I don't know what system they used for that as that was before my time.

The 1e DMG had a two page spread of "to hit" matrices that were actually supposed to be secret DM information. Attack numbers, saving throws and other mechanics were not originally intended to be player facing. Gygax was weird about player information and potential metagaming. I think THAC0 was introduced sometime in the early 80s...maybe the Dragonlance modules? I have some early modules and 1e supplements that explain THACO as if it's a new thing.

I started with BECMI and for Basic you were supposed to copy the entire row off the "to hit" table onto your character sheet, so that was definitely before THAC0. I think THAC0 existed by the time the Master set came out, though.

It's an entirely reasonable extrapolation of the 1e and Basic to hit systems, so I wouldn't be surprised if it saw a lot of home use before any "official" version existed. I'm pretty sure it was kicking around when I started playing, but I'm fairly certain it's not mentioned in the 1e PHB or DMG. Technically THAC0 doesn't exactly replicate the 1e "to hit" tables exactly - they had some funky lines if you were attempting something way past your ability.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I first encountered THAC0 in my Dragonlance Adventures hardcover (and had to figure out it was an acronym AND figure out what it was short for, myself), for 2nd Edition (I think). I can't find my Oriental Adventures hardcover, but I'm 99.99% sure it did not use THAC0. I'm pretty sure there was a table for attack bonuses in 1st Edition, which was roughly BAB +1 for Warriors, +3/4 for Priests, +1/2 for Rogues, and +1/3 for Magic-users.

And yes, it was a table. Ugh....

51 to 100 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your Least Favorite Thing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.