Just got home from my gaming session. It was a great success. In all the campaign prep, I never once considered a diplomatic approach to handling orcs. Who knew?
Anyway, the first little bit of time was spent on character generation. Everyone in my group had a problem with THAC0. I personally think the THAC0 system is great and fairly easy to understand. I explained it about 6 times for my 4 players. I also know that THAC0 is one of the things everyone complains about when discussing 2E. Why is that? Do any of you folk have any thing against THAC0?
What is it About THAC0
Moderators: Thorn Blackstone, Halaster Blackcloak
I never found anything remotely difficult about THAC0, nor did I understand the complaints that it was too difficult. I won't argue that it's better than the d20 method (which really IS the same thing, just looked at from a different angle), but so much harder...nope, just don't get that.
To try to be as fair as possible, I could see it taking some getting used to for players that began with other systems, as would any change in mechanics.
One point of confusion could be where the bonuses get applied. I always liked to think of THAC0 as the to-hit # from the THAC0 table, and any bonuses or penalties were applied strictly to the roll. Then you don't have to get into the business of having different THAC0s for different weapons or situations.
To try to be as fair as possible, I could see it taking some getting used to for players that began with other systems, as would any change in mechanics.
One point of confusion could be where the bonuses get applied. I always liked to think of THAC0 as the to-hit # from the THAC0 table, and any bonuses or penalties were applied strictly to the roll. Then you don't have to get into the business of having different THAC0s for different weapons or situations.
In 1988 I was very resistant to THAC0 and many other things that changed my game for the worse. But after trying a game or two using THAC0, I then realized how simple it truly was.
I too had to spend a few minutes here and there yesterday explaining THAC0 and then realizing folks were forgetting a bonus here and there. Once we get a couple of sessions under our belts I'm sure everyone will be fine with it.
I too had to spend a few minutes here and there yesterday explaining THAC0 and then realizing folks were forgetting a bonus here and there. Once we get a couple of sessions under our belts I'm sure everyone will be fine with it.
Nothing is so terrible that a huge red dragon can't make it just a hell of a lot worse.
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
I don't have a 1e, assuming "your game" is 1E, but I don't recall the to hit chart being that much different than THAC0. Isn't THAC0 just a simplified to hit table?Blackmote wrote:In 1988 I was very resistant to THAC0 and many other things that changed my game for the worse. But after trying a game or two using THAC0, I then realized how simple it truly was.
I think the toughest thing about THAC0 is you you record it on the character sheet. The character sheet my players are using has one chart for THAC0. Not a THAC0 per weapon. Then each weapon line has a place for to hit modifiers. I told my players their THAC0 should be filled in with their non-bonus THAC0 and to list bonus as modifiers on their weapons line. I look at the character sheets at the end of the game, there was a little confusion.I too had to spend a few minutes here and there yesterday explaining THAC0 and then realizing folks were forgetting a bonus here and there. Once we get a couple of sessions under our belts I'm sure everyone will be fine with it.
THAC0 didn't "change" from 1e, it always had the same mechanic. 2e just presented it differently with progression rate/class instead of a cumbersome chart that mapped out each classes different level.
I never understood how people can't understand it. I wish I could have been there, because I've grown an expert on explaining it. They seem to understand:
(Class given Thac0) -(+bonus (racial bonus, ability score bonus, magical bonus) - Armor Class = Roll *this* or above.
So for a second level fighter (Thac0: 19) with a long sword (Racial bonus of +1 to hit), but no other special consideration fighting an unremarkable man in chain mail (ac 5):
19 -1 -5 = roll 13 or better.
I'm sure that's how you explained it, but seriously, what's hard about that? I'm not trying to make people out to be dumb, but am I missing something that throws a curve ball?
When filling out a character sheet, I always have the math done up.
That above elf, with Long Sword specialization (+1 to hit/+2 to dmg) would be listed on the sheet under 'Long Sword' as +2 (under to hit bonus) and +2 (under damage bonus), then I precalculate the number in the THAC0 column as 17 (19-2).
Maybe someone who isn't as familiar with the to-hit system in 2e as most of us could read my post and shine some light on where the complication is. I'm seriously baffled and have been for years.
I never understood how people can't understand it. I wish I could have been there, because I've grown an expert on explaining it. They seem to understand:
(Class given Thac0) -(+bonus (racial bonus, ability score bonus, magical bonus) - Armor Class = Roll *this* or above.
So for a second level fighter (Thac0: 19) with a long sword (Racial bonus of +1 to hit), but no other special consideration fighting an unremarkable man in chain mail (ac 5):
19 -1 -5 = roll 13 or better.
I'm sure that's how you explained it, but seriously, what's hard about that? I'm not trying to make people out to be dumb, but am I missing something that throws a curve ball?
When filling out a character sheet, I always have the math done up.
That above elf, with Long Sword specialization (+1 to hit/+2 to dmg) would be listed on the sheet under 'Long Sword' as +2 (under to hit bonus) and +2 (under damage bonus), then I precalculate the number in the THAC0 column as 17 (19-2).
Maybe someone who isn't as familiar with the to-hit system in 2e as most of us could read my post and shine some light on where the complication is. I'm seriously baffled and have been for years.
Thank Gygax (I was gonna say thank God) for THAC0. I remember when I first started Moldvay and wrote down those charts for my character. I really hated adjusting that thing. When I saw THAC0 and realized what it was I almost felt like an idiot for not using that before. Basically it took one line from a whole series. Wish I would have thought to use 0 in my early years then I probably would have used THAC0 before I knew it was in actual usage by other players.
Charts are basically:
THAC10
THAC9
THAC8
THAC7
THAC6
THAC5
THAC4
THAC3
THAC2
THAC1
THAC0
etc........
Charts are basically:
THAC10
THAC9
THAC8
THAC7
THAC6
THAC5
THAC4
THAC3
THAC2
THAC1
THAC0
etc........
At the edge of madness, he will show no sadness
Never broken, he'll be back for more
Proven under fire, over trench and wire
No fear of death, he's unshakeable
Forged for the war, he's unbreakable
Never broken, he'll be back for more
Proven under fire, over trench and wire
No fear of death, he's unshakeable
Forged for the war, he's unbreakable
Once you wrap your head around the fact that AD&D THAC0 works in reverse as far as the math goes, it's not hard to grasp at all. 20 is typically the highest THAC0 you can have, and the lower your THAC0 gets, the better you become.
The way I explain it to people unfamiliar to it is to think of the acronym: To Hit Armor Class 0. AC 0 is the pendulum upon which THAC0 swings. Whatever your THAC0 value is, it's weighed directly against the AC of the target you're up against. So, if it has an AC of 0, you need a 20 to hit it. Most people get that right away. If it has an AC of 4, which in AD&D is worse than AC 0, you effectively gain a +4 to hit it, so your THAC0 becomes 16 (and this is where the reverse math comes into play, since a +4 typically would be a 24, right? Well, not in AD&D. Lower THAC0 is better!). And if you're up against a creature with an AC in the negatives, such as AC -2, it penalizes your to-hit, so you'll need a 22 to hit it (assuming low level, or in other words, you'll need at least 2 bonus points to even be able to hit it at all!).
But then, I'm sure all you AD&D vets knew this already.
The way I explain it to people unfamiliar to it is to think of the acronym: To Hit Armor Class 0. AC 0 is the pendulum upon which THAC0 swings. Whatever your THAC0 value is, it's weighed directly against the AC of the target you're up against. So, if it has an AC of 0, you need a 20 to hit it. Most people get that right away. If it has an AC of 4, which in AD&D is worse than AC 0, you effectively gain a +4 to hit it, so your THAC0 becomes 16 (and this is where the reverse math comes into play, since a +4 typically would be a 24, right? Well, not in AD&D. Lower THAC0 is better!). And if you're up against a creature with an AC in the negatives, such as AC -2, it penalizes your to-hit, so you'll need a 22 to hit it (assuming low level, or in other words, you'll need at least 2 bonus points to even be able to hit it at all!).
But then, I'm sure all you AD&D vets knew this already.
Tired of clone MMOs? So are we!
http://trialsofascension.com/
http://trialsofascension.com/
-
Halaster Blackcloak
- Lord of Undermountain
- Posts: 4034
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:47 am
- Location: Undermountain
- Contact:
I've never understood how anyone could have problems with thaco. It's 3rd grade math. Even with negative armor classes, just add a negative. So if your thaco is 13 and you're trying to hit AC -3, you have to roll 16+.
I also have players record their thaco for each weapon (though it's usually the same number for most) and that solves any worry about modifiers.
I also have players record their thaco for each weapon (though it's usually the same number for most) and that solves any worry about modifiers.
The Back In Print Project - Where AD&D Lives Forever!
hmm, I guess I made myself sound like an idiot above with my rather quick response. I guess I should elaborate...
I was somewhat resistant to 2nd edition when it was first presented because it changed a lot of things about the game I came to know and love over several years time: AD&D (i.e. 'my game'). Most people fear change, and I was one of them. I had grown so used to using the 'To Hit' charts on the handy dandy DM screen that I didn't want to have to sit there and calculate everyone's THAC0 for them. Call it complacency, call it laziness, but that's how it was... but only for a couple of sessions.
Once we finally sat down and took a moment to do some "3rd grade math" as Halaster so eloquently put it, we were like "oh! that's easy! why didn't they do this from the start?". And I have never looked back. *smug*
Other things they changed at first that didn't sit well with me included the politically correct edits: no more half-orc as a player race; no more assassin or illusionist* as character classes; no more 'named' demons and devils; renamed demons and devils; sad art work in the monstrous compendiums; and lots of other nonsense that we found. Like many people we wrote up our own house rules as a work around, or else just pulled what we wanted from the good ol' original AD&D books.
Then within 2 or 3 years, much of the heartburn was all fixed again with the additions of the 'Complete Race/Class Handbooks'. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the complete handbooks. True, some of the material is worthless. But practically every book has something useful for my games. I'll elaborate elsewhere on the books, but suffice to say I have used them quite effectively through the years as both a player and a DM.
So there - THAC0 ROCKS! It always has and it always will as far as I'm concerned.
*yes, I realize the illusionist was grouped in under 'Wizard', but what I guess I should have elaborated on was that they weren't their own character class any longer because they also grouped all of the magic-user spells together, same as they did for clerics and druids. But once again, I failed to go break my thoughts down into minute details so my words were totally misconstrued. I had thought those who went through the same changes would understand my meaning. Guess not.
I was somewhat resistant to 2nd edition when it was first presented because it changed a lot of things about the game I came to know and love over several years time: AD&D (i.e. 'my game'). Most people fear change, and I was one of them. I had grown so used to using the 'To Hit' charts on the handy dandy DM screen that I didn't want to have to sit there and calculate everyone's THAC0 for them. Call it complacency, call it laziness, but that's how it was... but only for a couple of sessions.
Once we finally sat down and took a moment to do some "3rd grade math" as Halaster so eloquently put it, we were like "oh! that's easy! why didn't they do this from the start?". And I have never looked back. *smug*
Other things they changed at first that didn't sit well with me included the politically correct edits: no more half-orc as a player race; no more assassin or illusionist* as character classes; no more 'named' demons and devils; renamed demons and devils; sad art work in the monstrous compendiums; and lots of other nonsense that we found. Like many people we wrote up our own house rules as a work around, or else just pulled what we wanted from the good ol' original AD&D books.
Then within 2 or 3 years, much of the heartburn was all fixed again with the additions of the 'Complete Race/Class Handbooks'. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the complete handbooks. True, some of the material is worthless. But practically every book has something useful for my games. I'll elaborate elsewhere on the books, but suffice to say I have used them quite effectively through the years as both a player and a DM.
So there - THAC0 ROCKS! It always has and it always will as far as I'm concerned.
*yes, I realize the illusionist was grouped in under 'Wizard', but what I guess I should have elaborated on was that they weren't their own character class any longer because they also grouped all of the magic-user spells together, same as they did for clerics and druids. But once again, I failed to go break my thoughts down into minute details so my words were totally misconstrued. I had thought those who went through the same changes would understand my meaning. Guess not.
Last edited by Blackmote on Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is so terrible that a huge red dragon can't make it just a hell of a lot worse.
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
In defense of my players it wasn't the math that was the problem. It was negative armor classes. More specifically, AC being better the lower the number is. They all had their most recent (in one instance only) D&D experience in 3.X.Halaster Blackcloak wrote:I've never understood how anyone could have problems with thaco. It's 3rd grade math. Even with negative armor classes, just add a negative. So if your thaco is 13 and you're trying to hit AC -3, you have to roll 16+.
yes, I realize the illusionist was grouped in under 'Wizard', but what I guess I should have elaborated on was that they weren't their own character class any longer because they also grouped all of the magic-user spells together, same as they did for clerics and druids. But once again, I failed to go break my thoughts down into minute details so my words were totally misconstrued. I had thought those who went through the same changes at that time [i.e. 1989] would understand my meaning. I keep forgetting there are folks here 10 and 20 years younger than me.Zherbus wrote:Is that a typo or did you mean that they re-established Illusionists as a specialty wizard class?no more assassin or illusionist as character classes
Last edited by Blackmote on Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is so terrible that a huge red dragon can't make it just a hell of a lot worse.
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
Yeah, that was a mistake to ever remove those.Blackmote wrote:Other things they changed at first that didn't sit well with me included the politically correct edits: no more half-orc as a player race;
Assassin I could see being removed. To me, an assassin is merely a hired killer, and a hired killer can be of any class imo. If the mage sneaks into the back room of a temple, and assassinates the prince's 2 hp son using a Magic Missile (the quiet killer!), he's an assassin.no more assassin or illusionist as character classes;
The illusionist was merely rolled back and grouped back in with all specialty mages, which is where he should be really.
I know. I guess this one depends on your outlook. I don't mind either usage: demons/devils or baatezu/tanar'ii. I think the former are classic descriptors of what they really are, and the latter are more colorful fantasy descriptors of the former. To me, they're like creating a new word to describe something. The elves call the wine they make Elora'keel, or magic from the vine. Use Elora'keel often enough and it becomes a household name for elven wine. Baatezu and Tanar'ii are just like that imo.no more 'named' demons and devils; renamed demons and devils;
Really? I thought all of AD&D's art was great, from OD&D through AD&D2.sad art work in the monstrous comendiums;
Tired of clone MMOs? So are we!
http://trialsofascension.com/
http://trialsofascension.com/
Can you be more specific? Got any preferred barfbag nominees in mind?Zherbus wrote:I will say that the blue/white art and a good percentage of the full color art in 2e is vomit-inducing.
Tired of clone MMOs? So are we!
http://trialsofascension.com/
http://trialsofascension.com/
remember the monster compendiums that were first introduced with AD&D 2E? The artwork for a majority of those were horrid single line black and white stuff that a middle school art student could draw up.Varl wrote:Can you be more specific? Got any preferred barfbag nominees in mind?
Kobold? yuck! Most of the dragons? harf!Once the collected works were gathered and edited, then re-published into the Monstrous Manual, it was much better!
I like a majority of the 'painted' artwork for 2nd edition gaming, because that's when I was introduced to everyone from Easley and Elmore to Caldwell and Parkinson. Yes, I realize that these guys had some art in the earlier editions, but they exploded onto the scene with 2E. And later came Brom and Diterlizzi and too many more to recall at this time.
*thumbs up*
Nothing is so terrible that a huge red dragon can't make it just a hell of a lot worse.
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3
I actually like most, but certainly not all, of the black & white monstrous compendium sketches. I don't know exactly the word for what it was I dislike about the monstrous manuals: too cartooney maybe? The colors just don't seem to work right for me.
As for the MC pages themselves, I'm probably one of only a handful of people who absolutely love the format. Wish they hadn't gone to books at all.
As for the MC pages themselves, I'm probably one of only a handful of people who absolutely love the format. Wish they hadn't gone to books at all.
Take a real close look at MC2 (the first add on to the MC1 binder). Good GOD!!! The art is deplorable. That is the ugliest salamander, otyugh, leprechaun, etc I've ever seen. Its like they are part osquip or something. Now MC8.....niiiiiiiiiiiccccceeeeeee.
At the edge of madness, he will show no sadness
Never broken, he'll be back for more
Proven under fire, over trench and wire
No fear of death, he's unshakeable
Forged for the war, he's unbreakable
Never broken, he'll be back for more
Proven under fire, over trench and wire
No fear of death, he's unshakeable
Forged for the war, he's unbreakable
I like it too, though I like having the book also. The book makes it easier to peruse through when you don't know what you want to place in a room for sure yet, but I like having the removable pages because I can stick them with the other information for the game when I get ready to run it. Much easier to just pull the sheet out for reference than to write it all down and pull out that sheet later. (I hate digging through books when running a game, so I try to avoid doing so) Makes the game run that much smoother.Minstrel wrote: As for the MC pages themselves, I'm probably one of only a handful of people who absolutely love the format. Wish they hadn't gone to books at all.
It might have gone better if they had just made it one monster per page though, sure it would have been a lot more pages, but you'd then be able to insert it all in alphabetical order. That was the one thing I didn't like about it, that some monsters ended up out of order, making it more difficult to locate.
Mira (A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well)
Thanks to my session last week, I have changed my opinion on the loose leaf format of the MC. I now game in a friendly, local, gaming store which means I have to take all my materials with me. It would be great, and lighter, to be able to only bring the necessary pages.Minstrel wrote: As for the MC pages themselves, I'm probably one of only a handful of people who absolutely love the format. Wish they hadn't gone to books at all.
-
Halaster Blackcloak
- Lord of Undermountain
- Posts: 4034
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:47 am
- Location: Undermountain
- Contact:
Blackmote wrote:
"You gotta divide the sum of the primes by the quotient of the differences and multiply that by one-half of metric seven..."
They insisted that after (supposedly) having played the game for 10 years, thaco was still difficult for them. Which is mind-boggling in its implications if they were being honest.
What always irritated me was how cool the monsters looked on the cover of the 3-ring binders for the Monstrous Compendiums, only to discover a stupid looking monster inside. Compare the umberhulk and the beholder on the cover to the MC1 binder to the art for those monsters inside. The umberhulk on the cover is one mean mo'fo' that you certainly would not want to run into. The umberhulk portrayed inside looks sorta retarded, and I picture particularly cruel PCs throwing rocks at it while also hurling insults! Likewise, the beholder on the cover is a deadly menace, whereas the one inside looks like a demented glutton.
Varl wrote:
The reason I never bought into the 2e explanation that assassins were merely "those with a particular rephrensible mindset" or whatever they wrote, is that it goes against the archetype. I agree with you on the example you gave, but only in the sense of a modern dictionary definition of the word assassin. My argument has always been that the reason we can't use that dictionary definition is that in AD&D, the word means something far different than the ordinary use of the word.
Wizards study magic in order to become powerful wizards and employ powerful magic. They don't go into that archetypal class in order to assassinate someone. There are far safer, less costly, less time consuming ways to achieve that goal. Assassins study one thing and one thing only...assassination. How to kill the victim in the best, surest, safest possible way. That's why it's an archetype. A wizard may commit assassinations (as defined in the dictionary) but he's not an assassin (as defined by AD&D archetype rules).
So actually, I agree with you if we're referring to dictionary definitions...a wizard who takes out the prince with his magic missiles would be defined as an assassin in that sense. However, in AD&D terms, he'd simply be a wizard who killed someone, not an assassin.
They really seemed to hate that the illusionist became a subclass of wizard but it only makes sense. Why would the illusionist school be the only specialty wizard?
However, I always did hate grouping the druid with clerics. I always saw them as a unique class.
I just always hated it because:
1. It came about as a result of caving in to the fundamentalist whack-jobs who actually believed we were summoning demons by playing AD&D
2. The names sound too sci-fi or alien to me.
Given the choice between the two descriptions below:
"The wizard nearly fainted from the overwhelming stench that accompanied the devil that was coughed forth from the pits of hell which he had just summoned."
"The wizard nearly fainted from the overwhelming stench that accompanied the baatezu that was coughed forth from the pits of Baator which he had just summoned."
I'll take the former over the latter every time.
As for the art, the MC issues, etc...
I liked the art in both 1E and 2E. Some of my favorite artists were:
Jeff Dee - Perhaps my favorite 1E artist of all time. His Egyptian gods in D&DG was absolutely stunning! Best art in the entire book! I wish he had done the entire book! Just something about those crips, clean, clear lines. There was always a sense of power and motion in his figures, and they were always so unique and interesting.
Bill Willingham - Probably my 2nd favorite 1E artist. His drow reign supreme to this very day, and his art always (for me) captured the very essence of adventuring in the game. His cover to G1-2-3 Against the Giants was just exemplary. The back cover to D1-2 with the mindflayer sucking out that guy's brains while his teammates try to save him...classic!
David C Sutherland - His art in the PHB and DMG just rocked! While somewhat less developed than the other two above (perhaps purposely so), he just inspired so many ideas with such small pieces. His "Paladin In Hell" pic on page 23 of the 1E PHB is classic beyond words and every time I see it I want to run a paladin right into the Nine Hells! 
Totally captures the spirit of the class like few others could. Or his wizard with the quasit sitting on his shoulder on pg. 42 of the PHB. That tiny pic has spawned a good half-dozen stories in my head alone!
There was a lot of simple, almost cartoony art in 1E. However, most of it (even some of the more cartoony stuff) always seemed to capture the feel of the game for me, overall. Some of it was just absurd (the "dancing umberhulk" on pg 90 of the 1E PHB), but most of it had a really strong inspirational feel to it.
2E had a lot of great artists too! My faves are:
Brom - He had such a unique style, and everything he did got me wanting it. Unfortunately, he did a lot of covers for Dark Sun, only to find hideous Baxa art inside, which made me ill.
Larry Elmore - another true great. His pictures are all so finely done and detailed and dynamic. Lots of great colors too!
However, the 2E PHB and DMG had much inferior art. I think the main issue is this...
In the 1E books, almost every piece of art, however simple, told a story.
Every piece seemed to be represent a snapshot of some part of an adventure...a thief holding a knife to someone's throat while grabbing his money bag, a wizard casting a spell deflecting arrows coming at him, adventurers turning a corner of a hallway with a spider waiting to pounce on them, etc. However simple the piece, it was usually exciting, inspiring, intriguing.
In contrast, much of the art in the 2E core books was stupid stuff like a simple, half-assed Celtic knot surrounding a bunch of flowers, or a pile of coins surrounded by a simple, half-assed Celtic knot, or a plain helmet surrounded by a simple, half-assed Celtic knot, or...
Anyone seeing a pattern there?
The interior 2E art was mainly crap placed to take space and had no inspirational value. I'd see that lamely drawn celtic knot wrapped around a helmet or a sword or a wreath of flowers and think "yeah, so what?". No inspiration or firing of the imagination at all. I think that was the main difference between the two.
2E also started that annoying trend of "realistic art" where the artist uses real life models. See the 2E PHB, pg. 119, the cover of Ruins of Undermountain II, the cover of Temple Tower and Tomb, the cover of the Book of Artifacts, etc. There's nothing I hate more than seeing the faces of Bob from accounting and Ann from human resources on the covers of fantasy books. It's disturbing because it looks like real people, and you just know they don't have the bodies their heads were pasted onto.
As for the MC binders, I loved the idea, but the execution sucked. The pages were too flimsy and tore...they needed reinforced circlets. They got out of alphabetical order too easily. And they took up too much room on the shelf because the binder was so huge.
No, no, no, not at all! I hope you didn't take it that way. I'm referring mainly to certain 3E people I've fought with over the years who persistently tried (in vain) to portray thaco as some sort of advanced trigonometric thing...hmm, I guess I made myself sound like an idiot above with my rather quick response. I guess I should elaborate...
"You gotta divide the sum of the primes by the quotient of the differences and multiply that by one-half of metric seven..."
They insisted that after (supposedly) having played the game for 10 years, thaco was still difficult for them. Which is mind-boggling in its implications if they were being honest.
I think that's generally a natural human reaction. Change is usually not fun, so we resist it. We usually only embrace it once we discover a change that's good or workable.I had grown so used to using the 'To Hit' charts on the handy dandy DM screen that I didn't want to have to sit there and calculate everyone's THAC0 for them. Call it complacency, call it laziness, but that's how it was... but only for a couple of sessions.
I was furious when I got my first 2E books and found that there were no assassins, no half-orcs, no demons, no devils, etc. I said "screw that" and on day one put them all back in. The art was lacking on a lot of monsters, but then there was some pretty lame art in the 1E monster books as well.Other things they changed at first that didn't sit well with me included the politically correct edits: no more half-orc as a player race; no more assassin or illusionist* as character classes; no more 'named' demons and devils; renamed demons and devils; sad art work in the monstrous compendiums; and lots of other nonsense that we found. Like many people we wrote up our own house rules as a work around, or else just pulled what we wanted from the good ol' original AD&D books.
What always irritated me was how cool the monsters looked on the cover of the 3-ring binders for the Monstrous Compendiums, only to discover a stupid looking monster inside. Compare the umberhulk and the beholder on the cover to the MC1 binder to the art for those monsters inside. The umberhulk on the cover is one mean mo'fo' that you certainly would not want to run into. The umberhulk portrayed inside looks sorta retarded, and I picture particularly cruel PCs throwing rocks at it while also hurling insults!
Likewise, the beholder on the cover is a deadly menace, whereas the one inside looks like a demented glutton.Varl wrote:
There's one of those seemingly rare instances where we very much disagree on something.Assassin I could see being removed. To me, an assassin is merely a hired killer, and a hired killer can be of any class imo. If the mage sneaks into the back room of a temple, and assassinates the prince's 2 hp son using a Magic Missile (the quiet killer!), he's an assassin.
The reason I never bought into the 2e explanation that assassins were merely "those with a particular rephrensible mindset" or whatever they wrote, is that it goes against the archetype. I agree with you on the example you gave, but only in the sense of a modern dictionary definition of the word assassin. My argument has always been that the reason we can't use that dictionary definition is that in AD&D, the word means something far different than the ordinary use of the word.
Wizards study magic in order to become powerful wizards and employ powerful magic. They don't go into that archetypal class in order to assassinate someone. There are far safer, less costly, less time consuming ways to achieve that goal. Assassins study one thing and one thing only...assassination. How to kill the victim in the best, surest, safest possible way. That's why it's an archetype. A wizard may commit assassinations (as defined in the dictionary) but he's not an assassin (as defined by AD&D archetype rules).
So actually, I agree with you if we're referring to dictionary definitions...a wizard who takes out the prince with his magic missiles would be defined as an assassin in that sense. However, in AD&D terms, he'd simply be a wizard who killed someone, not an assassin.
I agree there, and I've had that argument with certain 1E...er..."fans".The illusionist was merely rolled back and grouped back in with all specialty mages, which is where he should be really.
They really seemed to hate that the illusionist became a subclass of wizard but it only makes sense. Why would the illusionist school be the only specialty wizard? However, I always did hate grouping the druid with clerics. I always saw them as a unique class.
Varl, was it you who once suggested that the words "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" were the names used by those races, ie the devilish and demonic words for their race(s)? In other words, devils call themselves baatezu in the same way that elves call themselves tel'qessir or whatever it is ("the people" or "the race"?), while we just refer to them as elves and demons? I can see that as a very workable explanation.I know. I guess this one depends on your outlook. I don't mind either usage: demons/devils or baatezu/tanar'ii. I think the former are classic descriptors of what they really are, and the latter are more colorful fantasy descriptors of the former. To me, they're like creating a new word to describe something. The elves call the wine they make Elora'keel, or magic from the vine. Use Elora'keel often enough and it becomes a household name for elven wine. Baatezu and Tanar'ii are just like that imo.
I just always hated it because:
1. It came about as a result of caving in to the fundamentalist whack-jobs who actually believed we were summoning demons by playing AD&D
2. The names sound too sci-fi or alien to me.
Given the choice between the two descriptions below:
"The wizard nearly fainted from the overwhelming stench that accompanied the devil that was coughed forth from the pits of hell which he had just summoned."
"The wizard nearly fainted from the overwhelming stench that accompanied the baatezu that was coughed forth from the pits of Baator which he had just summoned."
I'll take the former over the latter every time.
As for the art, the MC issues, etc...
I liked the art in both 1E and 2E. Some of my favorite artists were:
Jeff Dee - Perhaps my favorite 1E artist of all time. His Egyptian gods in D&DG was absolutely stunning! Best art in the entire book! I wish he had done the entire book! Just something about those crips, clean, clear lines. There was always a sense of power and motion in his figures, and they were always so unique and interesting.
Bill Willingham - Probably my 2nd favorite 1E artist. His drow reign supreme to this very day, and his art always (for me) captured the very essence of adventuring in the game. His cover to G1-2-3 Against the Giants was just exemplary. The back cover to D1-2 with the mindflayer sucking out that guy's brains while his teammates try to save him...classic!
David C Sutherland - His art in the PHB and DMG just rocked! While somewhat less developed than the other two above (perhaps purposely so), he just inspired so many ideas with such small pieces. His "Paladin In Hell" pic on page 23 of the 1E PHB is classic beyond words and every time I see it I want to run a paladin right into the Nine Hells!
Totally captures the spirit of the class like few others could. Or his wizard with the quasit sitting on his shoulder on pg. 42 of the PHB. That tiny pic has spawned a good half-dozen stories in my head alone!There was a lot of simple, almost cartoony art in 1E. However, most of it (even some of the more cartoony stuff) always seemed to capture the feel of the game for me, overall. Some of it was just absurd (the "dancing umberhulk" on pg 90 of the 1E PHB), but most of it had a really strong inspirational feel to it.
2E had a lot of great artists too! My faves are:
Brom - He had such a unique style, and everything he did got me wanting it. Unfortunately, he did a lot of covers for Dark Sun, only to find hideous Baxa art inside, which made me ill.
Larry Elmore - another true great. His pictures are all so finely done and detailed and dynamic. Lots of great colors too!
However, the 2E PHB and DMG had much inferior art. I think the main issue is this...
In the 1E books, almost every piece of art, however simple, told a story.
Every piece seemed to be represent a snapshot of some part of an adventure...a thief holding a knife to someone's throat while grabbing his money bag, a wizard casting a spell deflecting arrows coming at him, adventurers turning a corner of a hallway with a spider waiting to pounce on them, etc. However simple the piece, it was usually exciting, inspiring, intriguing.
In contrast, much of the art in the 2E core books was stupid stuff like a simple, half-assed Celtic knot surrounding a bunch of flowers, or a pile of coins surrounded by a simple, half-assed Celtic knot, or a plain helmet surrounded by a simple, half-assed Celtic knot, or...
Anyone seeing a pattern there?
The interior 2E art was mainly crap placed to take space and had no inspirational value. I'd see that lamely drawn celtic knot wrapped around a helmet or a sword or a wreath of flowers and think "yeah, so what?". No inspiration or firing of the imagination at all. I think that was the main difference between the two.
2E also started that annoying trend of "realistic art" where the artist uses real life models. See the 2E PHB, pg. 119, the cover of Ruins of Undermountain II, the cover of Temple Tower and Tomb, the cover of the Book of Artifacts, etc. There's nothing I hate more than seeing the faces of Bob from accounting and Ann from human resources on the covers of fantasy books. It's disturbing because it looks like real people, and you just know they don't have the bodies their heads were pasted onto.
As for the MC binders, I loved the idea, but the execution sucked. The pages were too flimsy and tore...they needed reinforced circlets. They got out of alphabetical order too easily. And they took up too much room on the shelf because the binder was so huge.
The Back In Print Project - Where AD&D Lives Forever!