Help me convince my friend that 1st ed D&D is bad

>BAB is more intuitive.
Go suck a cock. Oh wait, you already are...

I tried BAB after THAC0 it made no sense. NO FUCKING SENSE. I walked out of 3.PF game because of it.

>flatfooted initiative.
ha!

>B8
On the off chance you're just stupid,
>Base Attack Bonus + other attack bonuses + 1d20 ≥ opponent's AC? You hit.
>Is your BAB over 5? If so, reduce it by five (for the rest of the attack series, fag) and go back to the first step.
>If Two Weapon Fighting, repeat the process but with an attack penalty of -2 or -5, depending on if you have the feat for it.
Congratulations, you know how to Fighter.

BAB and iterative attacks are really two different things. The first is more intuitive than THAC0. The second is obnoxious, fiddly bullshit.

this is real shitposting. It is simple addition math.

Your BAB is +5. You roll 12 ond d20. You add them together. 5+12=17.
Enemy AC is 15.
17 is higher than 15. You hit him. Simple as that.

These go on different lists because they're basically aiming for totally different things.

OD&D > BD&D > AD&D 1e > AD&D 2e

and

5e > 3.5/PF

and

4e is too different from the other D&Ds to compare.

I would rather play any game in the first list than the second, but that's just a matter of personal taste.

Some people might argue that AD&D 2e goes on the second list, and I think it was the first game that allowed the option for the more "modern" style of play, so if you want it there, put it below 5e but above 3.5, as I think that's where it fits for that kind of gameplay.

Swords & Wizardry Complete basically rendered all the old school D&D games redundant for me, though, so I'm probably set for life D&D-like-game-wise with S&W and 5e.

>Skills
Makes characters that literally cannot function if they have to do something they have no skill points in (See: fighters doing anything out of combat). Fears are almost entirely combat based and those that use non-combat feats are just using skill checks (See: fighters useless out of combat). BaB and THAC0 are exactly the same, except it takes twelve seconds longer to memorize THAC0 so there's no difference there. Also, fighters are useful outside of combat in AD&D 1st edition.

First off, BAB is more complicated.

Sure, on paper, all you have to worry about is BAB+bonuses+1d20, sure.

But then you get into the "bonuses" that are applied and then shit goes down the fucking drain.

Think about it, for ranged you'd use DEX, but attacking from a certain distance will cause a penalty, which can then be worsened if your opponent does something like hiding behind cover or lying prone, but you can add a bonus because you have the X, Y, and Z feats that give a bonus that negates the penalties but then you have to factor in difficult terrain, whether you're firing into melee, whether or not an ally is engaged in melee with your target, not to mention instances where you can apply you STR to damage and when you can't.

Keeping track of all the bonuses and penalties being applied feels like you're trying to balance your fucking checkbook at time and shit gets worse when you're dealing with multiple attacks or dual wielding.

Like, does this temporary bonus apply to the first attack, all my attacks, only the first hit or the one using my main hand, etc.

By contrast, THAC0 is literally just "number to hit armor class 0," which is unintuitive until you've used for like an hour of play and you realize that it's much faster and simpler to grasp than juggling (+)'s and (-)'s like an accountant doing their taxes.

>THACO is simpler than BAB
Equally simple.
>having skills adds no variety
It adds no enjoyable gameplay variety. It does add, "okay, everyone check your character sheet. Who has the highest intimidate. Mike? You do it."
>feats are useless and unnecessary
Here we go!

>Old D&D...
Player: "Can I ram this dude and try to knock him off the cliff?"
DM: "You can give it a shot. Give me an attack roll, and if it hits, you can give me a strength check."
Player: "Success, and... success!"
DM: "Awesome. He tries to grab at you as he plummets backwards off the cliff, his scream fading then coming to a sudden stop as he is dashed against the rocks below."
The DM rolls something.
DM: "One of the younger members of the group, wide-eyed at what's just happened, breaks from combat and runs. His allies snarl insults, calling him a coward, but if the goal is to bring him back, they are unsuccessful."

>Modern D&D...
Player: "Can I ram this dude and try to knock him off the cliff?"
DM: "Do you have a feat that lets you do that?"
Player: "Let's see... No, not really."
DM: "Yeah, sorry. I can't just let you do it without your character having the feat."

NEW D&D HAS SO MUCH MORE VARIETY YOU GUYS!

I'm and you've convinced me. I was just thinking about the attack roll itself and not about all the OTHER possible modifiers.

That's inaccurate though. Modern D&D would let you do it without the feat; you'd just get a -4 penalty and draw an attack of opportunity, making it stupid to try, but technically possible.

You know that old school D&D has shit like range modifiers too, right? The thing you seem to be complaining about is not BAB, itself, but rather the rest of the system, which in the case of 3.x is definitely overly complicated.

>>Modern D&D...

You mean 3.PF

And even then, you can try, you'll just get fucked.

Modern D&D has shitloads of feats that require prereqs and won't even allow you to attempt a thing because you don't have it.

You need a feat to make someone bleed with a critical, a feat to whirl around in a circle like Link from the Legend of Zelda, a feat to actually heckle a mage trying to cast a spell while they're in melee range to you (until they take a 5 ft. step away out of your range), and a feat just to shoot an arrow without accidentally hitting an ally whose even marginally within the same zip code as the guy you're aiming at.

Then you run into the issue where you can attempt a thing without a feat but the penalty for failure is too great and the returns are too small to make it worth it, which is fucking shit when you have to deal with the fact that you only really get like 10 feats (20 for fighters, 21 for human fighters) or so and you need like 3-4 feats just to be decent at sucking at grappling.

5e lets you do it easily: shove over the cliff, if it is a PC getting shoved they get a save to avoid or mitigate the damage.

Barbarians even do it with advantage.

>Modern D&D
That's 3.PF.

Stop trying to pretend that shitstain of a system is all that modern D&D is.

He's right. You are wrong.

Matt Ward, the beginning of the end of 40k fluff.
I don't blame him though, given the current state of things it's obvious he was just a symptom.

Oh no, BAB has its own issues too, it's just that the bonuses you apply make it nigh impossible to understand unless you've been playing long enough to understand the bullshit.

For example, why does the BAB split into multiple columns every time you go past a +5 in your main stat and why does the BAB go back to +1 whenever I swing with my second attack?

I don't know about you, but I'd expect my level 6 fighter to be able to hit someone multiple times without him immediately shitting the bed whenever he decides to hit twice but that's just me, maybe it's my fault for expecting a mundane fighting man to be as good at killing dragons as the heroes Arthorian legend or something.

40k fluff was always bad. It just got worse as time progressed.

40k fluff for me works best when it is bare bones.When they started expanding the lore ( further information on primarchs early lives, space marine chapters doctrines etc etc, especially because they rip off ideas and names mythology, novels, history and other media) is where it went to shit for me.

Re: THACO
Any system has merits and demerits.

I argue the roll's goal should be to build tension, and release it as soon as the die is settled. Sounds easy, but the mechanics introduce ittle distractions and delays that add up and break suspense. Ideally, the DM say "roll 6+ or die", you roll... "a 6! Yay!"

It turns out neither THAC0 or BAB are perfect here, but THAC0 can be less bad if the DM puts in a lot of pre-calculation.

BAB requires addition (easier) and higher-is-better comparison (more intuitive). THAC0 requires either subtraction (harder) or roll-under comparison (less intuitive), so the mental delay is slightly longer for newer players.

A BAB-based system distributes the effort to the players, who each can calculate his attack bonus once per major change (new weapon, level, etc.)... but you have to re-calculate (wasting some of the effort) if the DM throw modifiers at you (one reason 5e says anything less than +/- 5 is not worth dealing with). A BAB system does let the player handle his PC, and the DM handle monsters and environment separately, then compare the results, though, so the real message here is "feats that give little 'sometimes' bonuses for players to track are the work of the Devil."

In a THAC0 system, the DM (if no one else) can know what die result succeeds instantly. He has monster AC, player THAC0, & all the appropriate modifiers. For example, Gygax sped along tournaments by pre-calculating the RESULT EACH PC needed to hit, PER MONSTER to hit. Of course, as new equipment/levels/monsters are added, this becomes painful, even with modern niceties like laptops w/ Excel

From a player perspective, waiting for the DM to rule is still a bit tense, but not as tense as the die tumbling. Anything that shortens the time between is a slight improvement. THAC0 (with a lot of work) does that. But it's A LOT more work for ms of gain.

The biggest tragedy of 3.5 feats is they give fighters all these bonus feats for learning cool stuff to do in combat... and you're better off just investing them into shit like weapon focus instead of anything cool. Feats are supposed to be a way to get some cool stuff for your character to do outside of their class, make different wizards or fighters or whatever act and play a bit different, and most of them just aren't worth taking. Feat trees, feat taxes, and so on hurt even more, forcing you to spend even more of what should be a character building opportunity on basic competency.

Run a first Edition Game.

Hand him a Magic User.

First encounter, he Sleeps a bunch of Orcs or Magic Missiles a Lizard Man.

Congrats, he's now on Sling or throw dagger duty for the rest of the day.

>THAC0
>Harder than BAB
To-Hit Armor Class 0 is the target number you're aiming for, AC is simply a modifier. Roll d20, DM adds monster AC and other modifiers, if it's equal to or higher than your THAC0 it hits. A THAC0 of 19 means you're able to hit an AC 9 creature on a roll of 10 or higher because 10 + AC 9 = THAC0 of 19.

>D&D edition wars
It is literally like arguing if aids is better than cancer

>THAC0: Roll d20, apply AC as modifier to result, compare to THAC0. If the modified result meets or exceeds THAC0, you hit.
>BAB: Roll d20, apply BAB as modifier to result, compare to AC. If the modified result meets or exceeds AC, you hit.

They're exactly the same. The only difference is who has the modifier stat, and who has the threshold trait. With THAC0 you apply your opponent's trait (their AC) as a modifier and compare to your own trait (your THAC0) as a threshold. With BAB you apply your own trait (your BAB) as a modifier and compare to your opponent's trait (their AC) as a threshold.

Claiming that BAB is impossible-to-understand nonsense makes you sound no less stupid than the people who claim THAC0 is impossible-to-understand nonsense. They're the same goddamn thing.

>that guy who wears a sweater vest while playing space marines
Sauve

He's right.

>Player: "Can I ram this dude and try to knock him off the cliff?"
>DM: "Do you have a feat that lets you do that?"
>Player: "Let's see... No, not really."
>DM: "Yeah, sorry. I can't just let you do it without your character having the feat."
No. It's "you can do it, but you take a -4 to your roll". There's a reason the feats are all called IMPROVED Trip, IMPROVED Grapple, IMPROVED Disarm, etc. All those feats do is remove the penalty for not being specifically practiced in doing that.

As a counterpoint, in non-feat d&d when you tried something weird you had to hope your DM was not a prick and would let you try. If they used rule of cool, no problem. If not you were fucked.
Feats may be limit your options for cool tricks but they *do* provide a mechanic for it, if your game needs it.

Literally any fucking ttRPG is going to suck if the the GM is being a tight-ass as far as what your character could do.

To keep it on topic though, in non-feat D&D, anything outlandish that your character could do was at least tied to a single roll of one of the main stats.

Wanna wrestle someone, roll STR. Wanna balance on a narrow plank of wood, roll DEX. Wanna charm a dragon so it doesn't decide to cook you alive, roll CHA.

By default, with the feat system that 3.5 had, literally anything that you could've theorhetically thought to do as a cool guy move was locked behind an arbitrary feat that, in itself, most likely had shitloads of prereqs that prevented you from choosing it right away.

For instance, why do I need a feat to say "I take my sword and spin in a circle" or "I shove him off the cliff" when it's basic bullshit that literally anybody could fucking do?

It limits your choices more than it gives you options, which is shit when the fucking wizard can literally achieve the same effects that I burned 2-4 feat slots on and can perform better than I ever fucking could.

No, it's "you take a -4 penalty and if you fail, you're eating an AoO."

Even if you invest is "Improved" X, you're still not even guarenteed to hit anybody who is worth hitting with shit like bull rush or grappling because of how situational it is.

You can't trip something with four legs, can't grapple something that's larger than you, can't bullrush someone whose larger than you, and can't disarm something that uses natural weapons.

So in the end, you're wasting feats on sucking harder than the guy who just invested in straight damage, which gets pretty boring when all you can do to be efficient is, "hit dude with sword and roll damage."

The point is that what you are describing is retarded, which is most certainly is.

You eat the AoO even if you are successful.

And what it also does is discourage anyone from ATTEMPTING anything not written on their character sheet for fear of "wasting a turn".

It's even worse than I thought.

And if that AoO is successful then your action stops cold and your turn ends and you'll get another attack at advantage against you.

Your friend's opinion is correct.
I played a 2nd ed game and pretended I had all the feats and special powers from Pathfinder.
Played a dwarf cleric, functioned exactly the same as if I had skills and feats and the big six magic items in my play experience because the dice agreed with my interpretation of reality.
If you want a feat or a skill declare its part of your character and roll for it. The only difference from 3.x/PF is that you can't build your character to have a success rate of over 100%.

You might be clinically retarded.

With THAC0, your THAC0 is the stat, the AC is the modifier.

With BAB the AC is the stat, the BAB is the modifier.

BAB is more intuitive. THAC0 has easier math.

Yeah, and I bet you can't set fire to a building in 4e because it's not an "enemy".

If that's the card you're going to play, then you can apply an identical card to the previous editions which did not intend or allow such things by RAW or RAI.

>My friend is convinced that THACO is simpler than BAB, having skills adds no variety, and that feats are useless and unnecessary.

He's right about everything except the first point.

I'll preface this by saying that I like D&D 5e overall.

30% of all games on Roll20 are 3.5/PF. Another 35% are 5e, which is essentially a streamlined version of 3.5.

It's not all of modern D&D, just safely the majority.

Your friend is correct. You are the one who is wrong.

Actually, you can set fire to things provided you have items like flint/steel.

What a strange post. The result of the two examples, modern and old dnd, can both happen depending on the DM...

It's a downright lie that you cannot perform a variety of actions without the correct feat, but it all gets easier with the correct feat.

I will give you a point about feat bloat, but that is a discussion for another time.

Edition wars is a pointless endeavour in the end, the narrow minded will stick to what they know, and the others will try different flavours, finding what suits them.

Most GMs will not let you do an action unless you have the feat on your character sheet.

If the GM just lets you do whatever and ignore the feats then it honestly begs the question of why you'd even bother using pathfinder in the first place.

just take him to adventurers league and play some 5e and he will be convinced

The poster saying "modern D&D" however was very fucking obviously referring to 3.PF since those are exactly some issues that 5e worked out, more or less.

Hence, he should say "3.PF" when that's what he means instead of trying to pretend he has any fucking shred of legitimacy in his bitching by saying "modern D&D".

PS., while I understand your point, if fucking everyone played 3.5, it still wouldn't make it "the modern D&D", only maybe the "modernly played one" or something.

First you hit him in the head a few times. This should cause some brain damage which will cause later edition to look good.

In practice you should be able to. In practice the set up of 55% pass rate is reduced to 35% by virtue of -4 on the roll. In practice the stat line and other boosts to defense will be a quarter of CR anything higher is starting to add single points bringing the action success to just hit with the ability to 15% to only on 20. Then after you fail as expected it pretty much automaticaly does the same action to you. It isn't even a real risk vs reward, most of these abilities only affect mundane weapon holding humanoids.

>having skills adds no variety, and that feats are useless and unnecessary
This part is sadly very true.

Feats exist to decouple interesting class features from classes (to support multiclassing). If a high level fighter commands a squad of men at arms, and a high level druid is the archdruid of his own grove, what does a multiclassed mid-level fighter/mid-level druid get? They all get feats with pre-requisits and you let them figure it out. The trouble is that feats vary wildly in power level, so it leads to a lot of false options and shitty builds.

Skills are likewise a bunch of false options. For the most part, rogue-likes get the skills. Fighters get only a few, just enough that a multiclassed rogue doesn't lose out too badly. Wizards/clerics fall int he middle. But only one of those classes actually had to care. The others were forced to care to support a theoretical multiclass rogue. And in the end, the "correct" way to play is always to max out whatever your class skills are (to get the most out of your points), choosing the things your class is good at that no other class is (your cleric is not going to pick locks) with an emphasis on your prime attribute. Everything else is wasteful.

In Star Wards Saga Edition, and later DD& 4e, they got rid of these wasteful false options, and just tell you, in effect, "you have max ranks in your class skills, and no choice for doing otherwise." But then the skills are more like proficiencies. Do you have the proficiency? Then this is a level check. No? Then don't try it. The skills are just an unnecessary layer of paint on a level check. They don't add anything.

>My friend is convinced that THACO is simpler than BAB, having skills adds no variety, and that feats are useless and unnecessary.

Largely accurate, except that BAB is easier to grasp for new players. AD&D has a lot of counterintuitive rules but because it was built through gradual iteration it all just works and generally hangs together better than 3.PF.

My preferred D&D is 4e and I'd still say that skills and feats are a lot of useless cruft that just serve to limit players arbitrarily.