In the AD&D THAC0 system, a natural 20 is always a hit. What this means is that even if you have a THAC0 of 20, you can still hit a negative AC, such as AC -1. It’s a 5% chance to hit, but it’s still a chance. Many players wanted more, some theories consider a natural 20 to be a true hit, which instantly breaks the system. We don’t really know what hit points are, sometimes a hit really is a hit, and sometimes it isn’t. Since one can go insane trying to pin down what hp are, it is just easier to consider them to be a mechanic of the game kept to the background, and leave it at that; even though, sometimes it isn’t.

Critical Hits is a supplemental rule: however, players and DMs were going to use it anyway, even if the rule isn’t in there. Critical Hits is actually a mechanic first introduced as core to D&D’s very first competitor back in 1975 in a game called Empire of the Petal Throne; now, it wasn’t called “Critical Hit” that term came about later, but it is credited with creating the mechanic which simulated a “Lucky Hit”. Prior to Empire including it, I have no doubt that DMs introduced it into their own loose OD&D games, and it has stood the test of time, but my question is: Is it Fair?

At this point it is also worth mentioning that all d20s are not created equal. You know this, and I know this; but it isn’t something that can be proved. Players will sit there and roll a d20 and find one that doesn’t generate random numbers because of a small imperfection in the die, weirdly enough, this imperfection typically causes a die to roll a 20 more often than 5% out of 100 rolls. It probably has something to do with how the die is manufactured, and its shape; but since the number 20 is the most affected, this tells us that the manufacturer is aware of the problem, and has known about it for a very long time and has been unable to fix it. What is funny about it is that it does balance itself out at the table because all of the other times that you roll a d20, with the exception of the attack roll, you want low numbers. A natural 20 usually signifies an automatic failure, but people still insist on using that d20 that rolls lots of 20s anyhow.

We do have dice that do roll random numbers, but players typically refuse to use these as they are deemed “unlucky”, but whatever; my favorite dice are just as bad as theirs are, so it is all good. But, back to Critical Hits: For years the most preferred method of handling the situation, and the one that is considered core to the optional system, is double damage.

I have two issues with this, first being that there are instances where a weapon automatically gives you double damage anyway. That should be a function of that particular weapon. Other weapons make it a point that if one does roll a 20, than it always does double damage, which implies that this is unique to that weapon, and we should strive to keep it that way.

The second issue that I have with double damage involves math. Lets take a look at what happens when we roll an 8 for damage, and this gets doubled to 16. That one roll takes out more than 1HD from a fighter, 2HD from a Cleric, over 2HD from a Rogue, and 4HD from a Mage. These numbers just imply what happens to characters who were able to roll their Max hp each time, so the real numbers during play are even worse. That, to me, is unbalanced.

Actually, the double damage thing technically isn’t 2e core, but that is how people play it. The true method of handling double damage is to roll 2 damage dice, such as 2d8 which gives you a much fairer number, yes the max damage would still be 16, however that would be a very lucky hit indeed!

Method #2

A natural 20 signifies a bonus attack. It gives your characters (and monsters) a chance of causing extra damage without guaranteeing success. That does present its own problems, slower and more powerful weapons may not be logically compatible with this method such as a musket or a crossbow which takes time to load. While it is still more balanced than instant doubling of the damage die, it isn’t something that really appeals to me, nor is it a universal fix: If one is charging with a lance, a twenty already signifies double damage, and the character charges through the opponents front line; a second attack would mean that he’d be able to turn the horse around and . . . well, you see where I’m going with this. Some weapons only get one attack, and they should only get one attack.

There are some alternatives worth talking about, that aren’t core, but are certainly more balanced and developed.

Method #3

Max Damage

Nothing game breaking about that! Lots of players will go for it as well, as even with the broken double damage rule there is a chance of dealing 2 points of damage, which takes the wind out of your critical hit sails real fast.

Method #4

Roll 2 damage dice, keep the highest

Again, no over-powered death-dealing here, just a simple mechanic that is fast and universal, it doesn’t promise mass damage, but there is a better chance of achieving a more valuable number than normal.

Method #5

Implementing a Critical Hit Chart

These things break the game, and are totally unfair to the players. With a 5% chance of a crit on fair dice, those things might be fun for screwing around but they make long term campaigning impossible.

The typical Hit Chart does damage to a character's stats, and since we don’t fully stat our monsters, this effects only PCs, not even to mention that this mechanic only serves to slow down combat. If you are that bored with your game that you think that you need to implement this kind of stuff to “make things interesting” it is probably time for you to sit down and really evaluate how you play.

Of course, there are times when one does want to implement this kind of system, such as when two fighters meet in one-on-one combat and they really hate each other; a second element of true danger during a very epic level confrontation could be desired by both combatants so that they can just destroy each other. For cases like this, I would suggest temporarily incorporating the system in the Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics handbook which has an exhaustive, and very thorough table system that isn’t fit for every day play, but very appropriate for special cases. It is also worth noting that the Combat & Tactics rulebook has incorporated it’s own definition of critical hits, because when we are dealing with duels like that, we do want to know what each blow is doing; but like I said: It is a system all to itself and should only be used for specific situations; such as the final fight where if the PC wins the duel, he’ll probably retire the character at its conclusion anyway.

Overview

I’m sure that there are lots of other methods out there; if you do something different, put it in the comments! We’ll take a look at it. I know in the past I have banned this mechanic from my game, but I am going to implement it again as I’m tired of looking into those sad eyes filled with longing when a 20 is rolled. When we don’t use it, players kind of feel that they are missing an opportunity, which is understandable.

FURTHER READING:

Awesome Dice Blog: d20 Dice Randomness Test; Chessex vs. Gamescience 

So it isn't just me . . .

I also wanted to add these as hotlinks from the comments below:
Castles & Chimeras: Six "20" between 19 and 21 an old-school take on d20 to hit mechanics 

 Fabio Milito Pagliara has his fix to simulate matrix-style mechanics while using a THAC0 system.

Castles & Chimeras: OSR Critical Hit Based on Armor 

Fabio also has a nice article on how armor type can effect the critical hit system.

One flips through gaming books and sees all of these numbers and hears complex terms like COMBAT MATRIX, descending armor class, combat modifiers. The deal is that it is harder to talk about math than it is to just solve the problem. None of the math problems that we’ll have to solve during play will involve any tool more advanced than a basic calculator, and everybody can use a calculator! Once you get going with the system it forms an algorithm and players can quickly do the math in their head, as it isn’t anything that you don’t do every day anyway.

THAC0 simple means, “To Hit Armor Class 0” When the second edition included this as core, it revolutionized the game, sort of. It was always kind of there, but what it allowed was for us to write down just one number on our character sheets and this would help us figure out what we needed to roll to hit a target regardless of how challenging the target was to hit.

Inventing a system this easy to use took a lot of testing and tinkering, prior to Dungeons and Dragons, the game’s inventers played wargames, and one always had to come up with a system which randomized if a hit was successful or not in a fast and concise manner. Dice proved a great universal method. Once we figure out a system, then we have to figure out how to describe the system so that others can use it as well, which since math is never changing, math is the best way to figure all of this stuff out.

Prior to the THAC0 system, the game designers created Combat Matrixes, tables that when rolled against, told you if you hit or not, some of these were more complex than others, but they all strove to achieve the same goal, the more universal the better.

We get the term Armor Class from Wargames as well, specifically Naval Combat where different ships had different amounts of armor to protect them, players found that a descending armor class was more functional in the game than ascending Armor Class systems, but in Naval Combat, the ships AC never changed, the same goes for all mass combat systems, so when Gygax wrote the Chainmail Rules, he used a universal Armor Class system shared by all of the troops in a battalion.

When it came to D&D, the terminology was kept, and we have the AC system, but instead of a fixed number, the number for an individual target isn’t constant. A ships ability to hit another ship always stayed the same, but with individuals we wanted to simulate improvement, this required some additional thinking, and more complex combat matrixes.

In the first edition of AD&D, players wanted lots of ways to fight and modify things to make an opponent either easier or harder to hit depending upon choices that each player made. The AD&D system kept this matrix hidden from player view by putting it in the DMG, you rolled the dice and the DM told you if you hit or not. This provided a mystery because you didn’t know how the DM achieved this target number, as the DM wanted to keep all of the stats secret. It didn’t work, players caught on to the formula, either from sneaking a peek at the DMG or just playing enough to realize the DM’s system. This also required even more work on the DMs part, and users were coming up with their own methods of changing it up to make it easier for them to come up with a universal system that could still be modified quickly.

 

Detractors instantly rejected this method, saying that it dumbed down the game, and others claiming that it made combat too difficult to figure out. 2e was still learned, not by yourself and on your own, but by playing the game with others who had been taught by somebody else who already knew how to play the game. If one looks at the THAC0 system by itself, it can be confusing, but all it takes is the player sitting next to you to help you figure out if you hit or not for a couple of sessions before it is permanently implanted in your brain in a way that will never go away . . . ever.

In third edition, they changed descending AC to ascending AC which really threw 2ers for a loop. You play with this system enough it becomes ingrained in you and even something as simple as making AC 1 as bad is enough to throw you off, so I know that going back to a descending AC is the same way for others, just know that us holdouts didn’t refuse to move on to 3e because of ascending AC, when it comes down to it, 3e is too ridged of a system when you get used to the freedom that earlier editions allow.

So what is the formula? Well, it is easy. Look at the THAC0 grid, and find the number you need for your level. This number never changes, it doesn’t float around, and it is always the same. When you have a modifier you don’t apply it to your THAC0, you apply it to your opponents Armor Class. Thus, a sword+3 doesn’t change your THAC0, it changes your opponent’s AC from 4 to 7. Penalties also change your opponents AC, if you have a -2 to your roll, you take it from his AC, which turns an AC of 4 to an AC of 2.

Simple yet elegant, isn’t it! Suddenly all of the complaints that it requires to much math are dismissed. The problem wasn’t the system; the problem was that people kept trying to modify their THAC0 numbers.

Once you get it figured out, and can start playing with more advanced rules, the THAC0 system still functions. Now you can have missile combat and melee combat taking place in a forest at the same time using the same ruleset without having to change anything. The floating AC rule allows combat to flow smoothly and naturally so that both sides can focus on play without having to get all technical.

IS THE THAC0 SYSTEM BROKEN?

Broken, no; subjective, very. If you up and decide to use a different method of deciding how combat is resolved, then you aren’t playing AD&D. Taking it out makes all of the other rules in the AD&D system not work anymore, period. The game encourages you to tinker with the AC system, applying modifiers as you see fit to factor in advantages and disadvantages depending on where exactly each battle is taking place. Can you get carried away with modifiers? You bet! And the AD&D system will let you do this, but the DM can always decide exactly how many or how few of the optional rules and modifiers work best for their particular game.

We had to go here, I hope that I was able to clear up some confusion about how the THAC0 system is supposed to work, because it isn’t this mechanic that weakens the game, but what LOTS of people do with it that does, which we can now explore.

 Nonweapon Proficiencies, while this is technically an optional rule (read supplemental), I have never been at a 2e table, or even heard of one, that doesn’t use this system. Some have even claimed that it is this system which was the reason for the 2^nd Edition of the game (they are wrong, but it is worth pointing out). If we look under the hood, NWPs are a large part of the Core engine, and many say that it is flawed.

 Nonweapon Proficiencies were TSR’s term for skills, which is a horrible thing to call it. Was it because they already defined Skills as Thief’s Skills, or because Dave Cook loved the way that Nonweapon Proficiencies just seems to roll off of the tongue? It probably has more to do with TSR’s other hobby of suing competitors, who had actually defined skills before Dungeons and Dragons did, but whatever it was, we are left with only speculation and a very ugly nonword.

 Prior to this system it was assumed that your character knew what the player knew, which caused a mess of things. A smart player could actually defeat the Dungeon Master without picking up his dice, else sideline an entire gaming session arguing that it was unfair for a DM to not let him build a catapult, and fill a self-made glass sphere of trained rot grubs. This game is made for inventive people and we could seriously undermine any situation if we weren’t reeled in. A few advanced tables had created a list of skills which could be learned, and charts were invented so that inventive players could only choose a few of them.

 Because there are no measures to keep a DM from failing, people who didn’t understand the system could easily abuse it. Incompetent DMs claimed that you needed a NWP to ride a horse, wizards couldn’t read, and lots of other silly stuff that happens when one doesn’t read the rulebooks very well.

 Back when I first started playing, we included them, but I don’t really remember using the actual skills all that much, as I got older I saw the importance of them, and what they did to the game was really pointed out to me while running the RAVENLOFT: Gothic Earth setting, which depends heavily upon NWP for the game to function. Gothic Earth is a great example of how a DM should modify and homebrew his own skills lists to make something really special.

 While the Core Rules say that they are supplemental, they really aren’t. Advanced players of the game have depended upon this system to play the game ever since. For something so important, you would think that there would be more rules to them! Well, dear readers, this is how the game got so messed up.

 Many holdouts consider 3e to be nothing but a money-grab, but this isn’t really the case. Wizard's of the Coast loved D&D and they wanted to “Fix” it. The biggest thing that they felt that they had to include was how DMs attempted to streamline NWPs, what they got for their trouble was a headache and a completely inflexible system.

DMING 2e IS AN ART

We users had often fallen flat on our faces, and we did it often because that is how you learn to play! We have learned through trial and error how to use NWP in a functional way that may or may not be unique to our tables, I would rather interpret rules on a case by case basis then to be confined to a hard set of rules where my only job is to stop players from cheating, but many other gaming tables aren’t that way at all.

It all started with basic questions. The DMG stated that NPCs also have NWP, but it doesn’t specify which ones, which is cool to me! But others wanted more definition, they read in the MM that orcs can construct war machines, so they wanted to officially put that in the rules as NWP, but once you do that then you have to ask yourself what a monster's abilities are and suddenly, gone are the days of the elegant and brief statblocks that we use as cheat sheets in our adventures. This got even worse in 4e, I have no idea how people even DM that thing! I’d go insane, but I digress . . .

ARE NONWEAPON PROFICIENCIES BROKEN?

Many say yes. They look at the chances that a thief has to pick a pocket at first level, and compare it to his chances of jumping at first level and ask how come,if he is such a loser at picking pockets, why isn’t he also a loser at jumping? They also ask why, at higher levels, does he never get any better at jumping? They do have a point! If one compares the Thief/Acrobat from Unearthed Arcana against its 2e kit counterpart in The Complete Thief’s Handbook, you go from a system that factored in growth (which got kind of silly at higher levels), to one that doesn’t.

You also have the fact that a character can pick up a weapon that he isn’t proficient with and still use it, with core rules giving a specific modifier to your attack roll; so what happens if a character attempts to use a NWP he doesn’t have? Well this one isn’t a good argument at all; that depends on what the DM judges. Players who get mad because they can’t do something that they WANT to do, don’t last long in 2e rules. Can a character make his own sword if he has all of the tools and materials? SURE! If he is semi-successful (roled a 1), he’ll have something that he can call it a sword, but it is just a club made out of metal which will probably break the first time he hits somebody with it. What if he has an expert sword maker telling him what to do? Well, this was why the modifiers were never dictated to the DM; they are very subjective.

Why are there level limits on NWP, if we go mountain climbing with an expert, won’t we learn how to go mountain climbing? At least get a basic understanding of it? Again, you probably will, but not enough to claim to be proficient in it, besides, the AD&D rules don’t reflect reality; at the end of the day, they are just game mechanics.

SAY HELLO TO CAPTAIN CRUNCH

I enjoy thinking about this kind of stuff, and talking it out with my players; to me, this is why I play the game, but for others, they saw this as a fundamental weakness; one where an incompetent DM could have too much control over their characters, and they wanted set and fixed modifiers that encompassed every situation. If you turn this stuff into crunchy rules, I get frustrated. One can drive themselves insane if they over focus on the NWP rules! One can say that they can’t even identify monsters unless they have the Monster Identification NWP, or even worse, when they take something silly like Persuasion and turn it into a skill. This isn’t a NWP! Not to me it isn’t, that is called Role-playing. Nonweapon Proficiencies should NEVER replace role-playing.

The original list in the PHB, which is considered to be Core, has done a magnificent job of keeping itself relatively Crunch Free. One has to remember that the book isn’t telling you what setting to use; it is just trying to give you information, and it is your job to determine setting specific choices. If you decide that the ability to read is common in your setting, which it probably is, then players should automatically have it. Or, in contrast, if your setting is prehistoric, then players won’t have access to engineering.  One can also factor in a specific character’s homeland for bonus proficiencies that he might have, or be restricted from having. For instance a fellow who grew up on the docks may have many skills, but desert survival probably isn’t one of them.

If done right, I think that the NWP rules add a lot to how a player role-plays the character. Logic is your best friend when it comes to NWP, as a player I always made sure that I had at least one skill to fall back on, something that I did before deciding to go adventuring and something that I can do to keep earning money if the whole treasure hunting thing doesn’t pan out. Also you want to look at your race, an elf doesn’t min/max, and he’s going to have artistic skills, while a dwarf will chose a different skill set entirely. As DM I do try to discourage Min/Maxing as much as I can. I don’t forbid it, but I do ask questions when somebody submits a new character sheet to me.

But, let me climb down from this soapbox and let’s get back to reexamining the NWP System. It definitely has limitations, which is exactly what caused this mechanic to be in the first place. There are only so many amazingly awesome skills that a player can have! They also help newer players get into the habit of thinking outside of the box and using their skills in unusual ways. But how have people decided to fix them?

ENTER 2.5 SKILLS & POWERS

Players Options: Skills & Powers. In my opinion, this book was a bleeding mess. It is credited with harking in the 3^rd edition, and it was a game breaker. As if the inclusion of NWP didn’t extend the time that it takes to roll up a character before, this thing introduced a point system which allowed all sorts of different mechanics to break the game with, so we will be looking at it during this series time and time again, I have no doubt!

While the Skills and Powers manual is controversial, it did offer a suggestion to DMs who were unable to come up with modifiers on the fly by letting your players know about a system that you probably don’t use. It also introduced a nice and elegant NWP progression chart that made it more difficult or easy to complete a skill check, however it made up a general number for everybody and depending upon the STATs that you had, you got a modifier to this specific number. This actually turned out to be functional if one is really so bothered that a low level character doesn’t suck at something. One doesn’t need to use that silly point-buy system to use it either, so it doesn’t disagree with any other mechanic.

DRAGON MAGAZINE #225

The magazine suggested another system in an article called Back in the Saddle, Again, it is similar to the Skills & Powers method, but again, it doesn’t make the NWP better, it just makes it harder to hit at low levels, but instead of using one’s level so that the check automatically gets easier the longer you have it, this system says that you’ve got to spend additional NWP slots on it to achieve mastery, which considering that some NWP already require more than one slot, this can be expensive!

If you do the math, you only get a limited amount of slots: when you play the game to 21^st level, a rogue will get  8, a fighter 9, and the mage & cleric classes both get 10. That is it!You don't get any more than that.

OTHER HOUSE RULES

Some folks say that you can use Language Slots and put them towards NWP, however this limits the game, as a good setting involves multi-languages, and if the players spend all of these on NWP, then the only language that he should technically have is his regional, or the DM has to implement Common, which kind of sucks. Not that most tables are overly concerned about this happening, but it does happen and a stickler can say that Common gives an unfair advantage to the players, and not be off base.

Many DMs who were unhappy about the system entirely, developed 3e; but let’s face it, that isn’t even an option. An NPC has access to whatever NWP he needs to have; an Orc Farmer is just silly talk, do we really need rules to keep this from happening? Who cares what a troll’s CHA is, he is, that is enough. If I really want him to achieve a specific NWP then he does it or he doesn’t; to waste time on its mechanics is futile.

5^th Edition

I am no expert on 5e, but I did notice a new mechanic that is exciting. The player rolls two twenty-sided dice, and he either has an advantage or a disadvantage. If he has the advantage, he uses the higher number rolled, and if he has a disadvantage, he must use the lower number. I’m not sure how usable this system is, but it is intriguing.

WHAT CAUSES THE SYSTEM TO FALL APART IN THE FIRST PLACE?

This is an easy question, but folks don’t like the answer. You don’t need to fiddle with how the proficiency check is done. The balance of the system is how we generate our Ability Stats. If you throw 3d6 for each ability, in order or even player assigned, you’ll get fair numbers; typically in the 8-13 range. If we do this, then the NWP checks work as written. AD&D is a beautiful game; it doesn’t require you to have super-stats! In fact, that is part of its charm. I have no problem running a PC with low stats; as long as at least one number is a nine or better, I am cool with it! You can’t do that with later editions of the game. If only we could run it this way! Well, you can, but most players insist on rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest, which is what causes the NWP system to fail, their numbers are too high. A player just has to learn for himself how fun it is to play an un-super character, you can’t make them.

You have to correct this bloat, either by using a method above, or by applying modifiers, because when a PC has high numbers straight across the board, there is little chance of failing anything, which is pointless.

Any idea that the players can come up with must never conflict with the NWP rules, they are there as a guide to discourage cheating, during play you will probably discover other NWP that need to be added, in that case, there is a handy dandy guide in the DMG to help you do just that fairly. If an idea can’t be defined at the time as a NWP, then you have to figure out what STAT to roll against is, and how to modify the player's chances of completing the action. A player can complete an action which is defined as a NWP that he doesn’t have, however he will do so at a severe penalty.

The Nonweapon Proficiencies system has provided additional fun and entertainment ever since it was given to us. By encouraging discussion and healthy debate, it doesn’t try to answer all questions. It is one of those things which, again, make the DM needed in order for the game to function properly. In this case, the over correction of the system was an attempt to eliminate his role as much as possible, and give it to a series of books; to me, that creates a lot more problems than it fixes, and while a DM is learning his craft, these rules can appear to be clunky, with a well-seasoned veteran of the game, it is seamless.

Thankfully, the way that it was written allows it to be modified without effecting the rest of the core rules, so you can do as much fiddling and tweaking as you want to and still be playing AD&D; in fact, the system encourages it! That, gentle reader, is a wonderful thing!

 FURTHER READING:

Master List of Nonweapon Proficiencies: Contains all published NWP, but it doesn't give exactly what the NWP does, however it does provide the source so you can look that up yourself if you are so inclined.

In my last post I got some slack because I enjoy the AD&D rules, and strive to adhere to them as close as possible, however this doesn’t imply that I never question the game, after all, that is what DMs are expected to do. I have never played this game with blind faith alone, I never said that I did, I always recommend looking at the rules and questioning why they are there. I do suggest taking AD&D and turning it into your own personal hotrod! Like a mechanic, the DM should know what is under the hood of his rules, and how they all function. I do enjoy tweaking and meddling, if I didn’t, then I’d probably play the 3^rd Edition. I enjoy the leeway that AD&D provides, and it does allow you to do stuff all on your own. What I do want is a properly balanced game; I believe that balance is what keeps AD&D functional for the long term.

There are always two sets of rules in play, the core rules and supplemental rules. One can tinker with supplemental rules and create their own, which keeps the game fresh and interesting, but when it comes to the core rules, you really have to question implications and consequences of altering it.

Supplimental rules have to comply with Core Rules, else the game falls apart, but what if you really don’t like the core rule? I’d like to lift up the hood of AD&D with you and examine what’s in there. Things that annoy lots of people and are usually house ruled, or even dramatically altered in later additions.

We’ll call it, The Mechanic Series.

 ENERGY DRAIN

I dare say that no attack is more terrifying to players than this one, instead of just taking hit points from your beloved character, this attack takes Hit Dice! Some feel that this is the most broken mechanic in the core rules.

This attack is a 9^th level Wizard Spell, but primarily it is the teeth of powerful undead creatures. It has been with the game since the beginning, and it was, at one point easier to deal with, but with the advanced mechanics of AD&D, it becomes more difficult. Players may lose proficiencies, spell levels, or thief abilities, which if you let it, can take away from the excitement of a really good encounter. You don’t want to stop your exciting battle with the Vampire just so that everybody can modify their characters down two levels for every hit; the DM will have to keep track of these changes in his head until the scenario is completed, and then deal with the actual damage done on the Character Sheets.

ENERGY DRAIN ISN’T BALANCED

Players complain that they didn’t get a saving throw; however, they kind of did. This is a touch attack; the creature must make a successful attack against your armor class, so in effect the DM rolls your saving throw.

Players also may gain access to this spell themselves, once a mage can cast 9^th level spells, or if they find magical treasure that casts this spell for them. But, is it really balanced? I think that it is, I’ve heard people claim that it is a fate worse than death! But here is the deal; you will eventually get all of this stuff back. It may take awhile, but you’ll do it. Some DMs have home brew rules which actually make this thing worse! Permanent Stat reduction, or permanent hit point loss is much worse in the long term than just losing a couple of HD. Personally, I find Energy Drain to be quite elegant and clean. It doesn’t require extra book keeping, and if you haven’t dealt with a death at its hands, then you just don’t know what you are missing!

I have also heard that this ability is particularly devastating during Adult games which can only be played once a month if you are lucky. It can take years to recover the XP lost in infrequent games; to this I say, have you got something better to do? This allows players to play their favorite characters longer, as once they hit 20^th level, the game will fall apart and they’ve got to retire the thing anyway. Besides, a well used Energy Drain can keep players in the proverbial sweet spot longer than they normally would be.

If we take out Energy Drain, then we have fundamentally destroyed our undead, you wouldn’t take away a dragon’s breath weapon because the attack is too devastating, that is the point! And Energy Drain is the point behind using powerful undead. Where it becomes a problem is when it is abused by the DM. Any creature that uses this attack requires intent on the part of the DM; it is his job to keep this in balance. If one abuses it, or if the dice-gods are angry, it can make it impossible for the players to complete the scenario that was prepped; this will lead to total party kill, or the DM cheating in favor of the players which undermines the game.

MANAGING POWERFUL UNDEAD

Energy Drain isn’t always a bad thing for our games, but players do get frustrated, so we should give hints that a creature is capable of it. Players will modify their tactics if they know that they are going to have to deal with a vampire, this is good for the game as it is exciting to risk your character in this way, but we don’t want to constantly drop this on their heads for no real reason, powerful undead are special and should be memorable. We’ve got to respect what they bring to the table and keep them rare, and never old-hat.

If you really don’t want to drop an energy drain on your players, you can create a lesser undead who has a different attack which is comparable but not as permanent, however I have seen some strange over compensation which actually turned out worse than just using the attack itself. Permanent HP loss which can never be regenerated is one example I’ve played with; by the time that you are high level you really start to feel it. Permanent Stat Loss is bad too, and has effects which last longer than Energy Drain as well. I’ve even seen people claim that this was temporary, and would only last 2 months, meanwhile it would had only taken a couple of adventures to reclaim the HD through play.

If you are adamant, you can make yourself some options, for instance instead of taking away an entire HD per touch, one touch takes a percentage of XP, or if you like math (and I know you do!) you can calculate something like: A successful attack by the Lesser Wight drains 1d10x10,000xp. That solution isn’t perfect as once a HD is gone, with the current XP attack that isn’t recalculated to new levels, it will end up draining more XP than if you had just used real attack normally.

You can also cause a temporary Stat Loss, which is regained through rest, which works well with high levels were it can take a long time to regain HD, but not so well at lower levels of play.

If a battle went bad and your party was devastated by this thing, and you can’t live with the result or the error was your fault, then there are always supplemental ways of dealing with correcting this faster. I have seen a battle with powerful undead go REALLY bad, like the players losing over half of their hit dice from one combat with angry dice, in that case they are going to have to leave the dungeon, and seek high powered help. If you can justify it, a difficult ritual with divine intervention can help quickly restore most of the levels lost. Of course they will have to repay this high powered spell with service to the God who allowed it. It’ll push the game into a new direction, but it will also allow the party to quickly get back to the business of stopping the powerful undead from doing whatever it is trying to do . . . maybe.

SHOULD ENERGY DRAIN BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME?

No. It brings more to the game than just a rarely used attack. It can make a story more interesting, and take it into unseen directions which may not had been planed for, which in turn, enriches your setting. It also scares the players themselves which is a good thing. While on first inspection, this spell appears to be unbalanced, it really isn’t as bad as you think that it is.  

FURTHER READING

Echoes from the Geekcave: Up or Down Drain Is an excellent and well thought article, not to mention a very inspiring:

There is a saying that comes up at my table from time to time, usually when some mechanic of classic D&D or a retro-clone is brought under scrutiny. "You can't 'fix' D&D." This doesn't mean D&D is a "broken" or hopeless game. It's the idea that for all its rough patches and quirks, it's still the patriarch, the fount from which our hobby springs. While house-rules and so forth are perfectly acceptable expressions of our interest and involvement in the game, to try and "fix" the game's foibles is an often futile attempt to make it into something other than the inspiring mess that it sometimes seems to be.

That, is worthy prose! It should be a tattoo or something.