Why THAC0 Rocks

[Raven Crowking]

As RC said there is near infinite modifiers in the BAB system. Because the system has no limit on AC and to balance this has no limit on the number of modifiers.

This is true in (say) 3e; but note that this does not have to be true.

Increasing the number of modifiers with an open-ending system is intuitive because it is a way to make small differences meaningful, and because the pitfalls of doing so are not immediately obvious.

A BAB (or positive AC) system can be designed where this problem does not occur. There are several retro-clones doing this right now, and at least one retro clone that uses both positive and negative AC, so that the end user can choose which one he or she prefers.

What I noted is an inherent pitfall in using positive AC in the design process (including sub-design, such as DMs making houserules, new monsters, etc.), not in the actual at-table use of the system.

To my mind, these are two different issues. Both relate to how easy it is to use THAC0 or BAB, but they relate to how easy they are to use in two different circumstances. Game designers who want to use an AC system reminiscent of some edition of D&D merely decide whether ease-of-use at the table or ease-of-use in the design process is a better goal.

As I've said a few times now, I myself chose ease-of-use at the table.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

...and therefore they shouldn't try to change a game to make it more palatable to them?

Seriously?

-O

Careful, Obryn. That's my line of reasoning re: 4e!

RC

 

[Obryn]

Careful, Obryn. That's my line of reasoning re: 4e!

RC

Eh? I think it's awesome when people house-rule stuff to make it better for them.

I sometimes caution that the change might not do what they think it will, or note that as a player/DM I might not like it, but house-ruling is a grand old tradition that dates back to the glory days.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Eh? I think it's awesome when people house-rule stuff to make it better for them.

I sometimes caution that the change might not do what they think it will, or note that as a player/DM I might not like it, but house-ruling is a grand old tradition that dates back to the glory days.

-O

Maybe not obvious, but I was going for "funny".

That's what passes for humour at Casa Crowking.

 

[Obryn]

Maybe not obvious, but I was going for "funny".

That's what passes for humour at Casa Crowking.

ooops.

-O

 

[Thondor]

Well the two of you made me laugh. That's pretty awesome.

Probably my biggest issue is the prevalent attitude on these boards that "of course BAB is better", sometimes I find it a little grating.

I'd really love to write a long complicated post in response to all the impressive discussion but . . . I have to go plan some games now!

 

[Lanefan]

I've never had a problem figuring out or explaining that lower AC is better, but I've still never grasped THAC0. And I think I've figured out why, as something's just occurred to me while reading this that probably should have occurred to me many years ago, but didn't:

The fundamental change from pre-THAC0-using D+D to the same game using THAC0 is that built into THAC0 is your fight level, which players previously did not know (usually) but could now figure out in a heartbeat. Starting out with a 1st-level MU, a player didn't know she fought like (in effect) a -1th level Fighter; he only knew she was bad at it. And one's fighting skill got better, in RAW 1e, in odd jumps and starts that once again the players did not know the specifics of.

And with those numbers hidden, a DM could painlessly tweak them. I did, a long time ago, to smooth out many of those strange jumps...but the numbers are still hidden. Which is, looking at it now, probably why I never saw the point of THAC0 as a system...as DM I still had to do just as much math as before, *plus* work in the difference between the target's AC and 0.

All I need from my plaeyrs is their roll plus bonuses (at least, those they know about). I work out the rest; it's pretty easy:

Player: "I rolled a 12, plus 2 for weapon and 1 for strength; total 15."
Me (unspoken): "OK, the chart says you fight like a 4th; the AC is 2; no oddball stuff going on here, so total is 21." (spoken) "You hit." (or more descriptive words to the same effect)

Note this gives the same result as using THAC0; this particular character's THAC0 would be 17 - the remaining 4 to get to 21 come from the character's fight level; 21 is still the magic number.

Lanefan

 

[Leatherhead]

I cheated.

I had a handy-dandy table to look up all my THAC0 rolls on. The chart made it even easier to use than doing actual math, and I never had to explain it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I had a handy-dandy table to look up all my THAC0 rolls on. The chart made it even easier to use than doing actual math, and I never had to explain it.

This is what I do, too. No calculation involved, fast, and straightforward. Back in the day, I had a lot of it memorized. I've forgotten some of that, but as I'm running the old systems, again, it's slowly coming back.

I'm always surprised by the strong feelings on the question of THAC0.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

It comes from experience. Loads of people have played, say, Baldurs Gate or the Gold Box games. And it happens again and again (at least to me) that you explain the basics of the game to a new roleplayer and he looks at you and asks:
"Say. This game. Isnt using that, you know, Thatco thing? Which starts at 20? No? Phew."
The problem here is that deep in-system analysis is not that important. Its first-contact experience that defines ease of use. And to most of my players "you start at +0 and go up" is indeed easier and less intimidating than "you start at 20 and go down, except sometimes its a little more complicated than that. Here, take this chart."