Was Thac0 really that bad?

[Majoru Oakheart]

I loved it, and I miss it at times. The reason it worked well is because the values were contained.

And this is the key. I'd like to see an AC system that went from 0 to 20. Then make the max bonuses you could get from anything +10. It would cut down on powergaming, make everything simple and keep the numbers small and easy to manage.

But THAC0 doesn't need to be part of it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmh... although i also believe base attack bonus is better, i seriously believe everyone should be able to do the math. I may be a bit biased, because I teach math for a living however...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

There's the health warning, "THAC0 is wacko if you're a teen"

THAC0 is one of those things to stay dead as it's completely counter-intuitive, numbers should all ascend, it makes everything easier for all to understand.

 

[Henry]

THAC0 still doesn't beat "die roll + bonus = target number" for ease of use.

That's just human nature. We can solve a series of addition calculations a lot quicker than we can solve a series of subtraction calcs.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yes.

 

[M.L. Martin]

THAC0 was probably the best solution that could be adopted when you take into account all of TSR's design goals for 2nd Edition:
1. Streamline the game, and
2. Keep all the 1st Edition material as 'plug in and play' friendly as possible.

The designers seriously considered moving to the ascending AC model. The main reason they went with the THAC0/descending AC approach is that they didn't want to invalidate all the stuff that had been printed using descending AC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

THAC0 still doesn't beat "die roll + bonus = target number" for ease of use.

That's just human nature. We can solve a series of addition calculations a lot quicker than we can solve a series of subtraction calcs.

As I said:

d20 + AC = Thac0 does not involve any substraction... (maybe adding some negative numbers, but 5th grade students learn how to do that in 45min, as it is not counter intuitive to them...)

Oh, and this does not change my view, that base attack is better, but argumenting with the most complicated way to use Thac0 seems not so convinving...
You could also subtract BAB from the opponents AC and try to roll over that number... it is the same as adding, but more complicated. Hmmh, and I don´t know how it is originally explained in the ADnD 2nd edition rules... our DM just told us: Add opponents AC to your roll and compare... that was how we did it...

 

[delericho]

As I said:

d20 + AC = Thac0 does not involve any substraction...

Unfortunately, the unknown in this equation is the AC. The player knows what he rolled, he knows what his THAC0 is, so he calculates which AC he hits.

And, of course,

AC = THAC0 - d20

does require subtraction.

 

[Dragonblade]

foolish_mortals, this one of the first posts you have made that I pretty much agree with. I had no issues with THAC0 and don't get the THAC0 hate at all.

I thought it was a distinct improvement over the 1e charts and tables. That said, the 3e BAB, and the 4e 1/2 level bonus are still improvements over THAC0. But I liked THAC0 back in the day.

 

[Wormwood]

Like much of D&D, Thac0 was was good game design about 30 years ago. But like all things, game systems get streamlined and improved.

Reading threads about resurrecting Thac0 is like watching a hipster play around with a plastic Instamatic.