D&D 5E Mike Mearls interview - states that they may be getting off of the 2 AP/year train.

[bmfrosty]

Why? Why does it make his eyes roll and question the mathematical proficiency of the person who came up with it?

You need some sort of emoji here.

 

[Oofta]

Seriously? We're arguing that THAC0 is not annoying?

I consider myself reasonably proficient at mental math, but many people are not. D&D requires you to add a lot of numbers quickly, between attack roll and damage. It's far easier to add a number to a d20, and remember that "high is always good".

The only reason THAC0 survived into 2E was because it was a sacred cow. Thankfully they killed it for 3.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Seriously? We're arguing that THAC0 is not annoying?

I'm arguing that neither I nor anybody I played with back in the day found THAC0 annoying. It was easy to grasp, easy to use, and was a whole lot simpler and easier than looking up numbers on a chart every time you went to make an attack - which is the system THAC0 replaced.

Obviously, mileage may vary. But we never had problems with it.

Ironically, there was one player amongst my friends who never seemed able to wrap his head around the fact that his armor class didn't change when he gained a level - he always wanted to adjust it.

 

[Oofta]

I'm arguing that neither I nor anybody I played with back in the day found THAC0 annoying. It was easy to grasp, easy to use, and was a whole lot simpler and easier than looking up numbers on a chart every time you went to make an attack - which is the system THAC0 replaced.

Obviously, mileage may vary. But we never had problems with it.

Ironically, there was one player amongst my friends who never seemed able to wrap his head around the fact that his armor class didn't change when he gained a level - he always wanted to adjust it.

Umm ... all I can say that your experience was different than mine. It came up on a pretty regular basis in my games. Then again I played with multiple groups, over several years.

 

[Azzy]

I'm arguing that neither I nor anybody I played with back in the day found THAC0 annoying. It was easy to grasp, easy to use, and was a whole lot simpler and easier than looking up numbers on a chart every time you went to make an attack - which is the system THAC0 replaced.

Better than looking things up on a chart isn't high praise—THAC0 was still stupid, annoying, backwards, and unnecessary.

 

[cmad1977]

THACO was fine. It was also a completely unnecessary and silly way to work out the math. Frankly it was poor/unintuitive game design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bmfrosty]

I'm arguing that neither I nor anybody I played with back in the day found THAC0 annoying. It was easy to grasp, easy to use, and was a whole lot simpler and easier than looking up numbers on a chart every time you went to make an attack - which is the system THAC0 replaced.

Are you gaslighting us on THAC0?

 

[Prakriti]

THAC0 makes more sense than the present system. It clearly delineates the divide between what is possible with mundane armor and what is done with magic. This is represented by the cross over from positive to negative numbers. Once you hit -1 or -2 AC, you know you're in magical territory. With the present system, however, the divide is far less obvious. Plate mail and a shield in 5E is AC 20, and AC 0 in the old system. If you add in a magical ring of protection, then we go from 20 to 21 in 5E, and from 0 to -1 in 1E. The latter does a far, far better job of representing the supernatural forces at play.

Also, I always saw AC as a reflection of one's vulnerability to attack. 10 AC = lots of vulnerabilities, whereas 0 AC = zero vulnerabilities. A character with 0 AC is covered from head to toe in plate mail, with a shield to boot. In that sense, 0 AC does a far better job of representing impregnable defenses than AC 20, which might as well be a number chosen completely at random.

So yeah, THAC0 is better. Sorry if you can't see it for yourself.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Are you gaslighting us on THAC0?

I don't actually know what you mean by that question. According to the definition of 'gaslighting' I just found in a Google search, no.

I'm not saying it isn't easier to add positive numbers; like many/most of us, I was overjoyed at first when 3e came along and changed the way attach and defense were calculated. Though again ironically, the guy who always tried to adjust his AC when he gained a level STRONGLY resisted the change, and the campaigns that included him kept on with 2e for over a year after 3rd came out.

THAC0 was what it was. It worked and it made sense. It was no more difficult to grasp conceptually than Vancian casting or the roll-under proficiency check system.

I don't miss THAC0, but in an era of complicated mechanics it didn't really stand out as problematic. It was certainly easier on the brain than the dice pools of Earthdawn or the multi-success/multi-failure system from the World of Darkness games.

 

[Aldarc]

I came into D&D at the tail end of 2E and the beginning of 3E and a complete novice to RPGs. From my own experience - I cannot attest to anyone else's - the d20 system of post-2E was far more intuitive and easier to understand than THAC0. Roll high and add bonuses. Done.

THAC0 makes more sense than the present system. It clearly delineates the divide between what is possible with mundane armor and what is done with magic. This is represented by the cross over from positive to negative numbers. Once you hit -1 or -2 AC, you know you're in magical territory. With the present system, however, the divide is far less obvious. Plate mail and a shield in 5E is AC 20, and AC 0 in the old system. If you add in a magical ring of protection, then we go from 20 to 21 in 5E, and from 0 to -1 in 1E. The latter does a far, far better job of representing the supernatural forces at play.

Also, I always saw AC as a reflection of one's vulnerability to attack. 10 AC = lots of vulnerabilities, whereas 0 AC = zero vulnerabilities. A character with 0 AC is covered from head to toe in plate mail, with a shield to boot. In that sense, 0 AC does a far better job of representing impregnable defenses than AC 20, which might as well be a number chosen completely at random.

So yeah, THAC0 is better. Sorry if you can't see it for yourself.

If you were attempting to argue that THAC0 is convoluted, counterintuitive, and archaic in comparison with the present system, then congratulations, you succeeded marvelously with flying colors.