Let's Talk About THAC0

[Oofta]

Well, 5e went to bounded accuracy in large part because of the huge numbers bloat of previous editions. A much needed design change. But given a choice between 2e's THAC0 and 3e's ascending system, 2e all the way. Even with doing subtraction, it was way easier and faster. You didn't sit there adding a half dozen modifiers that constantly changed depending on what was going on just to figure out what AC you hit.

I'm not saying 3.x didn't have issues. Or any edition for that matter. Just that you're conflating having half a dozen modifiers with the move away from THAC0 (which by the way is pronounce THACK-OH and everybody else is just saying it wrong ). They're different topic.

Of course I didn't have a problem with 3.x either, although it did get a bit crazy when I had to have a grid with all possible modifiers and had to roll double handfuls of dice to resolve my full attacks. Then again that was partly my fault for having a dual-wielding fighter with multiple energy types on my weapons in a party that liked to buff the snot out of him. Good thing I quit playing 3.x before I got my dual-wielding beastmaster(?) to a higher level because I would have needed a bigger dice bag for the mount's attacks. Ah fun times rolling dozens of dice.

 

[Xaelvaen]

THAC0 (which by the way is pronounce THACK-OH and everybody else is just saying it wrong )

I was just staying quiet on this one, but we always went with THAKE (like lake) -OH. XD

 

[Sacrosanct]

(which by the way is pronounce THACK-OH and everybody else is just saying it wrong ). They're different topic.
.

Yeah, I was wondering what was going on upthread. I was like, "There IS an H in there...". We always pronounced it THACK OH.

 

[Oofta]

I was just staying quiet on this one, but we always went with THAKE (like lake) -OH. XD

Maybe we should have a poll "how do you pronounce THAC0". Of course you would only need two options, "THACK-OH" and "The wrong way".

Kidding aside, I never met anyone who didn't pronounce it THACK-OH. Maybe it's a midwestern thing.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Addition is easier than subtraction.

Also, the title made me think:
Let's talk about THAC0 baby
Let's talk about you and me

P.S. It's pronounced "thar-koh" because armor class. Duh.

 

[Xaelvaen]

Maybe we should have a poll "how do you pronounce THAC0". Of course you would only need two options, "THACK-OH" and "The wrong way".

Kidding aside, I never met anyone who didn't pronounce it THACK-OH. Maybe it's a midwestern thing.

Quite possibly - Southeast U.S. here. I believe we went long A because of the acronym AC having a long A. It's all good!

 

[Mort]

My friends and I wandered around Gen Con in "I remember THAC0" t-shirts.

We heard a rumor that There was someone wandering the convention in a red hat with "Make THAC0 great again" but, sadly, we couldn't find him for a photo op!

 

[billd91]

I feel sorry for poor old THAC0. It has a bad reputation for being complex, when it's exactly as complex as the current method!

Algebraically, maybe not. But from a practical perspective, it is more difficult because there are always going to be people having more difficulty with negative numbers than dealing entirely with positive numbers. It has a bad reputation, compared to turning the AC values around in 3e, because it served as a barrier to people understanding and using it.

From a usability perspective, there is no question that rising ACs is a better mechanic.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

The math may be as simple but it is less intuitive as a mental model. Larger numbers usually means more of something. So having lower AC represent having more armour is counter intuitive. It also creates confusion when these models are inconsistent across mechanics. "You mean I want my strength score to be high, but my AC should be low?"

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's THACK-O. Unless you're Irish. Then it's TACK-O. Or Cockney, in which case it's FACK-O