Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's Talk About THAC0
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7617230" data-attributes="member: 6857506"><p>While I knew what THAC0 was, and I'm pretty sure I used it, and I seem to recall embracing it as an improvement over the tables, my memory is much too sketchy to remember exactly what the protocol was for players telling he what they had rolled. All that said, I would be astonished if anyone outside of a few geezers on ENWorld thought that BaB was not a vast improvement.</p><p></p><p>Of course, without a lot of research that no one would ever fund, it's not possible to be sure whether or why some people might have trouble wrapping their heads around THAC0. However, I will venture a guess as to why it has the 'reputation' of being 'complex' despite involving more or less the same arithmetic as BaB. First, I would guess that 'obscure' would be a better description of some people's negative take on it than 'complex'. Second, I would guess that this is a good example of an aspect of earlier D&D that was a barrier to entry for non-nerds. (Sure, there were lots of folks for whom THAC0 was 'no problem', the vast majority of whom I would conjecture were folks who were very facile with quantitative and abstract processes.) The source of the obscurity of THAC0 (or at least a major contributor), I think, is that the THAC0 value is defined by a hypothetical: it's the value you <em>would</em> need to roll <em>if</em> your target had AC0. Intuitively, to me at least, it is notably more difficult to understand (more obscure) how that plays into the to-hit calculation than the quantities involved in BaB - the dice roll, your to-hit bonus, and the target's AC - which are all defined in obvious ways by and related in obvious ways to the current circumstances.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7617230, member: 6857506"] While I knew what THAC0 was, and I'm pretty sure I used it, and I seem to recall embracing it as an improvement over the tables, my memory is much too sketchy to remember exactly what the protocol was for players telling he what they had rolled. All that said, I would be astonished if anyone outside of a few geezers on ENWorld thought that BaB was not a vast improvement. Of course, without a lot of research that no one would ever fund, it's not possible to be sure whether or why some people might have trouble wrapping their heads around THAC0. However, I will venture a guess as to why it has the 'reputation' of being 'complex' despite involving more or less the same arithmetic as BaB. First, I would guess that 'obscure' would be a better description of some people's negative take on it than 'complex'. Second, I would guess that this is a good example of an aspect of earlier D&D that was a barrier to entry for non-nerds. (Sure, there were lots of folks for whom THAC0 was 'no problem', the vast majority of whom I would conjecture were folks who were very facile with quantitative and abstract processes.) The source of the obscurity of THAC0 (or at least a major contributor), I think, is that the THAC0 value is defined by a hypothetical: it's the value you [I]would[/I] need to roll [I]if[/I] your target had AC0. Intuitively, to me at least, it is notably more difficult to understand (more obscure) how that plays into the to-hit calculation than the quantities involved in BaB - the dice roll, your to-hit bonus, and the target's AC - which are all defined in obvious ways by and related in obvious ways to the current circumstances. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's Talk About THAC0
Top