D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Kromanjon
Adventurer
I have always thought you subtracted the AC from the THAC0 thus getting the goal number for the roll. The bonuses (usually not being that impressive) only need to be considered if you failed but got really close.
Remathilis
Legend
I hold a very similar opinion on the original AD&D 1e covers. The reprinted Easley covers are nice if not a little static, but the originals look like high school art projects.
I also have a rather low opinion of several pictures in the books as well. In particular, the races picture that managed to make half-orcs as derpy as possible and the thief picture who had a Stretch Armstrong arm.
That said, my least favorite set of art ever comes from the revised 2e books, where they had art commissioned for each of the classes in the class chapter that was in such a style as to make me want to play them less, not more. They don't look like epic heros, they look like middle age guys in ren faire costumes. (They were also all white male humans). They made WAR's iconics in 3e a welcomed relief.
Remathilis
Legend
That Method requires the player know the AC of the creature, which isn't something all DMs like to share. It was a bloody nightmare if you DM tried to keep AC secret.
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
WAR's art style is hit or miss for me, but it's generally more hit than miss.
And I never dealt with THAC0, so I have zero opinion on how complex/unnecessary/easy/whatever it was.
And I never dealt with THAC0, so I have zero opinion on how complex/unnecessary/easy/whatever it was.
Kromanjon
Adventurer
Why wouldn't that be solved by the GM knowing or asking for the PCs THAC0 so he could just reference the roll? I completely agree that the equation you described before was too complicated. I just tell my players the AC since it doesn't change anything at all. I figure their PCs manage to figure out how hard an enemy is to hit once they've attacked it once and them knowing the AC can help them to decide future actions.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
The problem was, the modifiers can get pretty impressive.
Be Elf. +1 to hit with sword. +1 to hit with 17 Strength. Possible +2 to hit from Bladesong Fighting Style. +1 to hit from weapon specialization. Maybe +1 to hit from exceptional quality sword.
Now add some magic.
+1 sword, +3 vs. regenerating creatures. +3 (actually +2) to hit from Gauntlets of Ogre power. +1 to hit from Bless.
Or hey, instead of Bladesong, how about two-weapon fighting? +1/+2/+3/+4 flametongue in one hand, +2 short sword of quickness in the other.
I have a Samurai with two different Strength scores, normal and 18/00 when he uses his kiai. Rangers occasionally get a +4 against certain foes, and Dwarves and Gnomes have +1 against certain foes.
An evil character fighting a Paladin suddenly has a -1.
What if your DM uses weapon vs. armor type optional rules? Then each weapon potentially has like 9 different bonuses based on the armor in question!
Oh, you want to make a called shot? That's a -4 to hit. Situational modifiers- a rear attack ignores Shield AC and gives you +2 to hit- but it's +4 to hit if you're a Thief. Attacking with two weapons can impose -2 to hit with one weapon and -4 to hit with the other...or less, depending on Dexterity. Defender invisible? -4. Defender off-balance? +2.
(Hey Anakin, do you remember what bonus Obi-Wan has for the high ground? It's +1!)
Speaking of Thieves, for some reason, if you're a multiclass Thief, you might have to keep track of two different Thac0's- say, your Fighter one, and your Thief one with +4 to hit when using Backstab.*
*I don't believe this was stated in the PHB, though I saw it as a house rule at some tables, and it was eventually confirmed in Dragon #243, which clarified how multiclassing was supposed to work, which most of my DM's ignored, as they'd come to their own conclusions about multiclassing by that point, lol.
Some monsters have multiple AC's, like the Bullette, depending on where you attack it. Some enemies have -4 to hit Dwarves.
And this is far, far from exhaustive.
This. We never felt it was particularly difficult except we were more likely to make a mistake calculating the AC than we were while adding, particularly when you’re trying to go quickly around the table (AD&D had lots more players often). Most of the time, repetition replaced the actual math: you calculate the first time that it if you roll a 16, you hit AC 2. You roll a 17, and you just make the quick adjustment based on the previous math.
ezo
Hero
I never really though there was anything "silly" about it really because it works the same way.
"+" does not mean "add", it means improve. Plate mail armor is AC 3 (3rd armor class), so Plate mail armor +2 is improved by two classes... to AC 1, the 1st armor class.
FrozenNorth
Hero
That’s where you’re wrong. A lot of the changes are proposed by and cheered on by, people who have been in the game since the ‘80s.
Your acting like the game in the 80s was a monolith. In support of that framing, you are making unsupported claims like « no one had a problem with THAC0 » even in the face of people telling you they had problems with THAC0.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Locked
