Reasons behind Thanc0/AC in 1E/2E

[warlord]

He's Gary Gygax he doesn't need a reason to create THAC0.

 

[Jhulae]

One thing I miss about 2nd Edition is how THAC0 basically made it easier to tell when you would hit or miss during a fight. Once you had your THAC0 table written for the session all you basically did was roll and declare what AC you hit. Simple.

Umm...

If I have an attack bonus of +8 and I roll a 15, I 'declare' that I hit an AC of 23... It's still pretty simple (and in fact, since it's just adding two numbers together, not trying to figure out the difference above or below THAC0, it's even simpler). So, how's that any different?

 

[Gentlegamer]

With THAC0, I often used the "defend yourself" system. The players would roll the attacks for their opponents, add their armor class, and tell me the result. If the total was equal or higher than the opponent's THAC0, it was a hit.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I find it...odd that you say it "should" scale with level. What does it add to the game if AC is just another part of an arms race with BAB? If AC increases at a similar rate to attack rating, the higher attack rating doesn't really mean anything. You get a bigger bonus, but it's against a similarly bigger target number. If you're rolling +1 vs. AC 15 at level 1, +5 vs. AC 20 at level 5, and +10 vs. AC 25 at level 10, it means exactly the same thing: you need a 14 or higher to hit. If AC is kept at a much slower (but nevertheless real) progression, the bigger to-hit bonus means that you actually hit enemies more often. If you're rolling +1 vs. AC 5 at level 1, +5 vs. AC 2 at level 5, and +10 vs. AC -1 at level 10, you're hitting on a 14, 13, and 11 respectively: your actual average results increase with level. 3.x seems to take this aspect (which I think is really a good thing) out of the game, which is part of why it's not the game I run.

This results in higher level enemies being less challenging. My 2e group beat the tarrasque in one round; we couldn't miss. Dragons are supposed to be hard-scaled ... but they couldn't stop us from killing them.

I expect a high level opponent to be a challenge, not a pushover. In 2e, increasing an NPC's level did very little to make them harder challenges defensively; you had to hit them a few more times, and their saves were a bit better, but that was it. I expect all parts of my character to be challenged, including his attack bonus.

I agree with the latter statement, but not with the former. I've never quite understood the long standing bad rep that tables have had among RPG gamers. There's a reason that, before electronic calculators & computers, a lot of effort was expended on generating tables of the trigonometric & other functions. Sometimes a table is easier.

Try to memorize the psionic combat tables, either 2e or 3e. (That's probably the ur-example, and gives a bad name to slightly saner table.) If you're trying a large number of seemingly random numbers (that's what happens when you can't see the pattern) you can't do it unless you've got a photographic memory, something very few adults have.

IMO you should be able to use the rules without looking at the book. Players don't need to look up the PH to figure out throwing a Fireball in 3.x, as the essential rules are very simple. Only something really complicated should require a table, and only if it doesn't come up often and actually adds something to the game.

 

[GreyWizard77]

Well everyone, thanks for the history lesson. It helps shine some light on those old dusty rules that nobody really remembers. I'll still take the d20 version of BAB anyday, though.

And I've always said "thack-o". I guess that makes me a wacko, then, but not one form Waco.