D&D General Thaco the angry clown... really?

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, is that all?
Yeah, it's no math required. But say I'm playing 5e and I have a 16 Strength, a +5 Proficiency Bonus, and a +2 Longsword. Then you just put this chart in your weapon:

AC>To Hit
10>2
11>2
12>2
13>3
14>4
15>5
16>6
17>7
18>8
19>9
20>10
21>11
22>12
23>13
24>14
25>15

See? No math required!

You ignored the part when I said "when the game went to ascending with 3e, and with 3e you couldn't do that because of different BABs, and many modifiers to your attack roll that changed from round to round. (not to mention horrible numbers bloat)"

My comment was about how I found THAC0 easier then when it went to ascending. That is, when it went to 3e, not 5e.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

You ignored the part when I said "when the game went to ascending with 3e, and with 3e you couldn't do that because of different BABs, and many modifiers to your attack roll that changed from round to round. (not to mention horrible numbers bloat)"

My comment was about how I found THAC0 easier then when it went to ascending. That is, when it went to 3e, not 5e.

Can you define BAB for me? I'm not familiar with the term.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Base attack bonus. A 6th level barbarian had +6/+1. Meaning, on the first attack, you'd get +6 to hit, and on your second attack, you'd get +1. 3e was riddled with different bonuses all over place (feats, flanking, conditions, etc). I suppose you could create a table for each scenario, but then instead of one column like AD&D, you'd have your entire front of your character sheet nothing but pre-calculating each scenario lol. No thanks. And, obviously more complex than a simple row. For better or worse, that's what you get with a complex system like 3e.

I'll grant you 5e does not have most of these issues, but again, this was during the transition. I preferred THAC0 back then.

 

[Charlaquin]

His younger companions would be Bab and the Prof.

Perfect

 

[Warpiglet-7]

...that's a big stretch

Man I am simple.

just thought it was a joke about a rule change.

 

[Scribe]

For those who havent seen it.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, is that all?
Yeah, it's no math required. But say I'm playing 5e and I have a 16 Strength, a +5 Proficiency Bonus, and a +2 Longsword. Then you just put this chart in your weapon:

AC>To Hit
10>2
11>2
12>2
13>3
14>4
15>5
16>6
17>7
18>8
19>9
20>10
21>11
22>12
23>13
24>14
25>15

See? No math required!

If you have to write 20 numbers for each weapon ... yeah. Never was a great way of doing it IMHO and I'm glad it changed.

 

[guachi]

One can choose to take offense at this or have a good laugh and move on.

Or, as in my case, neither be offended nor find it funny enough to even elicit a smile. It's a joke so lame even I'd be embarrassed to make it.

 

[iserith]

Or, as in my case, neither be offended nor find it funny enough to even elicit a smile. It's a joke so lame even I'd be embarrassed to make it.

Can't please them all.

 

[Mordhau]

Hmmm...I guess it all fits the incredibly self-referential tone they are going for these days.

Fine, I guess, if that's your sort of thing.

I think it's not so much intended to be funny, but to make you feel included because you recongise the joke. "You're a fan, I'm a fan, let's all be fans togther!".