The truth about THAC0

[glass]

That's why I expect that if there is a 4th Edition, they will drop the attribute scores themselves in favor of using just the current attribute MODIFIERS with 5 added to them, and 5 added to any check DCs. There's an unnecessary set of numbers in the way we do it now.

I've been thinking this is the way to go as well. Nice to see someone out there on the same wavelength.


glass.

 

[Turanil]

The underlying principle of THAC0 and BAB may be similar, in the end, it's much easier to use 3e method. That is, you roll your d20, add your bonus, and see if the result is equal or better than the AC. No headache with that. On the other hand, THAC0 was a pain in the arse, needing tables and else, and having stupid things such as postive AC and then negative AC.

 

[Jupp]

Tell me if I'm wrong, I only played 2e for a short time.

2e way is slower than 3e because you have to obtain information from the DM before you can determine if you suceeded.

In 2e...you rolled and got your attacks. The dm then told you the AC. You then checked your thaco to see if you hit.

In 3e....you roll and add up your number, and then just tell the dm what your attack is when your ready. The dm then determines if you hit based on the AC.

We switched back to 2e after 3 years of playing 3E.

Actually my feeling is that 2e is faster in combat than 3E and I dont think I used any kind of table for Tac0 in a very long time. Also new players understand the Thac0 pretty fast and they need guidance only in the first few sessions. In fact I think they need less guidance and explanation with 2e than with 3E, but that is another topic for another thread .

I am not sure what you mean by obtaining information from the DM about success or not. This is also the case in 3E. As a player you never know the AC of your opponent so the DM will have to tell you if you hit the enemy or not. I don't see a difference here between 2e and 3E. And no, the DM never tells us the AC, he only tells us if we hit the target or not. I do that with my group as well. As if those puny players would get detailed information about my dear little monters, hah!

 

[Ravellion]

I played 2e with the 3e to hit mechanic for a while, and boy did it speed things up. In actual 3e, you've got about a bazillion more options than in 2e (both core only), so that in turn slowed things down again (AoO, Cleave etc.)

But yeah, Thac0 annoys the **** out of me, because it is unnecessarily "complex".

Rav

 

[Plane Sailing]

THAC0 is always raised as the big thing that made oD&D and AD&D totally unplayable.

I'd take a couple of issues with your opening statement, if you don't mind

1. Who said they were totally unplayable? IIRC everyone from kids upwards had a great time playing them! D&D was the simplest RPG out there!

2. OD&D certainly (and I think AD&D 1e) didn't formally have THAC0 originally - it was all table based (like most table top wargames of that era, in fact). Cross reference your class & level against target AC to give you a number you had to beat on a d20.

Fans and magazines quickly deduced that you could save copies of the table by just converting to a formula - all you needed to know was your target number for AC 0 and you could calculate your required target number for any AC. I think this was then written in to 2e D&D as the basic rule.

So I think 2e is where the tables disappeared and were formally replaced with Thac0. Maybe for people who first came to D&D in 2e days it didn't make so much sense, but everyone that I knew from earlier days just ran with it as a convenient replacement for the tables.

Essentially thac0 didn't have to be mechanically more complex than d20... the problem was that AC values heading downward meant that you needed to include -ve numbers in the calculation to allow for tougher AC. *that* was the problem.

Cheers

 

[ThirdWizard]

I played a year of AD&D in college before 3E came out.

Three players never understood THAC0. =/
(out of 7)
It's not just THAC0 that confused people. It's the fact that AC bent round 0 from 10 to -10. I think that was the big issue they had.

You have a number you need to hit an AC of 0. Lower ACs are better, but higher rolls are also better. So, the further away you roll from the actual number, the better your roll, but lower THAC0s are also better. So if your THAC0 is 15 and you roll a 15 you hit AC 10 to 0. If you rolled a 14, you hit AC 10 to 1. If you rolled a 16, you hit AC 10 to -1. It isn't calculus, its just very very weird. People don't usually think like that.

 

[diaglo]

Now at least I don't need the tables.

now you still need to do the math.

i'm a 6th lvl ft... Bab = +6
but if i'm a 6th lvl bard .. bab =
or 6th lvl wizard ... bab=

same thing. different look.

 

[Numion]

The argument isn't really about math, but rather about how people think. 3E way is much simpler in use - maybe that tells something about people. Now amount of argumentation will change that. I could argue that a system with AC ranging from -60 to -40 is as easy the current system, in a way similar to the thread starter, but whats the point .. ?

But then again I majored in applied math, so the particulars of addition and subraction might be a bit hazy

 

[francisca]

Having only played 1e and B/X before 3e, I never used thac0. I don't understand what is so difficult/bad about using the charts that thac0 was supposed to fix.

 

[francisca]

Saving throws aren't arbitrary, they follow a simple formula: 1/2 your level +2 for "good" saves or 1/3 your level (round down) for "bad" saves.

I haven't looked on a chart for saves (unless I'm feeling lazy) for quite awhile.

The bonuses are not, but the DCs are arbitrary. The fact that you aren't looking them up makes them arbitrary. Even if you did look them up, where is the formula set forth by the designers to populate the chart? Note that I don't think that arbitrary is a bad word.

It seems to me there is far more arbitrary stuff in 3e than people realize/admit/think about. And I'm glad for it, for if 3e was *all* about formulas, I would never have played it. (Not that there isn't a ton of formula manipulation to be had.)