Why THAC0 Rocks

[justanobody]

Oh, really?

There's a song by Tom Lehrer called "New Math". It goes through the process of subtracting 173 from 342, in base ten and then base 8.

Folks who went through school from the 1960s and onward don't get what's so funny. He's just doing arithmetic as we learned it. The funny thing is that the folks who learned arithmetic earlier did it differently, such that during the transition (when the song was written), parents had difficulty helping their kids do their homework - the parents could get the same answer (because math is math), but confused their kids when they tried to show them how to get that answer, because the schoolteacher showed them something else.

You can, if you wish, go about the process of adding 19 and 1 via set theory, starting at the definition of the null set and working your way up. But you'd not want to do that at the gaming table. Rather cumbersome. THAC0 is notably less cumbersome than set theory, but a bit more cumbersome than BAB.

I just see the same math, with an outrageous range with BAB. There are some thing you just cannot hit due to the unlimited range of BAB. It is the same system, but adds unneeded range to it. As you say the players get int he way of it all, and they do. Sadly players dont think about the unconstrained system of BAB having unlimited AC range, and they will gripe when they try to attack something that they cannot damage, and then die because they were given too much range to play with.

At least with THAC0 system you had a defined range. It wasn't as hopeless to try to attack something.

To me both systems are just math. simple and easy. take what you have and find out what you need to know.

That is it in a nutshell, no matter which method you derive to get your information from. If you dont like the equation, then just do as I did, and change it to one that works better for you. Don't get hung up on the math, or fear of subtraction or whatever.

 

[justanobody]

I really don't know how this applies, unless you honestly don't understand human psychology and the way the human mind interprets numbers.

I know you want to make this an issue of pure math, but pure math gets distorted once you add people. Human brains are not perfect computers; they exhibit tendencies and preferences. If you ignore those tendencies and preferences, you end up with confusion.

-O

I am just saying 2+2 will not change to 5 just so Jethro is right. Jethro just has to accept that 2+2=4.

Everyone does not interpret number the same way either. Psychology tells you that people experience everything different from the next person. So the easiest way is the one that is common to all.

The math. Some people will prefer it presented to them one way, others the other, but it still boils down to the same math; or fear thereof.

When in doubt do like every other part of D&D. Ask someone else for help. You don't understand a spell, power, feat, NWP, then ask another player. You can't figure out THAC0 right, then ask another player. Don't get hung up on trivial crap to bog down the game. IF you don't like a game because you can't figure out some part of it that takes math you don't get, then don't play games that involve math.

I have never seen a game where a player had a problem with some part of D&D, and other players weren't ready to help. Don't try to under stand why smaller is better, it is just part of the game. Are you going to ask why fighters don't cast spells next? It also is part of the game. They weren't meant to. Learn to accept things even if you cannot fully understand them. The game is much more fun that way.

THAC0 works efficiently and easily.

That is all there is to it.

 

[Stoat]

THAC0 works efficiently and easily.
That is all there is to it.

Your explanations certainly demonstrate the simplicity and elegance of the thac0 system.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Right. Bigger is better. How is your bag phone working for you now? How about that phonograph you carry your music around on to listen to? Not to forget that 14 inch quill you use and ink pot to dip it in and the scrolls on which you write.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Straight-forward, simple and intuitive are better. More efficient is better. There's no such thing as "bigger" math. Only more complex, which THAC0 is -not the formula for applying it itself, an equine this thread has bludgeoned sufficiently, but the parameters of its variables, the opposed directional nature of AC vs attack role, which causes people to ask "Why is it like that? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be this other way instead?." For an interactive, social game, if you're starting point isn't easily explained and grasped by a human mind, then it doesn't matter that "math is math" when it comes to a preferred method.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The range issue is a real issue, because BAB doesn't tell you where the middle of the number line being used actually is. Is it 20? 21? 25? 30? THAC0 allowed a system to be designed around a set range of numbers; that is inherently easier than designing around an open range of numbers.

IMHO, many of the problems with 3e and 4e are caused by that open range of numbers, either directly or indirectly. Certainly, that open range of numbers makes for a steeper power curve, and hence more difficult balance issues.

Even though I am a proponent of positive AC, in RCFG I've intentionally limited the power curve to model a more THAC0-like progression. And mine is neither the first nor the only game to do the same.


RC

 

[Obryn]

I am just saying 2+2 will not change to 5 just so Jethro is right. Jethro just has to accept that 2+2=4.

...who said it did? This is neither here nor there.

Everyone does not interpret number the same way either. Psychology tells you that people experience everything different from the next person. So the easiest way is the one that is common to all.

The math. Some people will prefer it presented to them one way, others the other, but it still boils down to the same math; or fear thereof.

Of course the math is the same either way. The only argument is about what's easier and more intuitive.

When in doubt do like every other part of D&D. Ask someone else for help. You don't understand a spell, power, feat, NWP, then ask another player. You can't figure out THAC0 right, then ask another player. Don't get hung up on trivial crap to bog down the game. IF you don't like a game because you can't figure out some part of it that takes math you don't get, then don't play games that involve math.

I have never seen a game where a player had a problem with some part of D&D, and other players weren't ready to help. Don't try to under stand why smaller is better, it is just part of the game. Are you going to ask why fighters don't cast spells next? It also is part of the game. They weren't meant to. Learn to accept things even if you cannot fully understand them. The game is much more fun that way.

THAC0 works efficiently and easily.

That is all there is to it.

So rather than take a fairly simple construct that people find easier to understand, you suggest we take the more complex construct because people can just ask for help with it?

And if you don't like THAC0, you're better off playing something else?

I don't think you're helping your case here.

-O

 

[Mercule]

The human brain is a moot point.

Math is math.

I have two ways to respond to this.

1) Correct. Math is math. THAC0 and BAB are essentially the same equation, just counting opposite directions. Neither is superior to the other because math is math. The entire discussion is pointless.

2) Incorrect. While the universal rules of math are immutable and neutral, the advantage of BAB vs. THAC0 are about ease of use. Ease of use is determined almost entirely by the human element. Most people find addition to be quicker and easier than subtraction. Therefore a system that minimizes subtraction has a better usability. Between the two, BAB uses less subtraction. Therefore, BAB is better. QED. There are other reasons, but that one is sufficient.

Basically, the best THAC0 can hope for is to be no worse than BAB.

 

[Obryn]

The range issue is a real issue, because BAB doesn't tell you where the middle of the number line being used actually is. Is it 20? 21? 25? 30? THAC0 allowed a system to be designed around a set range of numbers; that is inherently easier than designing around an open range of numbers.

IMHO, many of the problems with 3e and 4e are caused by that open range of numbers, either directly or indirectly. Certainly, that open range of numbers makes for a steeper power curve, and hence more difficult balance issues.

Even though I am a proponent of positive AC, in RCFG I've intentionally limited the power curve to model a more THAC0-like progression. And mine is neither the first nor the only game to do the same.

RC

I just want to note for clarity that the range issue is a completely separate one from THAC0 vs. BAB.

It's conceivable to use THAC0 with ACs that range from -80 to 10, or even from -100 to +100. This would be inane, but the THAC0 system doesn't inherently prevent this.

On the other hand, it's also conceivable to limit ACs with a BAB system to a 10 to 30 range, offering the same value spread as traditional THAC0.

I'm sure you get this, RC, but some other folks on this thread might think these are inextricably linked and I want to clarify.

-O

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

To hack-o, no thanks!

 

[billd91]

The range issue is a real issue, because BAB doesn't tell you where the middle of the number line being used actually is. Is it 20? 21? 25? 30? THAC0 allowed a system to be designed around a set range of numbers; that is inherently easier than designing around an open range of numbers.

IMHO, many of the problems with 3e and 4e are caused by that open range of numbers, either directly or indirectly. Certainly, that open range of numbers makes for a steeper power curve, and hence more difficult balance issues.

I agree that you have a pretty important point here and I'd say it applies particularly strongly to saving throws and save DCs.
The open-ended range and stacking modifiers really sends things sprawling out at the higher end.