Why THAC0 Rocks

[Sir Brennen]

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.

This is getting into a whole lot of other design issues, though. The inflation of BAB, AC and even saving throws has more to do with:

• the way attribute bonus are distributed in 3E
• the way attributes can be increased in 3E
• the introduction of feats which give bonuses
• the codification of all the other stackable bonuses (sacred, luck, enhancement, etc.)
• the introduction of attributes for creatures, which will often have stats far in excess of PC norm, and can benefit from the same bonuses as PCs

Now, one could still calculate a maximum allowed AC/BAB for combatants in this system since there are defined caps for these other aspects of the game (+5 enhancement on magic weapons/armor, +6 on stat booster items, limits to stacking, max possible attribute at level X, etc). It's still going to be high, just given the breath of bonuses possible. But you could do it, and have a more THAC0'ish set range. However, that would mean setting an artificial limit on many other aspects of the game.

To me, there's nothing wrong with an open-ended system, especially since creatures of an appropriate CR should will have AC's within a range which is not impossible for the PCs to deal with. There are problems with the open-ended system as implemented in 3E, though, especially at higher levels.

I like that 4E has stripped out alot of the additional bonus types, and codified acceptable AC's for a given level (monsters still have stats, but their AC, HPs, etc. are less tied to them and more to the level they are being designed for.) In fact, there is a hard limit for monster AC's : A 30th level Soldier creature has a max of AC 46.

 

[justanobody]

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


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


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

Going back tot he psychology of it you neglect that for osme all those extra parts even if just addition add unneeded complexity.

BAB +modA +modB +modC +...and so on for all the feats, and other places where bonuses come from. So for them how does the BAB approach make it any easier?

It still boils down to if you don't get it then ask someone else rather than complain that you dont get it. Try taking remedial math classes if you must get it, or don't complain to other people because you just dont get it, whatever IT is.

I have seen someone get plain out frustrated with the number of modifiers in 3rd that they wanted to quit. The DM just asked if anyone would mind figuring it up for the player each time. Everyone offered. The player got to play without fusing with the crap they didnt like, and everyone was happy. No loss to the game.

Oddly enough each group already has at least one person like this who has already got everyone modifiers BAB/THAC0 already figured up for them and ready to go that I have seen. Find that peson and ask them.

Work smarter not harder. In the case of dealing with numbers, if there is someone better at it, then let them do it if they are willing. If you are bogging down the game with either system, then you have to change your approach to how you play it.

Do it all before hand rather than on-time calculations. Which comes back to the character sheet that already had the number line on it. Just find the thing you have and read what you can do.

I so miss the tables. People need to use them more often for this very reason. Do you math before the game NOT during it.

The THAC0 system goes from -10 to 10. that is its range. Read a DMG and PHB to find this out.

Pigs could fly if you want them to, but it is not a part of the system. Everything in THAC0 including monsters were written under the understanding the best AC was -10, the worst was 10.

What you do to alter that, you must balance the whole game against. Thus the BAB system can easily break itself under the weight of the constantly increasing range with no limit.

 

[Obryn]

Going back tot he psychology of it you neglect that for osme all those extra parts even if just addition add unneeded complexity.

BAB +modA +modB +modC +...and so on for all the feats, and other places where bonuses come from. So for them how does the BAB approach make it any easier?

The number of modifiers is another completely separate issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with THAC0 vs. Attack Bonus.

For attack bonuses, you just calculate them ahead of time. For THAC0, you just add/subtract from your THAC0 ahead of time.

And situational modifiers are always situational, no matter which system you're using.

It still boils down to if you don't get it then ask someone else rather than complain that you dont get it. Try taking remedial math classes if you must get it, or don't complain to other people because you just dont get it, whatever IT is.

I have seen someone get plain out frustrated with the number of modifiers in 3rd that they wanted to quit. The DM just asked if anyone would mind figuring it up for the player each time. Everyone offered. The player got to play without fusing with the crap they didnt like, and everyone was happy. No loss to the game.

Again, the number of modifiers is a completely separate issue.

Work smarter not harder. In the case of dealing with numbers, if there is someone better at it, then let them do it if they are willing. If you are bogging down the game with either system, then you have to change your approach to how you play it.

Do it all before hand rather than on-time calculations. Which comes back to the character sheet that already had the number line on it. Just find the thing you have and read what you can do.

I so miss the tables. People need to use them more often for this very reason. Do you math before the game NOT during it.

...again, I don't see how this applies. And, I don't see how it's a feature of the system. If you don't gain anything from increased complexity, it's complexity for complexity's sake.

The THAC0 system goes from -10 to 10. that is its range. Read a DMG and PHB to find this out.

Pigs could fly if you want them to, but it is not a part of the system. Everything in THAC0 including monsters were written under the understanding the best AC was -10, the worst was 10.

What you do to alter that, you must balance the whole game against. Thus the BAB system can easily break itself under the weight of the constantly increasing range with no limit.

1e and 2e limited the range from -10 to +10. That's completely separate from what is or isn't possible using THAC0.

I could, using an attack bonus system, limit my ACs to a range of 10 to 30. (In fact, many people who run 1e/2e using positive ACs and attack bonuses do just this.)

I could, using a THAC0 system, limit my ACs to -20 to +15. Or from -5 to +9.

In both cases, these ranges and limits are not inherent mathematical features of either system - they are game conventions set up by entirely different rules.

They are separate arguments. An argument for limited range is not an argument for THAC0. An argument for unlimited range is not an argument for Attack Bonuses.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

While it is true that, as you say, "It's conceivable to use THAC0 with ACs that range from -80 to 10, or even from -100 to +100", it is also true that the issue is not completely separate.

This is true for two reasons:

(1) In relation to the much argued about human cognition, AC 0 is automatically significant, whether or not the system extends to 100 and -100. The system, by its very nature, tells you where the "center point" it balances upon is.

(2) Related to the above, when you set the worst high AC, the "center point" automatically suggests the best low AC. Thus, in the system as presented, the worst AC is 10, and the best AC is -10.

Both of these factors make game balance inherently easier to achieve. As 3e's out-of-control spiral amply demonstrates, IMHO, removing a known "fulcrum point" also removes any useful sense of simulated scale. It quickly ceases to become obvious where, on a continuum, a certain value should lie. This is even more true in 4e, IMHO, where the numbers used no longer map to any meaningful simulation at all.

If the math is co-equal, then there are two human variables to consider:

(1) Is this easier to use at the table?, and

(2) Is this easier to use when designing new materials?

I think that BAB wins on (1), and THAC0 wins on (2). OTOH, as I suggested earlier, I think that it is possible to related BAB to THAC0 strongly enough to compensate somewhat (but not entirely) on (2), which is what I am attempting with RCFG.

While, as I said before, I prefer BAB, I don't find it a completely correct statement to say that BAB is easier than THAC0 overall. It is just easier than THAC0 for some specific tasks. And THAC0 is easier than BAB for some others.

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.

Fair enough.

OTOH, you should also clarify that your clarification doesn't relate to the THAC0/BAB paradigms in any edition of D&D to date, whereas my point that you are clarifying does.


RC

 

[justanobody]

Again, the number of modifiers is a completely separate issue.

Prove it.

Using 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

Provide each equation with EACH possible modifier to derive a to-hit number for each system.

Feel free to use my previous example as a starting point and expound on the various modifiers therein for each system.

THAC0 - (dice roll + modifiers) = AC able to hit

Create the formula for BAB etc and plug in ALL possible modifiers, and show me how it is a separate issue, or if the volume of modifiers in one system could not cause problems with that system sheerly by there quantity.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The number of modifiers is another completely separate issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with THAC0 vs. Attack Bonus.

Just to be clear, since it has come up from more than one angle:

The number of bonuses is directly related to the change from THAC0 to BAB. When BAB opened up the range of numbers possible, the range of potential bonuses was likewise opened up.

In a system where there is a 1 in 10 base chance of success, no modifier can allow for more than a cumulative +9 bonus....at least not meaningfully.

Likewise, in the THAC0 system as it existed in D&D, no modifier could reduce AC below -10. With a base AC of 10, it takes 20 steps to reach -10, and that means that the range of meaningful modifiers is 20. This is a reason why, in general, there are no non-artifact swords or armour in 1e or 2e with a bonus greater than +5. It also perforce limits the size of bonus/penalty ability scores should grant.

When 3e did away with the THAC0 system as it existed in D&D, it opened up the potential bonuses to infinity and beyond.

This is not a necessary function of order of operation, but it is a strongly implied function of order of operation using the "-10 to 0 to 10" scale that TSR-D&D uses. It is clear in TSR-D&D that AC 0 is important. When you've achieved a negative-number AC, you've got a good AC.

In 3e or 4e, using BAB, there is no "good AC" implied. Indeed, if "A 30th level Soldier creature has a max of AC 46" it implies that the BAB progression, as actually used in D&D tells you nothing about what is inherently good or bad as an AC. What is a "good" AC becomes a function of level, requiring more calculation related to non-AC factors in order to become useful.

This is true no matter what scale of range is used with THAC0, so long as 0 remains the fulcrum point. It is, simply put, inherently easier to grasp in terms of game balance, if not in terms of function. THAC0 strongly implies a limited range, whereas BAB strongly implies a greater, and possibly unlimited, range.

One merely has to examine each edition of D&D to see that these implications hold true in the actual design of the game......and in the case of 3e, at least, in the eventual problems inherent in the game system itself.

(And, yes, a game can be designed where BAB doesn't cause these problems, but doing so requires a level of non-intuitive training implicit in the rules that is at least as problematic as that required by THAC0. I think that this training is worth it, mainly because it falls only on the GM's shoulders rather than the shoulders of everyone at the table, but it would seem foolish to me to ignore that said non-intuitive thinking must be cultivated.)

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[Obryn]

Prove it.

Using 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

Provide each equation with EACH possible modifier to derive a to-hit number for each system.

Feel free to use my previous example as a starting point and expound on the various modifiers therein for each system.

THAC0 - (dice roll + modifiers) = AC able to hit

Create the formula for BAB etc and plug in ALL possible modifiers, and show me how it is a separate issue, or if the volume of modifiers in one system could not cause problems with that system sheerly by there quantity.

Okay?

BAB + dice roll + modifiers = AC able to hit.

If your system has too many modifiers, this isn't THAC0's or Attack Bonus's fault.

I can, for example, do the following to 2e:

(1) Re-calculate all ACs by calculating 20-OriginalAC, so 10 stays 10, 0 becomes 20, and -10 becomes 30.

(2) Turn THAC0 into an attack bonus by calculating 20-THAC0

(3) Apply all modifiers, such as Strength, magic weapons, etc. to that attack bonus.

During combat, roll a d20, add your attack bonus, and see what AC you hit.

THAC0 is a procedure, pure and simple.

-O

 

[Obryn]

This is true for two reasons:

(1) In relation to the much argued about human cognition, AC 0 is automatically significant, whether or not the system extends to 100 and -100. The system, by its very nature, tells you where the "center point" it balances upon is.

(2) Related to the above, when you set the worst high AC, the "center point" automatically suggests the best low AC. Thus, in the system as presented, the worst AC is 10, and the best AC is -10.

I don't know that these naturally follow from one another, even in human cognition. Knowing that 10 is the worst and lower gets better doesn't give me a reason to believe that there's a "floor" at which it can't get better.

Additionally, setting 10 as the worst is an arbitrary decision. It's based on factors external to THAC0/BAB. It could just as easily be a "normal person" difficulty, with other factors increasing it above 10.

Fair enough.

OTOH, you should also clarify that your clarification doesn't relate to the THAC0/BAB paradigms in any edition of D&D to date, whereas my point that you are clarifying does.

RC

I'm talking about the mathematical procedures of THAC0 vs. Attack Bonuses, and which is simpler. That's pretty much it - the original argument was that THAC0 is quicker and easier, and my posts are written with the OP in mind.

-O

 

[justanobody]

Prove it.

Using 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

Provide each equation with EACH possible modifier to derive a to-hit number for each system.

Okay?

BAB + dice roll + modifiers = AC able to hit.

If your system has too many modifiers, this isn't THAC0's or Attack Bonus's fault.

I can, for example, do the following to 2e:

(1) Re-calculate all ACs by calculating 20-OriginalAC, so 10 stays 10, 0 becomes 20, and -10 becomes 30.

(2) Turn THAC0 into an attack bonus by calculating 20-THAC0

(3) Apply all modifiers, such as Strength, magic weapons, etc. to that attack bonus.

During combat, roll a d20, add your attack bonus, and see what AC you hit.

THAC0 is a procedure, pure and simple.

-O

BAB + dice roll + modifiers = AC able to hit.

You failed to identify EACH possible modifier as was asked for. Would you like to try again? You just lumped it as "modifiers". What are they for, when can you get them, when do you use them, etc?

(3) Apply all modifiers, such as Strength, magic weapons, etc.

That does not provide the equation with EACH possible modifier. You provided an incomplete equation.

BAB as a variable means Base Attack Bonus. That s a number you can plug in.

Dice Roll as a variable means another number you can just plug in to the equation from reading the dice.

Modifiers is ?????

What are you plugging in there? is it positive or negative? Where do i find this ONE number called modifiers?

Provide each equation with EACH possible modifier to derive a to-hit number for each system.

I expect to see 4 equations total. Each one should contain places for ALL possibile modifiers and including them.

+ weapon bonus
+ weapon penalty
+ strength bonus

for EACH possible modifier in the system for tHAT equation.

 

[Umbran]

for EACH possible modifier in the system for tHAT equation.

Um, how about we chill out just a bit.

At the moment, you are arguing rather strongly about something that is not different between the THACO and BAB formulations. They are mathematically equivalent - so the only issue is where the modifiers enter, not whether or not they are present at all.

I would prefer the tone start leaning away from trying to "win" the argument here.