Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4691755" data-attributes="member: 18280">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</blockquote>

Verification