What is wrong with THAC0?

[Archmage]

So an AC starting at 10 and getting better, makes no sense, as that means somewhere there is an AC of 9, because there must be an AC of 0 if bigger is better, and 0 means none, as in no armor at all. Thus glass being weaker than a human to an "attack" would mean glas would need an AC lower than a human, yet having a human with the lowest unarmored AC of 10, means you don't even have a proper system because there is no zero, yet bigger is better. So why did the system needlessly start at 10, rather than just start at zero.

It starts at 10 because that way you can have ACs that are easier to hit than an average person without having to get into negative numbers. If the BAB system's ACs started at 0, anyone with a DEX <10 or a size category large or larger would have a negative AC, and the whole point is to avoid negative numbers.

Have you ever actually looked at the d20 system's rules? Creatures frequently do have ACs less than 10. It's not the lowest AC. It's the average AC, for an average human wearing no armor, so it's the base--you improve from there or get worse from there.

The glass example doesn't make any sense because AC doesn't have anything to do with weakness or durability. It's just how hard something is to hit.

[ubernoob]

Shadzar, I gave you a chance to educate yourself and have a rational debate as a mental equal (Guyr seems to have labeled my quote as PR, but has still managed to bold the key part) and you instead chose to strawman completely.

Welcome to my ignore list. You're the only person aside from Elennsar to make it there.

[Psychic Robot]

shadzar, please read the following, but do not respond until you have finished reading the entire post.

Nice try to rephrase the retards question, but I do speak English, and could easily tell the simple change.

Seriously? You think that I was trying to conceal Kaelik's question? Sigh.

THAC200 is just as stupid as BAB with infinite attack bonus, and infinite AC.

A system with infinite either of those is in no way better than a system with a finite range, because it adds unneeded complexity and the ability for infinite modifiers, which may be needed, so someone to make an attack based on a simple d20 roll that has such a low range.

Stop right there. You say that BAB adds "unneeded complexity."

THAC0 is a measure of a character's or monster's ability to successfully attack an opponent in physical combat. Each creature has an armor class that determines how hard it is to hit that creature, with lower numbers representing higher difficulty. For example, a normal, unarmored human has an armor class of 10 while a heavily armored fighter might have an armor class of 1 or 0.

The success of a character's or monster's attack is determined by rolling a 20-sided die. If the number obtained equals or exceeds the attacker's THAC0, the attacker has successfully hit a target with armor class 0. If the target has an armor class different from zero, the target's armor class is subtracted from the attacker's THAC0, and that number is what the attacker's roll must equal or exceed.

Let's compare BAB to THAC0.

Let's say we have a BAB of +5 in 3e and THAC0 of 15 in 2e. We're fighting an unarmored human.

3e: 1d20 + 5 >= 10 = hit.
2e: 1d20 >= 15 - 10 = hit.

Right there, you're doing calculations on two sides of the equation. You're rolling a d20 on one side, and you're doing math on the other. And, from what I can tell, the player needs to know a monster's AC to determine whether or not he's hit.

Any system with the infinites, or any system with forward advancing progression that doesn't start at 0, is NOT a better system.

So an AC starting at 10 and getting better, makes no sense, as that means somewhere there is an AC of 9, because there must be an AC of 0 if bigger is better, and 0 means none, as in no armor at all. Thus glass being weaker than a human to an "attack" would mean glas would need an AC lower than a human, yet having a human with the lowest unarmored AC of 10, means you don't even have a proper system because there is no zero, yet bigger is better. So why did the system needlessly start at 10, rather than just start at zero.

This doesn't even make sense. Here's what I can deduce from your convoluted prose.

1. AC starting at 10 makes no sense because somewhere, there is an AC of 9.
2. If there's an AC of 9 somewhere, there must be an AC of 0 somewhere.
3. There is an AC of 0 somewhere because "bigger is better."
4. AC 0 represents no armor at all.
5. Glass needs to have an AC lower than an unarmored human.
6. Having unarmored human AC be a base of 10 makes no sense.
7. It makes no sense because there is no 0 AC even though "bigger is better."
8. Why did the system start at 10 instead of 0?

I don't know what to say to that. Your reasoning is a tangled mess of question-begging; you keep repeating the same claims without actually supporting them.

Here's what I need to know from you in order to demonstrate that THAC0 is better than BAB.

1. How is making smaller numbers better more intuitive than making larger numbers better?

2. How is having addition symbols represent subtraction symbols (+3 chainmail actually means AC 5 - 3) more intuitive than having addition symbols represent addition symbols (+3 chaimail actually means AC 5 + 3)?

3. Why is a system based on subtraction (which is more difficult than addition for 99% of the human race) better than an easier system based on addition?

4. Suppose we have two action resolution systems. With the first, we have a system where you roll a d20 and add modifiers to determine success. With the second, we have a system where you roll a d20, add modifiers, and then multiply by two to determine success. Which one of these is superior and why?

[shadzar]

He concludes with almost a sensible argument that people should have an unarmored AC of 0, rather than 10, which would be simpler. However, he does not seem tor realize that the reason 3e does not do this is because it was a desirable part of the system that unarmored people would be able to dodge or block. He also does not explain why THAC0, in which everyone uses the AC of a heavily armored warrior which you are unlikely to come across as a standard and adjusts to that is a good idea.

But seriously, there is so much conclusion jumping up there, you have to love it.

Dodging, and blocking are not a part of AC. They would produce a penalty to hit if you succeed, not an improvement to take a hit.

AC represents not your ability to be missed, and a to-hit never really meant if you hit or not. Both represented, ever with DR; the ability to abosrb damage before it affected you.

Which is a confusing part of death and dying rules later but that can be for another thread.

When dealing with any attack-v-AC system you are not stating whether you can hit it or not. The names were always wrong.

What are the real odds of hitting a stationary target while you are perfectly balanced? 100% if it is within reach.

Rolling the "to-hit" in any system doesn't actually define whether you hit or not, but whether the hit was enough to cause damage.

So dodging, doesn't really come into play because there never existed a system to tell you if you actually hit, it was just a misnomer.

All "to-hit" rolls are actually "to bypass AC and inflict damage" rolls. But that is a mouthful to say and write out all the time.

So to dodge, or parry, does nothing for AC, but really changes the "to-hit" roll that doesn't exist. For realism, they were just added on top of the system for the sake of the "to-damage" roll.

THAC0 also doesn't use a heavily armored warrior as the basis. It just sets a range for having wiggle room. Uses standard math with a center point within that range, and places the center point so that you can move out in either direction the same spaces better or worse.

Want a range of 20...well you need an odd number, so how about 19? No you want movement of 10 degrees on either side, so 21.

10 on either side means you have -10 to 10, with the midpoint set for calculation at 0. You can move 10 either way. Just like alignments have one position on either side of the 0 (neutral position on the line). So you can move just as far in one direction as you can the other.

0 is an easy number to deal with after all. The system could have flipped it all around and reworked the numbers to have 0 the worst AC and 20 the best and still use the nomenclature of THAC0. Now your midpoint for the line would be 10....Where have I seen 10 for an AC as standard? BAB, but it didn't use the 10 as the midpoint, but the lowest point....WHY? Because you have an unneeded unlimited range. You have things with 50 AC. that is a range of 40, but is that as far as it can go? No BAB's AC can go on forever as long as you keep decorating your Christmas tree.

I am not confused, just others trying to lumps things in incorrectly. You made a good and valid argument about points that are more closely connected than many others have tried to make. Where is the karma system or XP system on here so I can award you with some?

[Kaelik]

Actually, his argument conclusively proves that unarmed PCs have to have an AC higher than 0. He's just too stupid to realize it.

Ignoring for a moment that glass being weaker is measured by HP more than AC, inanimate objects do in fact need to be easier to hit than humans.

So the fact that Humans start above 0 is a necessary precursor to inanimate objects being easier to hit.

In fact, if it's even possible to miss a medium sized inanimate object at all, it must have an AC higher than 0 as well. Given that a Colossal sized object is still missable, but has a -4 size penalty relative to a medium object, therefore, a medium object should probably have an AC of 5.

Thus, his premises actually point to the idea of for example, objects with no dex scores or size penalty/bonuses having an AC of 5, and unarmed humans with average dex scores of having an AC of 10.

Oops. Guess he just proved himself wrong. And 3e is the most sensible possible system.

I do want to congratulate him on being the first shameless coward to use the ignore feature to avoid arguments that make him look stupid.

Note how his entire answer when he finally sort of answered was actually just a giant rant about 3e BAB, and didn't answer the question at all.

Also of note. He thinks that PR didn't intend for him to realize it was the same question.

I want to give Shadzar the prize for being the first gamin den poster to think that who things come from is more important than content.

Also, he wins the Elennesar award for driving everyone insane and eventually being ignored by everyone.

EDIT: And then he wants to give out popularity points to someone. How cute our tiny little friend is.

But my favorite part is where he complains about the range being greater than 20, even though in 2e, you can easily get AC numbers of -14 or less, proving his limited range is not limited at all. If you keep decorating your christmas tree, you can push off the RNG of a level 1 character in 2e as well.

[Psychic Robot]

Dodging, and blocking are not a part of AC. They would produce a penalty to hit if you succeed, not an improvement to take a hit.

If dodging isn't a part of AC, then why do you receive your Dex modifier to AC?

Also, feel free to address my questions to you.

[shadzar]

Here's what I need to know from you in order to demonstrate that THAC0 is better than BAB.

1. How is making smaller numbers better more intuitive than making larger numbers better?

2. How is having addition symbols represent subtraction symbols (+3 chainmail actually means AC 5 - 3) more intuitive than having addition symbols represent addition symbols (+3 chaimail actually means AC 5 + 3)?

3. Why is a system based on subtraction (which is more difficult than addition for 99% of the human race) better than an easier system based on addition?

4. Suppose we have two action resolution systems. With the first, we have a system where you roll a d20 and add modifiers to determine success. With the second, we have a system where you roll a d20, add modifiers, and then multiply by two to determine success. Which one of these is superior and why?

1- We don't want a high number for the following things:

Crime rate, infant mortality, high school drop out rate, unemployed

We don't want a low number for these things:

Income, grades (school, restaurant scores, etc), doctors, educators, ...

Numbers are only a value, and bigger is not always better. If it were then today's "cell" phones should be much larger than the originals.

The value of a number is in what it represents, not in which is bigger than another.

Is 7 better than 6? Is so then why is 6 afraid of 7? Because 7 ate 9.

2- Just like in 4th and every edition the term "level" means different things. OOTS did this well in a few strips to explain it. Your own assertion that bigger is better was used unilaterally for things without regards to how it plugs into a math forumla. seeing a +3 as better than a +4 for example in regards to armor or weapons of a magical nature.

Table 46: Armor Class Ratings, just gives you the correct number so you need not do the math even. Just move towards the better end of the armor list and find the right number beside it.

I don't know why armor went with the range it did, but I can understand the math, and don't really care, since the math works. Basic math is easy and simple for addition and subtraction.

All math is addition.

Adding....well duh
Subtracting is adding a void, or negative amount.
Multiplying is adding multiples of a number
Dividing is adding partition to a number and subtracting (which is adding a void) the left over pieces.

These for basic math function, even if you don't accept they are all addition, are the basis for all math. If you cannot do them, then NO math is intuitive for you.

You cannot change math because you don't like subtracting negative numbers. People try it every year on April 15th, but it never works.

3- I don't buy your premise, therefore cannot answer this question. You are saying 99% of the people in the world cannot subtract, and that is not correct.

4- That little information can yield no result. Also any result would be subjective to an individuals likes and dislikes. Subjectively Algebra is better than Calculus. Yet without Calculus man would have never set foot on the moon, so Calculus was better for that task.

5- This competition is where I see a big problem. I don't like BAB, and get pissed off very quickly on people trying to sell me a game I have no need for, by trying to sell me on BAB. I don't need 3rd or 4th to play D&D. I did it for 20 years prior to WotC owning the brand.

Also it was never a question of which was better, that is something others brought into the discussion with their sales pitches. I only asked what problem people actually have with THAC0.

Murtak: brought forth crap about 3rd, which has nothing to do with THAC0, but is only an edition war starter. It does not get in touch with THAC0 itself.

Prior to 3rd if people were having a problem with THAC0 and trying to design a new system, they would not have had 3rd to look at, and likewise it isn't required to discus THAC0. It is comparing things that need not be. Which I think is the real problem people have with THAC0, thus the term grognard being thrown around.

So If people would address THAC0 itself rather than trying to compare it, then it can be seen as what problems THAC0 itself had, if any.

Again, I am seeing mostly the problem people have with THAC0 is the advertising done by WotC. I have seen little of people discus THAC0 without having to compare it to ANY other "to-hit" system.

Why is that?

1-People never used THAC0 and are just repeating stuff they have heard and read on the internet.
2-There really was no problem until WotC said there was. (see Ze game will remain ze same 4th edition promo video)

Or do you have a "better" idea why people NEED to compare the systems to discuss only ONE of them?

When you are discussing something in the Super Bowl, must you mention how something was done in the World Series/World Cup/etc?

[shadzar]

Dodging, and blocking are not a part of AC. They would produce a penalty to hit if you succeed, not an improvement to take a hit.

If dodging isn't a part of AC, then why do you receive your Dex modifier to AC?

Also, feel free to address my questions to you.

Because they never figured out what else to do.

They had a system that could not tell the opposite of "short". Was it "long" or "tall"?

AC meant armor, but it meant both preventing damage, and preventing hits. It should only have meant preventing damage, but there was no "to-damage" roll.

Not to mention dodge and parry were optional rules. So it was understood that the system was not built around them. They were jsut provided for you to use if you wanted to.

Parrying (Optional Rule)

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

[Psychic Robot]

As a system, AC is both preventing damage and preventing hits. It's an abstract mess.

Here's what I need to know from you in order to demonstrate that THAC0 is better than BAB.

1. How is making smaller numbers better more intuitive than making larger numbers better?

2. How is having addition symbols represent subtraction symbols (+3 chainmail actually means AC 5 - 3) more intuitive than having addition symbols represent addition symbols (+3 chaimail actually means AC 5 + 3)?

3. Why is a system based on subtraction (which is more difficult than addition for 99% of the human race) better than an easier system based on addition?

4. Suppose we have two action resolution systems. With the first, we have a system where you roll a d20 and add modifiers to determine success. With the second, we have a system where you roll a d20, add modifiers, and then multiply by two to determine success. Which one of these is superior and why?

Ball's in your court.

[Data Vampire]

So an AC starting at 10 and getting better, makes no sense, [snip]

The average die roll on a d20 would be 10.5, so starting at 10 means that all things being equal the to hit ratio is about 52.5%. So there is some sense to it.

[shadzar]

As a system, AC is both preventing damage and preventing hits. It's an abstract mess.

Ball's in your court.

1st part I agree AC is a mess, second part, not it is in your court. I respond to posts in order. Yours was on a new page. Any post that may get long, I respond to separately so as not to corrupt the database, or run out of room to post.

[&#32769;&#23376;]

I'll butt in here to point at that S. doesn't seem to be trying to prove that THAC0 is better than BaB, only to refute the claim that THAC0 is somehow inherently evil. So asking him to prove it to be superior to BaB is simply to talk past him, not address his claims PR.

[shadzar]

So an AC starting at 10 and getting better, makes no sense, [snip]

The average die roll on a d20 would be 10.5, so starting at 10 means that all things being equal the to hit ratio is about 52.5%. So there is some sense to it.

The mean you mean.

A d20 is a linear curve, so the average roll is each of those number that come up on average with the same frequency.

The mean of the range provided by a d20 is 10.5.

[Leress]

What is the real problem people have with THAC0?

My problem with THAC0 was that it was very counter-intuitive since penalties increased the number and bonuses subtracted. On a meta-game level it didn't make much room for a wider range of AC numbers since the range was smaller.

That was one of the many problems I had with 2ed.

[Fenrisulfr]

The mean you mean.

A d20 is a linear curve, so the average roll is each of those number that come up on average with the same frequency.

The mean of the range provided by a d20 is 10.5.

What the hell is this? Mean and average are the same thing.

"The mean is the most commonly-used type of average and is often referred to simply as the average."

To calculate the mean you add all the possible outcomes together and divide by the number of outcomes. To calculate the average you also add all the possible outcomes together and divide by the number of outcomes. It's a difference in terminology, stop being a dick. Either way, mean or average, it's still 10.5 on a d20, so a baseline number of 10 or 11 for the average case makes the most sense with anything that uses that die as a RNG.

[Guyr Adamantine]

(Guyr seems to have labeled my quote as PR, but has still managed to bold the key part)

Whoops, my bad!

The mean you mean.

A d20 is a linear curve, so the average roll is each of those number that come up on average with the same frequency.

The mean of the range provided by a d20 is 10.5.

Coming from the guy who mocked our math skills.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ability checks being used for everything that required skill.

The skill system (or lack thereof) was something that I considered good. A PC's profession was "adventurer", and any self-respecting adventurer could pick up an esoteric skill like Luke Skywalker on Dagobah or just in media res ("Can you play the violin?" "I dunno, I never tried."); abilities served to separate broad areas of character knowledge, kinda like Black Forest. We didn't have fixed DCs: challenges started at level-appropriate (roll vs. ability) and went from there. Level 1: "You see a level-appropriate chasm (10 ft.) Roll DEX to jump across." Level 10: "You see a level-appropriate chasm (50 ft.) Roll DEX to jump across." It kept shit on the RNG, and that was good.

So, it's like the in/famous skill DC chart on pg 42 of the 4e DMG. Except you add or subtract from the d20 roll (or the target number?) depending on whether the chasm is lower level than you or higher level, rather than just add to the DC as level goes up. Fair enough. It's been so long since I've played 2e, I can't remember if there are any guidelines to that effect.

[PhoneLobster]

You're the only person aside from Elennsar to make it there.

Are you sure your ignore list isn't still only one person long with two names on it?

The names even SOUND the same.

[TavishArtair]

Shadzar, you are irrelevant, your questions are irrelevant, and you have nothing to say.

Go away.

[shadzar]

Shadzar, you are irrelevant, your questions are irrelevant, and you have nothing to say.

Go away.

I can only imagine people around you and how they feel, but for their sake I have some advice for you. Put a dick in your mouth and make yourself useful for a change. Keep it there, and if one isn't enough try two or three and switch them around so as to not feel like you ever have to speak again.

[shadzar]

What is the real problem people have with THAC0?

My problem with THAC0 was that it was very counter-intuitive since penalties increased the number and bonuses subtracted. On a meta-game level it didn't make much room for a wider range of AC numbers since the range was smaller.

That was one of the many problems I had with 2ed.

It is also counter-intuitive to drive a combustion based car to make traveling more healthy/safe for you as well. Hell putting any safety device in a combustion based vehicle is counter intuitive. So what is your point?

Well the range was set by Gary. Zeb just took the tables and made a small chart with them and a formula with that chart, since people of a certain age were supposed to be playing the game. Ages 12 and up.

That means you could do the simple math in it without Gary's term papers rules from 1st edition.

So you would have preferred 2nd edition kept with the tables for THAC0 and everything else?

[TavishArtair]

Shadzar, you are irrelevant, your questions are irrelevant, and you have nothing to say.

Go away.

I can only imagine people around you and how they feel, but for their sake I have some advice for you. Put a dick in your mouth and make yourself useful for a change. Keep it there, and if one isn't enough try two or three and switch them around so as to not feel like you ever have to speak again.

I would, except you sucked everyone's cock and turned them off blowjobs forever the moment the bile coming out of your mouth touched their erections or lack thereof.

[Orca]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. It's such a tiny, tiny thing.

[Psychic Robot]

Are you sure your ignore list isn't still only one person long with two names on it?

The names even SOUND the same.

Doubtful. Elennsar was...frustrating, but he didn't name-call, if I recall correctly.

I'll butt in here to point at that S. doesn't seem to be trying to prove that THAC0 is better than BaB, only to refute the claim that THAC0 is somehow inherently evil. So asking him to prove it to be superior to BaB is simply to talk past him, not address his claims PR.

Then I misunderstood. Perhaps if he stopped with the "you're an idiot if you think THAC0 is confusing" rhetoric, I wouldn't have done so.

[PhoneLobster]

but he didn't name-call, if I recall correctly.

You recall incorrectly.