What is wrong with THAC0?

[shadzar]

Shitting diamonds? Who in the fuck comes up with this stupid shit?

Who comes up with a fighter being allowed to attempt to pick a lock? I played 2E for about 8 years give or take, and I never found a DM that would allow something like that.

Then 2nd edition wasn't your problem it was a stupid DM. While there is nothing that says how a fighter picks a lock, or explicitly that he can; there is also nothing that says he cannot.

Oddly you would then refer to 2nd's version of page 42 in the DMG, which would actually be in the foreward of the book.

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

[shadzar]

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.

In the majority of instances, bigger equates to better. Having a higher number for armor class should indicate that you are better protected, not less protected.

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.

You still haven't addressed how counter-intuitive it is to use an addition sign to represent subtraction. If it were -3 chainmail, it would make more sense.

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.

Strawman. I said it was easier for the majority of people to add rather than subtract. Don't do that in the future.

To reiterate:

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- 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.

You avoided the question completely. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

I'll even re-write the question for you:

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. In this scenario, you are trying to create an accessible system that most easily allows people to learn the results of their die rolls..

Lots of stuff.

The reason that people hate THAC0 is because it's completely counter-intuitive.

1- Meta-game vs in game. The PC's know nothing of THAC0 or BAB or whatever.

2- Math is math. Whether you feel it is intuitive of not, means nothing. You must still use all 4 operators at different times.

3- No, you are sating your opinion as fact. So you are presenting something incorrect, so there is no way I could address it with a strawman, since you have not presented a cohesive argument yet. 99% of the world agrees with me that your argument was flawed based on the premise that 99% of the world finds addition easier than subtraction. I can make up statistics as well.

4- "superior" is a subjective idea, and cannot be definitively answered.

4b- The rewrite isn't even a question, and fails prey to the same bad logic.
1) I am not trying to create a system to do anything, it already existed.
2) If I were creating a system, I would not use anything so far mentioned in this thread, be it THAC0 or BAB, or OD&D, BD&D, etc. This has nothing to do with any of those systems being "bad", they would just be the wrong systems for what I would be trying to do.

[Starmaker]

It has a range of ACs that means nothing is untouchable within the system.

I had an AC of -31 in a 1e videogame, DEX and items only.

EDIT:
Also, I googled "addition", "subtraction" and "easier" with variations. The majority of posters consider addition easier, except when talking about 1)the way Koreans teach math and 2)computers. There's a number of scientific articles on teaching basic math which deal with why addition is easier that are pay-to-read so I have no way to check whether they do contain anything worthwhile or are full of the "subtraction is a tool of the devil" crap, but the fact itself seems to be considered predominantly true in the US.

[tzor]

What is the real problem people have with THAC0?

It doesn’t address the basic feature in the AD&D to hit tables where a natural 20 gave you an extra +4 in your range of amour class to hit, allowing for the rule that required magic to hit above that range. But, it’s really not all that bad. One can get over that. In fact I did get over it, some twenty years ago.

Ever since I discovered up is good, positive is always better than negative, I’ve given up on THAC0. It’s not really the THAC0, it’s having armor class that starts at 10 and goes all the way down to -10 that over time grates me. If I had a penny for every time I got confused by that strange AC thing I could buy a Big Mac now. (And I’m talking the full meal; supersized.)

[Lich-Loved]

Ya see, I get busy for a few days and come back to find 8 fucking pages of win I missed out on. I haven't laughed this hard in too long.

I need to get back here more often.

[tzor]

I had an AC of -31 in a 1e videogame, DEX and items only.

You had a what???? Oh wait, you said "videogame."

In the original 1E edition, there were offsets so that armor and dex didn't mix (and there was a max enchantment of armor based on metal type) and I don't recall the armorless magic options giving you that much advantage over the potential AC of a tank.

I seem to recall that negative single digits were the common range of most 1E high level armor class but it could also be my faulty memory at work here.

[mean_liar]

Ya see, I get busy for a few days and come back to find 8 fucking pages of win I missed out on. I haven't laughed this hard in too long.

I need to get back here more often.

I can't even be assed to read this junk once I realized it was half composed of shadzar's strange posts.

EDIT: shadzar is not souran... so, my bad. I still won't be reading this.

[Username17]

I seem to recall that negative single digits were the common range of most 1E high level armor class but it could also be my faulty memory at work here.

Remember when AC started at 8 instead of 10? Good times.

Yeah, back in the day the chart only went to AC -6. Eventually they decided that this did not adequately express the badassitude of prismatic and titanium dragons so they extended it to -10. Eventually even that became insufficient to express peoples' hatred and ACs of less than -10 were brought in. They never produced a to-hit chart to handle those lower ACs, but extrapolating it wasn't really that hard. At least they had the decency to explain that the first Death Knight they trotted out with an AC of -14 was breaking the rules. When they hard force dragons drop to -20 they didn't even do that.

But yeah, back in the day magic armor of any kind was "weightless" so there was really no reason to not wear magic field plate and shield. Which is yes, AC 0 to start. Both at +5 and you have an AC of -10. Add a Ring of Greater Protection and slap a Cloak of Displacement on and you have an AC of -14 before you count your Dex bonus or get buffed by the wizard.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Good-bye, shadzar. While I am incredibly reluctant to add anyone to my ignore list, your inability to debate this topic in an intellectually honest manner has pushed the bile to the back of my throat. You're on ignore.

Perhaps having multiple people add you to ignore in one thread should tell you a little something about yourself.

[Josh_Kablack]

I had an AC of -31 in a 1e videogame, DEX and items only.

You had a what???? Oh wait, you said "videogame."

In the original 1E edition, there were offsets so that armor and dex didn't mix (and there was a max enchantment of armor based on metal type) and I don't recall the armorless magic options giving you that much advantage over the potential AC of a tank.

I seem to recall that negative single digits were the common range of most 1E high level armor class but it could also be my faulty memory at work here.

Wizardry I (circe 1979) used a blatant rip of 1st Ed AD&D, but the coding could only display 2 character for AC. So if you managed to get your AC better than -9 it just displayed as "LO"

[Judging__Eagle]

FYI, I still am waiting to see if I can redeem someone for full value.

It's been 3 pages now. I'm not seeing anything of any value, let alone full value.

I guess it's not possible for the person I asked to make something simple and functional.

I guess I should have asked Frank/K/Maxus/Koumei/Phonelobster/Catharz/Ubernoob/Kaelik/or anyone else to help me solve that problem. Since the person in question is obviously incapable.

Not facing problems, and being an artful dodger is cool and all when you're on a weaksauce forum.

This is the gaming den though. The amount of lurkers here are staggering. There are people who I would never suspect to look at this site, that do so. They also tell me that they are actually afraid to post here, for whatever reasons they may have.

The problem with bringing something that works on a weaksauce forum is that TGD has kung fu masters, rotweillers and godzillas (or should I say... CoDzillas); the veritable cream of the interbutts. Meaning that artful dodgers have to literally run away, and have no chance to survive. Despite whatever time they try to make for themselves, when faced with real threats, they really are best to running off.

[Doom]

Wow, I vaguely remember that about Wizardry.

But, I don't remember 1E (if that's the same as AD&D) as having an offset so that armor and dex didn't mix. I recall it in 2E. It really wasn't that big deal, since in those days, you rolled for stats, and had class-based armor restrictions that simply could not be circumvented (except the elves/elven chainmail thing which only addressed one situation).

So, by the time you put your 18 in strength to be a fighter, if you had another good roll it likely went into constitution to get the OTHER bonus that only fighters got...and if your character had 3 stats of 16+, people just knew you were cheating on the rolls anyway. Keep in mind, fighter was the 'default' class if your rolls weren't good enough to be anything else, so the 'high dex plate wearer' was rare enough not to matter much.

The only other class likely to have heavy armor and high dex would be the cleric, which, again, was more likely to fill up wisdom, strength, con, and charisma before getting around to dex.

[mean_liar]

THAC0 worked well enough; it was also clunky and is better off replaced with the current mechanic.

I didn't need Tree Climbing feat in order to climb a tree for example.

Bullshit.

Climb DC 15: Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.

How does the d20 SRD have anything to do with 2nd edition?

...

Since Jewish people don't eat pork, then nobody should.

...

Found the link I have been trying to explain! Read that. Learn Something. Don't let the language confused you.

THIS THREAD IS A PIECE OF SHIT.

KILL IT.

[Red_Rob]

The rules are only guidelines.

I guess this is what referred to as the Oberoni Fallacy in action?

I don't need another system since I have one that works perfectly fine.

So basically the argument is "it's what I'm used to". Well you can't really argue against that, as the last 8 pages have shown.

When it comes down to it Shadzar, you have an emotional attachment to THACO. That's why people arguing against you with logic are failing to connect, because you're not discussing logically you're making up logic to fit your emotional attachment.

Which is fine, but you could at least admit that and save whatever dignity and reputation you have left on these boards. Even your example about the car is faulty. Newer cars are objectively better, they have more mod cons, power steering, safety features etc. The reason you prefer your '69 Chevelle is nostalgic, not logical. So accept that and go on your way.

[TOZ]

KILL IT.

Then animate it and watch it shamble on for 8 more pages. And then kill it again WITH FIRE.

[Judging__Eagle]

Red Rob has a good point.

[shadzar]

It has a range of ACs that means nothing is untouchable within the system.

I had an AC of -31 in a 1e videogame, DEX and items only.

EDIT:
Also, I googled "addition", "subtraction" and "easier" with variations. The majority of posters consider addition easier, except when talking about 1)the way Koreans teach math and 2)computers. There's a number of scientific articles on teaching basic math which deal with why addition is easier that are pay-to-read so I have no way to check whether they do contain anything worthwhile or are full of the "subtraction is a tool of the devil" crap, but the fact itself seems to be considered predominantly true in the US.

1- None of the video games worked right. Just like AD&D Core Rules doesn't work right for creating shit, just like that eTools, doesn't work right for creating shit.

People that made games couldn't convert D&D directly over, or understand it well enough to.

That is where MMOs and non-licensed RPGs were born. They made rules FOR the computer, so they could understand how to code it.

It is like why accounting programs don't work for accountants. Programmers don't know all about accounting, and unless an accountant sits with a programmer to make the program, then it will miss things. Don't give me this Intuit shit, because it doesn't work right. You cannot use any Intuit program and it do the accounting right across the board, because there is no one way for accounting with states having their own rules that are NOT properly researched (yet) but the programmers.

for the edit:

1- Maybe the way they were taught is the problem. Remember they still cannot figure out how to teach math, and are always changing the methods. Yet the math never changes.

2- So your friend Bob, told you of a website written by Henry McDuff PhD that had some info about teaching math, but without either of you reading it you cannot say what is in it? That is very helpful.

[shadzar]

What is the real problem people have with THAC0?

It doesn’t address the basic feature in the AD&D to hit tables where a natural 20 gave you an extra +4 in your range of amour class to hit, allowing for the rule that required magic to hit above that range. But, it’s really not all that bad. One can get over that. In fact I did get over it, some twenty years ago.

Ever since I discovered up is good, positive is always better than negative, I’ve given up on THAC0. It’s not really the THAC0, it’s having armor class that starts at 10 and goes all the way down to -10 that over time grates me. If I had a penny for every time I got confused by that strange AC thing I could buy a Big Mac now. (And I’m talking the full meal; supersized.)

Thanks for proving what I have thought for years. THAC0 wasn't the problem it is the AC. I agree it is funky, but the system works, so I wasn't bothered.

I went into 2nd, like 1st. It was a new game. It was just VERY damn compatible even with its changes so I wasn't worried about the conversion of tables to formula. Maybe Zeb et all should have reworked the ACs when they made the THAC0 formula.

Thanks for a clear and to the point answer.

[tzor]

But yeah, back in the day magic armor of any kind was "weightless" so there was really no reason to not wear magic field plate and shield. Which is yes, AC 0 to start. Both at +5 and you have an AC of -10. Add a Ring of Greater Protection and slap a Cloak of Displacement on and you have an AC of -14 before you count your Dex bonus or get buffed by the wizard.

Yes but that the best metal enchantment in the core book. I thought you couldn't wear rings with the field plate as the field plate assumed gauntlets but I could be wrong here and my group houserulled so many uber magic items that such detailed rules as written weren't important. Seriously, they had "teeth of spell storing." (I won't even get to the monks who used M16's of sharpness.) Also didn't the magic armor (although weightless) still have the max dex bonus atttibute of the base armor or am I getting senile again. Still my point stands, it's a far cry from -31 and we are talking epic here.

Death knight and the force dragons was one of the problem of Dragon Magazine creep, the same guys who brought you the anti-paladin. Half of the Dragon was pure gold (I still think that the first edition of cantrips was actually good and their coverage of firearms and canon was excellent) and the other half were game breakers.

[TarkisFlux]

Based on the numbers that the 2e (or AD&D 2e) system uses, how would you make it so that I could have my 20-something younger sister learn and understand it.

I guess I should have asked Frank/K/Maxus/Koumei/Phonelobster/Catharz/Ubernoob/Kaelik/or anyone else to help me solve that problem. Since the person in question is obviously incapable.

Well shit JE, if you're going to open it up to anyone...

Determining what AC you hit with THAC0:
[*]Roll your d20.
[*]Add all of your to hit mods from strength and magic and whatever.
[*]Compare this modified to-hit roll with your THAC0. Whatever you have to add to your modified roll (and it may be a negative number) is the AC that you hit. Alternately you can just subtract your modified to hit roll from your THAC0, but whatever.
[*]Compare the AC that you hit with your target's AC. If their AC is greater than or equal to the AC that you hit, you have struck them.

Example1 - You have a THAC0 of 18 and +3 to hit from your strength. You roll a 19, for a total modified roll of 22. You would need to add -4 to this roll to equal your THAC0, so you hit an AC of -4. Alternately, 18-(19+3) = -4, so it's the same thing. Anyone with an AC of -4 or greater has been struck by you.

Example2 - You have a THAC0 of 12 and +5 to hit from strength and magic. You roll a 2, for a total modified roll of 7. You would need to add 5 to this roll to equal your THAC0, so you hit an AC of 5. Alternately, 12-(2+5) = 5. Anyone with an AC of 5 or greater has been struck by you.

That about what you were looking for?

Edit - Aside from the decreasing ACs, this is really very very similar to the 3e system numerically. If you flip the ACs around so they go 10+ and just change THAC0 to THAC20 (without adjusting the actual tables), you have a system where the DC to hit AC 20 decreases as you level up and the better you roll the higher the AC you hit.

You can also set the to-hit DC to a fixed number instead of a scaling one (20 to hit AC 20 sounds good to me) and then give the drop in DC as a bonus to your to hit rolls instead. This just pushes numbers to the other side of the equation and doesn't actually change anything... but it gives you BAB.

So 3e really is the 2e system just with AC turned around and the level based to hit bonus no longer hidden away in a downward scaling DC.

[shadzar]

I don't need another system since I have one that works perfectly fine.

So basically the argument is "it's what I'm used to". Well you can't really argue against that, as the last 8 pages have shown.

When it comes down to it Shadzar, you have an emotional attachment to THACO. That's why people arguing against you with logic are failing to connect, because you're not discussing logically you're making up logic to fit your emotional attachment.

No dipshit, it is to the fact that I have a brain and don't need to buy every new thing on the market just because Tom Bumblefuck does. I am able to think for myself, and THAC0 works within the system I prefer. I don't like 3rd or 4th edition. I never really liked other RPGs. So why give a shit about finding a new way to do it when they way I have now works.

I don't waste effort into making needles things. Remember necessity is the mother of invention. I don't have the necessity to invent a new system.

Since you want to bring stupidity, then I will ask the obverse of you. Are you that tired of your pathetic life, that you always need to change stuff just to have interest? Is it ADD(ADHD)? Are you unable to enjoy something as is? If you want to create your own, then why even play any published RPG or game? Instead why not just go out and make the one you are looking for?

I find it illogical that people bitch about someone liking something and trying to sell them on their version to the point of harassing them about it and stalking them about it like anyone that I have ever met that plays 3rd. "You need to play 3rd because it is better than 2nd." No I don't, because it isn't.

Why are you people so brainwashed at keeping up with the Jones'?

But some of those 3tards, realized what 2nd edition players were saying when the same thing happened with 4th. People trying to convert them before the books were out of the printers. People that played 3rd just decided to keep playing 3rd. It has nothing to do with emotional attachment, they, just like me, found the game they like and don't need to jump on the latest fad's bandwagon.

Maybe when other people grow up and stop thinking they must buy the newest shiny shiny thing then they will be able to enjoy something other than just following the "in crowd".

Did you ever think of that?

3rd didn't work for me. 4th doesn't work for those who liked 3rd. HELL, 3.5 didn't work for those that liked 3.0! It is called personal choice. But boo-hoo for you because everyone doesn't play what you want them to play, so you don't get to be the center of attention. So like many you think you must convert people to the newest shiny-shiny.

Grow up. I like THAC0 because it works for the game I play. I don't like 3rd because of MANY things. Unlimited AC range of the BAB system is just a minor part of why I don't like it. There is a ton more suck in 3rd than just that.

Maybe you are just too emotional about your system to think other people can like something different than you? Probably why you didn't address the main focus of the thread and just tell what it is you DON'T like about THAC0, but instead attacked the poster, rather than the topic?

[NineInchNall]

So your argument, then, is that because it works sufficiently, there's no reason to or benefit in devising a system that works better according to a set of criteria?

[Username17]

Oh crap, if we're just going to give a go at explaining the 2nd edition AD&D THAC0 system according to its own logic, let's give that a go:

The lower the DC of a task, the easier that task is.
THAC0 represents how good you are at fighting, and by extension how easy "hitting fools" is for you. The THAC0 is the base DC for you to hit an enemy.
Armor Class is a difficulty modifier. The more armored the enemy, the more difficult that particular attack is going to be. Therefore you subtract the AC from your to-hit DC.

Then you roll the die. If you get the DC, you hit. Otherwise you don't.

---

It's not that you can't see the logic, or that you can't do it. It's that THAC0 is exactly two extra steps that there is absolutely no reason to do.

Yes but that the best metal enchantment in the core book. I thought you couldn't wear rings with the field plate as the field plate assumed gauntlets but I could be wrong here and my group houserulled so many uber magic items that such detailed rules as written weren't important. Seriously, they had "teeth of spell storing." (I won't even get to the monks who used M16's of sharpness.) Also didn't the magic armor (although weightless) still have the max dex bonus atttibute of the base armor or am I getting senile again.

I think that's you getting senile again. While I remember drawn out arguments about whether you could wear magic gloves or gauntlets with field plate, the gauntlet slot has been distinct from the ring slot since forever.

Of course, how many people "figured out" that they could wear rings on their toes/ears/penis? Ugh. I hate 3e's explicit magic item slots, but I hate AD&D's vaguely implied magic item slots even more.

-Username17

[shadzar]

I thought you couldn't wear rings with the field plate as the field plate assumed gauntlets

That is always how we did it as well. Which ruleset specifically and I will look it up. I recall the rule of "no rings and gauntlets" but don't know where to look for it now.

Also a thing about the older editions. As moving forward I think many assumed that you had played previous editions so didn't rewrite the rules over. Like RC finally collecting and updating BECMI all into one book with a uniformed set of rules.

Well I only have the Mentzer red basic set, not the Moldvay/Cook one, so cannot look that one up, and no longer have my Companion or Immortals books to look in there either. If not in RC, then I wouldn't be able to check on them.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Of course, how many people "figured out" that they could wear rings on their toes/ears/penis? Ugh. I hate 3e's explicit magic item slots, but I hate AD&D's vaguely implied magic item slots even more.

-Username17

I guess after a certain level all adventurers became tricked-out perverts. Of course this made the male adventurer better than his female counterpart since you can stick a lot more rings onto a human dick.

ZOMG SEXISM