2e to 3e ability score changes were a bad decision.

[Juton]

I can think of two arguments in favour of something like 2e's stat system.
The first being things stay on the RNG. The bonus most characters got on an attack roll from strength was in the range of 0-3 over their career versus 3.X's range of 0-7 for a first level character and into the teens for a high level character. Same story with dexterity, constitution.

The second is since there is a smaller range of stat modifiers having low stats doesn't gimp your character as hard as in 3.X. A lot of groups in my area still seem to roll their stats, so this can still be a feature.

One of the big pervasive problems of 3.X is that numbers do not stay on the RNG. 2e's stat system can work for a different game but it won't work in 3.X because if the monster gets a crazy AC the Fighter should at least get a crazy strength bonus to hit.

[shadzar]

The problem was generally that while this mechanic works well if you have enough categories, it also requires that you consult the chart every time you want to configure your bonuses (usually only once per level, but every time you have to make an ad-hoc calculation).

Shh! Careful, or shadzar will smell the blood in the water and talk about how 'back in the good ol' days' looking things up on a chart was how you played the game, and getting away from that is not D&D.

pssst! THAC0 removed the chart lookup for a formula, and i can subtract negative numbers so have no problems with THAC0 as a formula representation of a chart, rather than having to write out the chart over...and over...and over..

i can do math at the grade-level of the lowest age on the game unlike MANY others.

Ages 11 and up = 5th grade...

yes, YES, i am smarter than a 5th grader...so i can use THAC0 and dont need a table.

[tzor]

Assuming you get rid of the variations in the stat modifiers so every ability has 15 is +1, 16 is +2, 6 is -1, 5 is -2, and so forth, is there any merit at all to the 2e-esque ability system?

A key element of the <3E stat system is not being discussed. That element is key to understanding all differences that follow. In 1 and 2E it was damn hard to get stat changes (save for againg effects). In 3E attribute progression is a part of the game. Thus for the <3E stat system, attributes are still determined by the bell curve even at higher levels while level creep moves all important stats up as the character progresses in 3E.

(I can't believe how many times I swapped 2 and 3)

[tzor]

yes, YES, i am smarter than a 5th grader...so i can use THAC0 and dont need a table.

The use of THAC0 effectlively eliminated the multiple 20 portion of the to hit table. This was repaced by the law of the natural 20, but even then this resulted in a different mechanic.

Let's say you are a first level fighter with an 18/51 strength (+2 to hit). When you roll a 17 (+2) you hit AC 1; when you woll a 18 (+2) you hit AC -5 (when not applying the optional rule on the multiple 20's).

That's BIG, and one of the reasons why the stat limits of 1E are a big deal. 2E made a lot of AD&D linear. 1E was massively non linear; you really need to have completed high school math to really understand a lot of the details and really you probably needed a study in differential equations to be able to properly "balance" the system (which it clearly was not, but that's beside the point). That's why few later writers would touch that part with a 10' pole; they all only knew 5th grade math.

(That's one of the odd things about learning the game from ROTC engineers in college ... you look at the numbers differently.)

[shadzar]

Let's say you are a first level fighter with an 18/51 strength (+2 to hit). When you roll a 17 (+2) you hit AC 1; when you woll a 18 (+2) you hit AC -5 (when not applying the optional rule on the multiple 20's).

you mean the tables from 1st would hit AC -5?

2nd:

THAC0 - modifier = adjusted THAC0
20-2=18

so the 18 roll hits AC 0

got to get my 1st books out of the closet for a cleaning and to add some more desiccant anyway...

[tzor]

you mean the tables from 1st would hit AC -5?

Yes. There was an optional rule to consider only the first 20 as a 20 that you could get with bonuses / penalties added. That rule also had it that a 21 meant you needed a natural 20 plus a +1 weapon or better. That rule is even further than the 2E rules. Under that rule a 1st level fighter could not hit a -6 AC unless he (she) had a +1 or greater magic weapon.

(Remember: to hit tables is are the DMG not in the PHB in 1E.)

[shadzar]

you mean the tables from 1st would hit AC -5?

Yes. There was an optional rule to consider only the first 20 as a 20 that you could get with bonuses / penalties added. That rule also had it that a 21 meant you needed a natural 20 plus a +1 weapon or better. That rule is even further than the 2E rules. Under that rule a 1st level fighter could not hit a -6 AC unless he (she) had a +1 or greater magic weapon.

(Remember: to hit tables is are the DMG not in the PHB in 1E.)

EVERYTHING is in the DMG in 1st! (but you only need the MM to play SHHH!)

im airing the books out before trying to read, but the "necromancer" cover is in front of the fan so it smells les so i can look at it after feeding my face and a page magnifier is already beside it so i can read the book.

funny how the 20 became a called shot, and 3rd repeats the re-roll a 20 to see if it does this or that, going back to a bonus/penalty from a 20 in 1st to a confirm roll in 3.x.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

One thing that has become a pet peeve for me during the various edition wars over the years is the notion that more streamlined mechanics is a bad thing. There are people out there who think that this is, and that it dumbs the game down. We have a word for these people: Fucking idiots.

To those assholes, I say this: No, THAC0 is not impossible, and not even all that hard, really. But it's clunky, overcomplicated and counter-intuitive. I'm glad your ability to do it makes you feel special, but the change to BAB makes the game run smoother. Anything that makes the game smoother is automatically better, and anything that makes it run rougher is automatically worse. You don't get to argue about this, it's objective. If you don't believe this, you're in fucking denial.

[tzor]

I think it is intitutively obvious ... BAB >>> THAC0. My only problem is that both tend to assume a flat linear infinite progression system that invariably will blow the RNG right out of the water; unless it is perfectly balanced and then ... why even fucking bother?

Ideas like (plus should always be a good thing) is a wonderful idea (unless you think that the player is using cheating dice where if half the rolls needed were low he's screwing himself half of the time). But it's the subtle things that get dropped from each edition, because the designers of edition X+1 didn't understand what the designer of X was doing and the designer of X didn't bother explaining why (or even probably knew why in the first place) he did the things the way he did.

The result is that most editions merely swapped one set of problems for another. Clearly there were some changes that were good; but there were also some changes that were bad. Such is life.

[shadzar]

One thing that has become a pet peeve for me during the various edition wars over the years is the notion that more streamlined mechanics is a bad thing.

one persons's streamlined, is another persons confined choices, or limit of choices.

take skills for example, having a list of them limits player choice to come up with anything when it is not something written on the character sheet. and all skills reflect something from the ability scores, so an ability check would suffice to handle anything done with them.

THAC0 is no clunkier than ANY other to-hit mechanic.

@Tzor: THAC0 didnt have infinites, but a finite limit. VERY few things had an AC outside of the 21 partitioned range.
________________
it is always also funny when the majority of people bitching about THAC0 are really just bitching about AC anyway. How many times in the past decade has it been proven that THAC0 and BAB are the same exact thing, just the number line flipped and shifted over... the math is still EXACTLY the same process.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

THAC0 is no clunkier than ANY other to-hit mechanic.

Either you're a trolling liar or a goddamned idiot, and either way you can go suck a big barrel of hickory-smoked dick. THAC0 requires you subtract positive bonuses and add negative penalties. That alone is stupid and unintuitive.

[shadzar]

you are thinking of the roll under systems like ability checks and saving throws.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

"Rath is still a 7th level fighter. He has a strength of 18/80 (Which gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll). He fights with a longsword +1. His THAC0 is 14, modified to 12 by his Strength and to 11 by his weapon.

Positive bonuses lower your THACO.

[spaceLem]

Positive bonuses lower your THACO.

It makes more sense if your THAC0 always stays constant.

The positive bonus modifies your d20 roll, as does the opponent's AC (so an AC +5 gives you +5 to your roll, making it easier to hit your THAC0, which is a number needed to hit).

No, I'm not defending THAC0.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I apologize, my last post quoted the wrong part of the page. It quoted an example, when there was actual crunch above it that outright said it.

The example above is quite simple - in a typical AD&D game combat situation, THAC0 is modified by weapon bonuses, Strength bonuses and the like (the next section, "Modifiers to the Attack Roll" lists the specifics of these modifiers). Figure Strength and weapon modifiers, subtract the total from the base THAC0, and record this modified THAC0 with each weapon on the character sheet. Subtract the target's Armor Class from this modified THAC0 when determining the to-hit number

Emphasis mine. You definately do subtract positive bonuses and add negative penalties with THAC0.

This paragraph also brings up another interesting wrinkle. To wit: "Subtract the target's Armor Class from this modified THAC0 when determining the to-hit number". I don't know about you guys, so maybe my experience was not normal, but when I played 2e (And yes, I did actually start playing before 3e) I never played under a DM who actually gave out the AC of the enemies we fought.

[shadzar]

"Rath is still a 7th level fighter. He has a strength of 18/80 (Which gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll). He fights with a longsword +1. His THAC0 is 14, modified to 12 by his Strength and to 11 by his weapon.

Positive bonuses lower your THACO.

like above, you CAN manipulate the formula anyway you want.

Hit = (THAC0 => AC)

The first step in making an attack roll is to find the number needed to hit the target. Subtract the Armor Class of the target from the attacker's THAC0. (Remember that if the Armor Class is a negative number, you add it to the attacker's THAC0.) The character has to roll the resulting number, or higher, on 1d20 to hit the target.



Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

the first problem with this section is the player doesnt need to find the target number, because the player doesnt have the AC... but lets follow along with Zeb as the math will work out in the end.

THAC0 - AC = target number

Rath has reached 7th level as a fighter. His THAC0 is 14 (found on Table 53), meaning he needs to roll a 14 or better to hit a character or creature of Armor Class 0. In combat, Rath, attacking an orc wearing chainmail armor (AC 6), needs to roll an 8 (14-6=8) to hit the orc. An 8 or higher on 1d20 will hit the orc.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

THAC0 - AC = target number

14 - AC = target number

14- (6) = target number

8 = target number

well Zeb was right!

but let us say that the player doesnt hacve the AC, then how does that work?

a little algebra and you can flip around the equation, because you have 2 unknowns...at first...

THAC0 - AC = target number

THAC0 - AC = target number die roll

THAC0 - die roll - AC = die roll - die roll

THAC0 - die roll - AC = 0

well zero dont help so letes get that AC by itself....

THAC0 - die roll - AC + AC = 0 + AC

THAC0 - die roll = AC

THAC0 - die roll = AC AC hit

now let us plug in a number NOT to find out the target number to roll, but to find out if the 1d20 roll hits, and WHAT it can hit.

14 - 8 = 6

if Rath's character rolled an 8 he can hit AC 6...that is in agreement to the quote. BUT that isnt the ONLY AC he can hit, that 8 also hits any number greater than AC 6, so would hit AC 7 also. just as though rolling greater than 8 will hit the AC 6.

the wording makes it seem that 8 exactly is needed, when 8 or more will work...so what happens when Rath rolls a 9?

14 - 9 = 5

rolling a 9 here means that Rath hit anything with the follow ACs: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

this is where the problem comes in the players wanting the AC for things, rather than them giving the DM the AC the attack CAN hit. The monsters arent in the PHB afterall...

onto the one you quoted....

Rath is still a 7th-level fighter. He has a Strength of 18/80 (which gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll). He fights with a long sword +1. His THAC0 is 14, modified to 12 by his Strength and to 11 by his weapon. If attacking the orc from the earlier example, Rath would have to roll a 5 or higher on 1d20 in order to hit (11-6=5).

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

going from our NEW formula lets see what Rath is doing now....

THAC0 - die roll = AC hit

14 - 5 = 9

Rath could hit AC 9 and 10 only? OH NO! our equation doesnt add the modifiers! lets go back and fix it. (why do i feel like i am typing up a script for a PBS show while i do this?)

THAC0 - die roll = AC hit

ok now we have to add in modifiers, but how and where? Zeb says to alter THAC0, but in ALL cases a modifier is to the dice roll, so lets ignore Zeb for a second and try modifying the die roll instead... and we HAVE a die roll already in our formula.

THAC0 - (die roll + modifiers) = AC hit

ok lets try those numbers now...

14 - (5 +2 + 1) = AC hit
14 - (8) = AC hit
6 = AC hit

the orc has AC 6, so Rath hits! YAY!

notice the red section of the formula and the quoted portion...

"gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll"

the formula actually does just that and adds the modifiers to the attack roll.

Zeb is trying to figure out things form the DMG side but printing it in the PHB, when he should have given the equation to the PHB that didnt include the AC, because the players dont know the AC....

this is where MANY problems come from and players thinking they need to know the AC, but they really dont...

everything before was the the same PHB you were using, but look closely at that same section in the DMG...

The first step in making an attack roll is to find the number needed to hit the target. Subtract the Armor Class of the target from the attacker's THAC0. Remember that if the Armor Class is a negative number, you add it to the attacker's THAC0. The character has to roll the resulting number, or higher, on 1d20 to hit the target. Here's a simple example:

Rath has reached 7th level as a fighter. His THAC0 is 14 (found on Table 38 ), meaning he needs to roll a 14 or better to hit a character or creature of Armor Class 0.

In combat, Rath, attacking an orc wearing chainmail armor (AC 6), needs to roll an 8 (14-6 = 8). An 8 or higher on 1d20 will hit the orc. If Rath hits, he rolls the appropriate dice (see Table 44 in the Player's Handbook) to determine how much damage he inflicts.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

pretty much a copy/paste form one to the other, when it should not have been contradictory in the PHB to say ADD TO ATTACK ROLL, and then turn around and SUBTRACT FROM THAC0.

Zeb gave the wrong formula, but it is easily fixed as i have done here with basic algebra BEFORE any of the actual math was done...

so the PHB should have had THIS formula

THAC0 - (die roll + modifiers) = AC hit

Then they can just tell the DM what AC the attack can hit and actually add the modifiers to the attack roll, and subtract the penalties from it.

so as said THAC0 remains constant during you current level and is just a baseline, when plugged into the formula THAC0 gives you something to compare to to figure what AC you can hit after rolling the die.

MANY people do adjust THAC0 for hit prob, but that isnt your THAC0 of 14 as Rath, that is your ADJUSTED THAC0 for the long sword he is using. this just cuts down on the math later so you dont have to add it each time to the die roll, but it offers the same result.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

The book says you subtract bonuses and add penalties. You can gussy it up any way you want, but that's it right there. The book is still sitting open next to me and the words on the page haven't changed. You cannot claim that it doesn't do what I see it do right here. I don't care how common sense the houserule you're citing is, or how common it is to be used, a common-sense houserule is still a houserule.

[tzor]

THAC0 is no clunkier than ANY other to-hit mechanic.

Either you're a trolling liar or a goddamned idiot, and either way you can go suck a big barrel of hickory-smoked dick. THAC0 requires you subtract positive bonuses and add negative penalties. That alone is stupid and unintuitive.

No it didn't; technically speaking. The problem is people don't like doing math on both sides of the equation so they moved it over to the other side where addition became subtraction. In the basic mode THAC0 allowed you to determine your actual to hit number which ironically used netative AC because AC was wonky from the get go.

Target = THAC0 + (-AC)

All bonuses were then added to the die and your combined die roll had to meet or beat the target. Everything was applied to the die roll. The only wonky thing was the legacy Gygaxian AC system where lower was better.


EDIT: I forgot to mention: THAC0 was INVENTED in 1E as a way to simplify writing the stats for monsters. It was only later FUBARED by the morons who wanted more to remove all references to Gygax than to actually write a system that made sense.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

YES
IT
DID.

God damn it people. It's right there in black and white!

Listen, I know that prior to 3e D&D was a much looser, more Seat-of-your pants game, and yeah, I do kinda think that the game lost something when it went with a more structurally sound system in 3e. But that is not at issue here. You can change the rules however you want, this is as true today as it was when Gary and Dave came up with the rules four decades ago. These changes don't rely on the approval of anyone but the people who will be playing the game. Sometimes you make rule changes so minor they can barely be said to exist, but they still are.

When you are talking about the rules-as-written, all that matters is the rules as they are presented in the book you are given. It doesn't matter how anyone plays the game, not you nor me nor anyone else. Trying to say that the game doesn't do something because nobody played the game the way it is written seriously doesn't help your case. When I say "The 2e rules for THAC0 make you subtract bonuses and add penalties" and tell you where to find where it says you subtract bonuses and add penalties and quote you where the book says you subtract bonuses and add penalties, then you don't get to tell me that the book doesn't tell you to do so because you could always shuffle around the math until you get the same result without doing so. What you are doing there is making changes to the game to better suit the tastes of your group. There's a word of that: House-Rule.

There's nothing wrong with house-rules. Nothing at all. I play with house-rules just like everyone else. Hell, in another thread, I detailed some of my house-rules not half an hour ago. But when you are NOT discussing house-rules, but instead are discussing the rules as presented in the book, then don't bring up houserules. You just make yourself look ridiculous.

[shadzar]

read the quote from the PHB and notice the part i highlighted in red....

MATH doesnt work JUST the way Zeb wrote it out, Gary was much better at expressing math bits. Zeb forgot to make the formula for the PHB, and copied the damn thing from the DMG (Steve Winter never fucking fixed the typo when he revised 2nd)...thus since i was writing that out the whole time (while making coffee), you noticed what you quoted and didnt catch the whole part, but ALSO you can see the formula FOR the players, AS YOU SAID, the players did NOT have the AC.

learn to fucking do algebra to change the formula around any damn way you want to, but mine with adding modifiers to the die roll, works the same as Zeb's subtract modifiers from THAC0.

THE MATH STILL IS THE SAME, just the unknown variable is changed for the player since the player does NOT have the AC to put into the formula Zeb gave from the DMG.

i have the book open to fidn the section you referenced as well the software opened to copy and paste this shit from, so read the WHOLE thing you quote, and dont get caught up on Zebs failure at word math!

[fbmf]

learn to fucking do algebra to change the formula around any damn way you want to, but mine with adding modifiers to the die roll, works the same as Zeb's subtract modifiers from THAC0.

You just told me a few posts up all I needed was 5th grade Math to calculate Thac0. Depending on when your birthday is and how enrollment dates for kindergarten work in your state, you might only need 4th grade Math given the "10 year old" requirement on the box.

Algebra is not introduced until 7th grade at the minimum. Make up your mind.

*-*-*-*-*-*-

Now then, none of this changes the fact that BAB is a simpler to learn and simpler to teach system than Thac0. Finding something more desirable because it is easier does not make you stupid or lazy.

Consider the "Mom Gene", the old joke that if you've been a mom of a small child that cleaning up vomit, baby shit, what have you is no big deal anymore.

A wise woman once told me that the ability to clean up baby shit/vomit/whatever without retching DOES NOT MEAN she desires to spend any part of her day doing it, just that she is capable IF she should ever need to.

This does not make her a bad mother, but a sensible human being.

Same thing with BAB: Yes, we can all do Thac0 in our head without thinking too hard on it (at least those of us from the Thac0 generation), but if there is an easier way that is easier to communicate and teach, then why not do that?

Game On,
fbmf

[shadzar]

learn to fucking do algebra to change the formula around any damn way you want to, but mine with adding modifiers to the die roll, works the same as Zeb's subtract modifiers from THAC0.

You just told me a few posts up all I needed was 5th grade Math to calculate Thac0. Depending on when your birthday is and how enrollment dates for kindergarten work in your state, you might only need 4th grade Math given the "10 year old" requirement on the box.

Algebra is not introduced until 7th grade at the minimum. Make up your mind.

the fine wrinkle, and 11 and up is what my books stated IIRC...the covers have been replaced and the book rebound, and the CDROM doesnt list the ages in the software....

at age 11 i was in 5th grade, and WAS learning algebra....

obviously Gary and HASBRO were both located in states that taught algebra sooner than others, and i CAN forgive them both for it...but not the school system.

either way the next year you should be able to do it, unless learning algebra in 7th became the norm since the mid 80s.

well technically my GRADE was learning algebra in 5th.. i learned it in 4th because of accelerated classes...but the point still remains.

the age range and grade equivalency should be looked at through the practices of the time of its creation, and if they have changed to slow down things in teaching, that cannot be held responsible.

age 5 kindergarten if you go, otherwise age 5~6 starts 1st grade in MOST states...due to that early or late birthdays...

NO game ever refines that to include the proper age range...but the government has the range set federally that an age = this grade...so maybe it and ALL other games are based on the government scale of age:grade

it also doesnt take into account anyone failing a grade or anything like that.. . so maybe we ALL should research or MPSIMS the idea of what age should be in what grade at least in regards to common things everyone has to learn such as algebra being taught in schools.

Now then, none of this changes the fact that BAB is a simpler to learn and simpler to teach system than Thac0. Finding something more desirable because it is easier does not make you stupid or lazy.

Consider the "Mom Gene", the old joke that if you've been a mom of a small child that cleaning up vomit, baby shit, what have you is no big deal anymore.

A wise woman once told me that the ability to clean up baby shit/vomit/whatever without retching DOES NOT MEAN she desires to spend any part of her day doing it, just that she is capable IF she should ever need to.

This does not make her a bad mother, but a sensible human being.

Same thing with BAB: Yes, we can all do Thac0 in our head without thinking too hard on it (at least those of us from the Thac0 generation), but if there is an easier way that is easier to communicate and teach, then why not do that?

Game On,
fbmf

the problem herein lies not with the fact that THAC0 and BAB are the exact same thing with just the number line reversed and shifted, but BAB removes the finite range of ACs.

ok you say it is simpler, but i can...just as WotC did, create and use BAB in 2nd edition in place of THAC0, should i want to.

the thing i cannot do then is explain under BAB why i would have an arbitrary limit of 21 ACs. BAB allows for an infinite range, and sicne bigger is better, then why should the game force a restriction to just those 21 places on the number line?

THAC0 may seem a bit funky on the outside, but it picks its 21 range from a VERY specific set with an absolute value of 10. that gives 10 above and 10 below.

why is this number 10 so special that you use it twice?

10*2=20
20....d20

a d20 only gives you a specific range.

the fact Dave used lower is better because of ship hull ratings is moot. the range was decided for a reason. BAB makes light of that range and removes it, so since the range of 20 has no more meaning, why does BAB still use a d20?

it is the inner workings of the system that some people fail to see.

so since BAB and THAC0 are the exact same equation with jsut the AC range flipped over, the REAL difference is that BAB removes the range of ACs from 21, to infinite.

why does it need to be infinite? HOW can you explain it doesnt need to be infinite range?

lots of key factors are lost when just looking at the system through it order of operands and which operands are used......


EDIT: what box?

[CatharzGodfoot]

The quicker you realize that Shadzar will never, ever, admit that THAC0 is clunky, the less blank posts the rest of us have to wade through to read a thread.

[shadzar]

The quicker you realize that Shadzar will never, ever, admit that THAC0 is clunky, the less blank posts the rest of us have to wade through to read a thread.

pssst!

BAB is THAC0 with the ACs reversed and shifted 10. they are the same thing. EXACT same formula is used for both THAC0 and BAB.

[fbmf]

the problem herein lies not with the fact that THAC0 and BAB are the exact same thing with just the number line reversed and shifted, but BAB removes the finite range of ACs.

ok you say it is simpler, but i can...just as WotC did, create and use BAB in 2nd edition in place of THAC0, should i want to.

the thing i cannot do then is explain under BAB why i would have an arbitrary limit of 21 ACs. BAB allows for an infinite range, and sicne bigger is better, then why should the game force a restriction to just those 21 places on the number line?

THAC0 may seem a bit funky on the outside, but it picks its 21 range from a VERY specific set with an absolute value of 10. that gives 10 above and 10 below.

Sorry, by "box" I meant "game" as in "out of the box". For a man who frequently uses non-standard English written communication, you certainly are picky about others.

Now then, the AC 10 to -10 thing was a guideline only. This is not me ragging on your favorite 2E mantra (although it fits). This is my personal experience. It didn't happen often, but I actually played a character in 2E (remember, I'm old too) with an AC of -13.

Thac0 was theoretically infinite just like BAB is. Number inflation in 3E just canonized what a number of people (certainly in the 2E games I played) were already doing.

I'm not saying it was good for the game. I'm saying a number of people were already doing it.

Game On,
fbmf