Simple THAC0 Please

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Simple THAC0 Please

Post by JonSetanta »

It's been 17 years since I last used THAC0 and for the life of me can't recall how I ever understood it in the first place.

Could someone explain an easy method for calculating THAC0 in terms a non-computer-programmer with dyscalculia can understand?

I know I'm not the only one desperate for answers on this.
Last edited by JonSetanta on Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
Rawbeard
Knight-Baron
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 9:45 am

Post by Rawbeard »

use a THAC0 table. I recently checked how it works to explain it to a friend, but already forgot everything except "table is useful" and "it's not complcated, just stupid"
To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13877
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

To Hit Armour Class Zero. So if your THAC0 is nine, then for an opponent of AC 0 you need a 9+.

Then for every point your target's AC is above that, you subtract 1 (AC 1 is 8+, AC 2 is 7+) and for every point the AC is below that, you add 1 (AC -1 is 9+, AC -2 is 10+).

Alternatively, "Subtract the AC from your THAC0. That is the minimum number you need to roll."
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

Koumei wrote: Alternatively, "Subtract the AC from your THAC0. That is the minimum number you need to roll."
Thanks! I'll also delve into my old book and check the table.

I remember it caps at -10 AC so there was this 1-out-of-20 chance for a L1 Warrior to hit a difficult target, and for a level 20 Warrior it was.... 50%?
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Without knowing the AC, it's the same to use as ...

Subtract the d20 roll from your THAC0. That is the best AC you hit.

eg: THAC0 20, you roll 17. 20 - 17 = 3. AC 3 is hit.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Your THAC0 is your TN, and the target's AC is added to your to-hit roll. Done.
GâtFromKI
Knight-Baron
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:14 am

Post by GâtFromKI »

JonSetanta wrote:I remember it caps at -10 AC
Not really.

-10 is the AC you get with the best armor (+5 full plate) and the best shield (+5 shield). Then you can subtract the Dex AC bonus, some item bonus like a ring of protection, etc, for a total AC far below -10.
so there was this 1-out-of-20 chance for a L1 Warrior to hit a difficult target, and for a level 20 Warrior it was.... 50%?
Except the warrior can have several bonus to hit: a Strength bonus, a magic weapon, etc (obviously, if the target has a +5 full plate and a +5 shield, his opponent should at least have a +5 weapon to be balanced).
Last edited by GâtFromKI on Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

GâtFromKI wrote:
JonSetanta wrote:I remember it caps at -10 AC
Not really.

-10 is the AC you get with the best armor (+5 full plate) and the best shield (+5 shield). Then you can subtract the Dex AC bonus, some item bonus like a ring of protection, etc, for a total AC far below -10.
We probably played it wrong, but we used the -10 as a hard cap. Once you got there, nothing pushed you past it. Dexterity, rings of protection, etc were all contingency stuff for when you didn't have your armor or shield for whatever reason.
Emerald
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:18 pm

Post by Emerald »

violence in the media wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:
JonSetanta wrote:I remember it caps at -10 AC
Not really.

-10 is the AC you get with the best armor (+5 full plate) and the best shield (+5 shield). Then you can subtract the Dex AC bonus, some item bonus like a ring of protection, etc, for a total AC far below -10.
We probably played it wrong, but we used the -10 as a hard cap. Once you got there, nothing pushed you past it. Dexterity, rings of protection, etc were all contingency stuff for when you didn't have your armor or shield for whatever reason.
There were definitely some monsters with better AC (one of the older dragons had -14ish, I think?), so a hard cap at -10 was definitely a houserule.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

JonSetanta wrote: I remember it caps at -10 AC so there was this 1-out-of-20 chance for a L1 Warrior to hit a difficult target, and for a level 20 Warrior it was.... 50%?
A character with a THAC0 of 20 would need a 30 to hit AC -10. You'd only get a 1-in-20 in that case with 20s auto-hitting, not due to THAC0.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Emerald wrote:There were definitely some monsters with better AC (one of the older dragons had -14ish, I think?), so a hard cap at -10 was definitely a houserule.
Kind of. The actual rulebook said that AC was a scale from 10 to -10, full stop. That some elder dragons and shit had better than that was just an unexplained fuck you to the players.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Emerald wrote:There were definitely some monsters with better AC (one of the older dragons had -14ish, I think?), so a hard cap at -10 was definitely a houserule.
Kind of. The actual rulebook said that AC was a scale from 10 to -10, full stop. That some elder dragons and shit had better than that was just an unexplained fuck you to the players.
Maybe different printings of AD&D?
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

The -10 cap was for PCs. Monsters could go lower.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

K wrote:The -10 cap was for PCs. Monsters could go lower.
Aha!
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

-10 only a PC cap in 2nd edition as well. PCs in 1st edition faced some wickedly complicated stacking rules on AC bonuses, hidden in the magic item descriptions mostly, but there was the odd one got down to -14 after Unearthed Arcana with full plate.

-8 best for 1e Wizards, easy to hit -10 in 2nd edition with the AC 0 bracers and robes.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Post Reply