What is wrong with THAC0?

[Lokathor]

No it doesn't say shit along those lines. I don't have the book in question to verify your quotes. My pre-revised 2nd edition books, didn't survive a move.

What you are reading about the NWPs, has nothing to do with information, but skills. Can you cook, can you sew. Not what is the weight of an adolescent vegepygmy.

Revised 2nd Edition (1995) has almost that exact paragraph on page 74, first column. It bothers to go on to say that the method is flawed because a character can skin a deer but you can't, and you can do calculus but they can't. And yet it does specifically say that "You can learn something at the library or school and bring it into your game." Obviously since the NWP rules haven't yet been mentioned (they don't come up until Pg75), then it must have been talking about in game knowledge of the PC automatically expanding as a direct effect of your OOC knowledge expanding.

[Ice9]

After a while the player learns that a troll is weak against acid or fire, but the problem is many fail to separate that player knowledge form character knowledge, and want to use it right away when their character would not know it.

Actually, this puzzles me, because the "chart" way of doing things actually requires the DM to tell the players more about the monsters than the d20 way.

Chart System, Method I:
Player: My THAC0 is 5.
DM: Roll 13 or less.
Result: Player effectively knows the monster's AC.

Chart System, Method II:
Player: My THAC0 is 5, and I rolled 15.
DM: You miss.
Result: You have to tell the DM twice the numbers, and he has to do more calculations.

d20 System:
Player: I rolled a 17 (with bonuses).
DM: You miss.
Result: One number, less calculation, no extra information revealed.

[shadzar]

I don't read that "at the library" part as saying go check out the MM and memorize all the monster ACs and weaknesses.

I read in the context of the Using What You Know, to be how to do things. Everything listed is a skill to perform a task. Not knowledge about the game mechanics.

It doesn't take an idiot to figure this out, but another example of the way I have seen rules-lawyers trying to play it off as if the DM should be stupid and allow the player to use knowledge about something in the game, where their character would not have the knowledge of the game world.

One big one for example is PC alignments. A lot of player I have met recently thought they needed to know everything on my character sheet. I told them they didn't, and that was a part of the game. Their response was about whether our alignments would clash. I told them simply they would have to learn it in the game, just like everything else.

This is the problem I am talking about with recent years, and some bad players of the past, that think they need all the information to do something.

You really need 3 things to play D&D:

A concept for your character
dice
pencil and paper for notes

Everything else is gained through play and the characters eyes.

Who would seriously misread those passages, and think outside of activities, since activities were all that was listed?

Let me guess, the same people that clame you cannot do something like climb a tree without a list specifically telling you you have the ability to climb a tree?

Seems like people picking and choosing which reading of the rules works best for them.

"I need a rule to tell me how to climb a tree!"

"The book never said I couldn't know about the weakness to a lich even though me character has never seen or heard of one, so I have that as a skill!"

Cherry picking rules just like a munchkin. Funny you need the rule for one thing, but make it up for another as a player, so that it always goes your way in cases like this.

Most of what a player character can do is defined by his race, class, and ability scores.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

This is the first sentence of the chapter, so I want to know how people forget that when making their way to the page with the "using what you know" section?

Thanks for the refresher on where that is at Lokathor.

[shadzar]

After a while the player learns that a troll is weak against acid or fire, but the problem is many fail to separate that player knowledge form character knowledge, and want to use it right away when their character would not know it.

Actually, this puzzles me, because the "chart" way of doing things actually requires the DM to tell the players more about the monsters than the d20 way.

Chart System, Method I:
Player: My THAC0 is 5.
DM: Roll 13 or less.
Result: Player effectively knows the monster's AC.

Chart System, Method II:
Player: My THAC0 is 5, and I rolled 15.
DM: You miss.
Result: You have to tell the DM twice the numbers, and he has to do more calculations.

d20 System:
Player: I rolled a 17 (with bonuses).
DM: You miss.
Result: One number, less calculation, no extra information revealed.

You are losing me here on the connection of what you are saying and the part you quoted.

[Ice9]

The context was this, which was in response to my post about older systems using the "chart" method:

The DM was privy to all the information about the monsters and the characters, and to be responsible with it; while the players were not in care of the monster info.

After a while the player learns that a trol is weak against acid or fire, but the problem is many fail to separate that player knowledge form character knowledge, and want to use it right away when their character would not know it.

MAny players in 3rd edition do this automatically when I played. They say the characters as a game piece, and the monsters the same, such as if they were MAgic Cards that they had to prepare for; without realizing that the character would NOT know a thing about this creature it has never before seen.

It kills the game when that happens. Older edition DMG's, modules, and MMs, went out of its way to tell the players to stop here because it could ruin the game for them.

My point was that a chart is, in fact, worse at keeping monster knowledge separate from the players.

[Red_Rob]

Don't humour him ice9, he has spent this entire thread "misunderstanding" or "not getting" every post that clearly and simply explains things he doesn't want to understand. Your example was clear and to the point. He just didn't want to respond to it.

[ubernoob]

Shadzar, I'd point out how you're wrong, but I'm not even going to bother. You're actually accusing people that want to play a duelist wanting to be able to disarm people effectively (a signature ability for the entire theme) of being munchkins.

So yeah, fuck you.

[shadzar]

The context was this, which was in response to my post about older systems using the "chart" method:

The DM was privy to all the information about the monsters and the characters, and to be responsible with it; while the players were not in care of the monster info.

After a while the player learns that a trol is weak against acid or fire, but the problem is many fail to separate that player knowledge form character knowledge, and want to use it right away when their character would not know it.

MAny players in 3rd edition do this automatically when I played. They say the characters as a game piece, and the monsters the same, such as if they were MAgic Cards that they had to prepare for; without realizing that the character would NOT know a thing about this creature it has never before seen.

It kills the game when that happens. Older edition DMG's, modules, and MMs, went out of its way to tell the players to stop here because it could ruin the game for them.

My point was that a chart is, in fact, worse at keeping monster knowledge separate from the players.

I won't disagree, because I think a chart with all the info is not good for keeping data secure from player, but must be mising what a chart has to do with that still.

1st edition did have a chart of monsters in the back of the DMG.....

[RobbyPants]

THAC0: Works, but isn't very intuative.

d20 system: Works and is more intuative. Also has the advantage of unifying more mechanics than in 2E, making the system as a whole more intuative.

End result: Both work fine mechanically speaking, but the tie-breaker is that d20 is more intuative.

End of thread, Shadzar. It's really that simple. That's all that's "wrong" with THAC0.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

[Judging__Eagle]

It wasn't to make it where the players couldn't know the rules, but they didn't need to know. Just like an MMO, players don't need to know the formula for an attack, to be able to make one and have fun.

This is incorrect. To be the best you can be at an MMORPG, you need to know how the game calculates things like weapon accuracy and damage.

WHAT THE FUCK?

Best you can be?

Are MMOs some secret plot/ploy to train people for the army now?

Fine then answer this.

What was the accuracy rating, average damage, and rate of attacks/minute for a high-elf cleric of Tunare using a broken bottle as a weapon in EQ?

Are you trying to win the game? An MMO is based off an unwinnable game, because there is not end to it. You die, you can come back, you can play forever as long as the servers are up. There is no "win".

I will make it easier for you. Tell me the exact formula for any MMO that will tell me what random number is needed when I click on the attack icon for whatever race/class combo to hit whatever monster.

Also tell me where you see these numbers.

You don't. You don't have the "to-hit roll" in the game as visible for the players because it is a part of the back-end. Something they specifically don't want you to have access to because then someone might just be able to reverse engineer it and cheat at the game by having an unfair advantages over the players playing legally. Other than the fact it would be a crime to do so, it would be the same munchkin thing in a TTRPG, as using game mechanics info that the character wouldn't have against a monster during an encounter.

Actually.

There are forums, such as Elitist-Jerks, that has members that do a lot of work trying to figure out what is going on in the game's mechanics. Trying to figure out mana regeneration rates for casters, maxium DPS for DPS classes/builds.

Or comparisons, such as returns on different stats to overall damage mitigation for a 'tank' character.

Say for example, Armour over a certain amount is worth XX.XX% damage mitigation; the max armour that the game "counts" is 'yy,yyyy'; every other point of defense stat is compared to the armour stat, so something like "dodge" will be worth 1 or 20, or even 400 or more 'armour'.

Then the players who read it can figure out what will increase their damage mitigation after their armour stat is maxed; or to help them achieve more damage mitigation without sacrificing too much armour.

Forums like this allow for players to make interesting, or unusual things; like a group of "priests"* taking on a major raid boss, or a 'light armour' tank, that was a rogue with a ridiculous amount of Dodge (well over 50; but I'm not sure how much higher, the raid boss he was tanking never hit him).

*:Priests are a 'non' armour wearing class, but they're a ranged DPS and healing capable class, so that's a pretty impressive thing to do.

Just because an MMO has no forseeable end, doesn't mean that people don't try to do all kinds of different types of game play. Some people want to get really good at PvP, others want to get to end-game raid content, and earn end-game gear for their character, others still want to make massive amounts of cash, and "win" the auction house. It should be noted that in game cash, can be sold for real life money. Meaning that 'winning' in this game, could very well 'win' for you in real life.

[Koumei]

Even Pokemon has forums where people discuss the mechanics behind it (the numbers are basically all worked out by now - but the game itself doesn't tell you these). Seriously. Want to know how damage is worked out? The game says "High level/stat good! Also super-effective good! And moves have a Power, higher is better."

Research nets you this: Damage = ((((2 * Level / 5 + 2) * AttackStat * AttackPower / DefenseStat) / 50) + 2) * STAB * Weakness/Resistance * RandomNumber / 100

Which is actually useful.

Okay, I'm really just taking the opportunity to talk about Pokemon.

[Roy]

Obvious Fail Thread is Obvious.

Now that I've met my meme quota for this post...

THAC0 is not a very difficult system to understand. It's not like pre 3rd edition saves which do not progress at a set rate such that you have to reference or memorize a chart each and every time they come up.

It's a fucking terrible system because it's backwards and takes longer than it needs to to resolve, but it's not hard.

Before I return you to your regularly scheduled Shadzar brand Whining and Flailing, one more thing.

Monsters have an AC, Fighters have a THAC300.
Then you go:
To compute, you have to add 13 to the monster AC, then add 12, then add 11, then add 10, then double, then add 9, then double, then add 8, then double, then divide by 2, then subtract 8, then divide by 2, then subtract 9, then divide by two, then subtract 46, then compare that number to 300, and use the comparison to determine if what the fighter rolled hits.

Now. Is this system better, equal to, or worse than the THAC0 used in 2e? If you accept that it is worse than, why is that so?

[ggroy]

The "subtraction is less desirable" argument is somewhat superfluous.

Doing some algebra, starting with the condition for a hit:

d20 roll + modifiers >= THAC0 - AC(target)

we get

d20 roll + modifiers + AC(target) >= THAC0

With that being said, I wonder who came up with the idea of using a descending AC scale in the first place. It seems sort of counterintuitive.

25+ years ago, I was somewhat accustomed to using the 1E to-hit combat tables, as well as the weapons AC adjustment tables if the other players wanted to use it. Something like a THAC0 method didn't even cross my mind in those days. (Though THAC0 was mentioned in the appendices of the 1E DMG, but not explicitly as a replacement for the to-hit combat tables).

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Descending Scale was inspired by golf where below 0 was better. I also think wargames Gygax played used a negative scale as well.

[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?

Not really. MY question was what problem do people have with THAC0. It is becoming clear that is never was THAC0, people had the problem with, just the progression of AC.

People have explained why they feel that BAB is superior to THAC0 based on the criteria (simplicity, accessibility, speed of resolution, arithmetic transparency) that they have presented. That answers your question.

Since I like 2nd, and dislike 3rd; I just have no need to change the system since it works. I am not that upset with the finite range provided by the lower-number-is-better AC system.

That's fine, and no one is saying that you must. Other people consider width of range a criterion for evaluation, so BAB is inherently better for them.

So your question has been answered and your objections are tangential.

[ggroy]

Descending Scale was inspired by golf where below 0 was better. I also think wargames Gygax played used a negative scale as well.

Any particular wargame in question?

[Username17]

Chainmail. It was first published by Gary Gygax in 1971, but they'd been playing it and other people had been playing it since the late sixties.

True to the time, they had stuff like morale and armor class "A, B, C..." which made the lower "numbers" being "better" intuitively obvious.

-Username17

[ggroy]

Chainmail. It was first published by Gary Gygax in 1971, but they'd been playing it and other people had been playing it since the late sixties.

True to the time, they had stuff like morale and armor class "A, B, C..." which made the lower "numbers" being "better" intuitively obvious.

-Username17

I was thinking of something else besides Chainmail.

I guess I'll have to look for some old wargames from the 1960's, the next time I go through some thrift shops. They show up now and then.

[shadzar]

~delete this post~

[shadzar]

~delete this post too~

The thread's quotes have been fixed.

[shadzar]

THAC0: Works, but isn't very intuative.

That is your opinion and that is fine, but I disagree.

The other shit in your post is off topic. the d20 system has no place in a thread about THAC0. THAC0 doesn't use the d20 system, so they have NOTHING to do with each other.

[shadzar]

Even Pokemon has forums where people discuss the mechanics behind it (the numbers are basically all worked out by now - but the game itself doesn't tell you these). Seriously. Want to know how damage is worked out? The game says "High level/stat good! Also super-effective good! And moves have a Power, higher is better."

Research nets you this: Damage = ((((2 * Level / 5 + 2) * AttackStat * AttackPower / DefenseStat) / 50) + 2) * STAB * Weakness/Resistance * RandomNumber / 100

Which is actually useful.

Okay, I'm really just taking the opportunity to talk about Pokemon.

That is fine for those who want to know, but you don't NEED to know, do you?

Guessing you are talking about the card game, then tell me the formula used to price* Magic the Gathering cards.

*Price being the casting cost.

[shadzar]

The "subtraction is less desirable" argument is somewhat superfluous.

Doing some algebra, starting with the condition for a hit:

d20 roll + modifiers >= THAC0 - AC(target)

we get

d20 roll + modifiers + AC(target) >= THAC0

With that being said, I wonder who came up with the idea of using a descending AC scale in the first place. It seems sort of counterintuitive.

25+ years ago, I was somewhat accustomed to using the 1E to-hit combat tables, as well as the weapons AC adjustment tables if the other players wanted to use it. Something like a THAC0 method didn't even cross my mind in those days. (Though THAC0 was mentioned in the appendices of the 1E DMG, but not explicitly as a replacement for the to-hit combat tables).

Good luck getting people to understand that since they are so afraid of subtracting negative numbers, the algebra must make them want to hide in a closet. I stated it long ago in this thread, but people could not accept it.

I heard Dave came up with the lower AC better having to do with ship hull and armor system used for ship in one of the minis games they played....but that is just hearsay since I can find no evidence of it now.

[shadzar]

Descending Scale was inspired by golf where below 0 was better. I also think wargames Gygax played used a negative scale as well.

Well it does make sense in a way to have AC lower better.

That just makes the game attack-AC = roll needed to hit

So if your attack was 10 and the enemy AC was -5

10-(-5)=15 needed to hit.

You need to meet or exceed the difference in scores to hit.

So adding the absolute values of the [10] and [5] gives you the roll needed.

It is the same as 10+5, but why not just make it +5 for AC...that I don't know.

May have been the way math was taught at the time, since it is always changing on how to teach it, so must have been how they learned to do math in the 50's. (D&D came out in 70's when Gary was 30+ so learned his math 20 years earlier.) Back then you didn't have calculators, you learned how to use a slide rule, or just did it long hand.

Never heard it came form golf before....