Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.22786151 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Are there really people who think THAC0 is too complicated?

>> No.22786162

Yep.

People think vaccines cause autism, too.

>> No.22786168

Yes.
These are the same people who prefer 3d6 over 1d20

>> No.22786181

Some people think that Mt. Rushmore is hollow and a government base that test new ways to brain wash the masses. their right.

>> No.22786182

>>22786168
>Not wanting bell-curve probability
Shit son, it's like you hate averages.

>> No.22786187

Too complicated? No.

Needlessly complicated? Yes.

>> No.22786241

>>22786187
Can you come up with a dice rolling combat system that's simpler than basic addition and subtraction?

>> No.22786254

What exactly is Thac0?

>> No.22786265

>>22786241

You roll a die.
They roll a die.
Higher value wins.

>> No.22786290

>>22786241
>Can you come up with a dice rolling combat system that's simpler than basic addition and subtraction?

Basic addition without subtraction, of course.

>> No.22786311

>>22786168
>tfw I prefer 3d6 over 1d20
>tfw I don't really care much either way for THAC0
I don't think it's terribly complicated. It's not like i'm going to avoid trying a system that uses it.
However my friends are all convinced that THAC0 is too complicated. So we've never used it, and I haven't felt the need to argue for it
On that note, I probably won't use THAC0 if I were to design a new system and I would probably use 3d6 unless there was some overwhelmingly good reason to use THAC0

>> No.22786323

>>22786151
>Two people rolling dice
>Less complicated than one person rolling against a static number
Your method may as well be flipping a coin per attack, which admittedly would be less complicated. You didn't state it that way, though.

>> No.22786334

Thac0 isn't that hard truly. You can make a chart if you like but its easy.

>> No.22786337

>>22786265
>implying it's a combat system if there are no combat abilities taken into account

>> No.22786339

>>22786265
>Two people rolling dice
>Less complicated than one person rolling against a static number
Your method may as well be flipping a coin per attack, which admittedly would be less complicated. You didn't state it that way, though.

>> No.22786348

>>22786254
In AD&D, armour class counts down, rather than up. So an AC of 10 is worse than an AC of 3. The Thac0 system works by first determining what you need to roll to hit someone with AC 0 (best non-magical armour available). Once you have that, you then subtract someone's AC from your Thac0 to get your to hit for that AC.

So, let's say you have a Thac0 of 20, and you're fighting a monster with AC 6. You'd subtract 6 from the 20 to get 14; your to hit for AC 6.

>> No.22786358

It wasn't complicated just really weird.

>> No.22786359

THAC0 isn't too complicated, but it is needlessly complicated

>> No.22786363

>>22786348

how stupid. glad to see that mechanic gone then.

>> No.22786371

>>22786348
In case it is not obvious from this, THAC0 stood for "To Hit Armor Class 0"
Which follows from the described interaction if the given enemy you're trying to hit has an AC of 0.

>> No.22786372

>>22786337
>>22786339

>Implying everyone always rolls the same die every time.

>> No.22786373 [DELETED] 

Subsystems are always bad, imo.

>> No.22786395

>>22786373
>When I cast my readied counterspell me and the creature have to play a game of Magic:The Gathering to determine whether I can keep my spell slot and just counter his
>How does the crea-
>There's rules for it in Ultimate Magic, and before you ask, yes, I took the Shahrazad feat, four times.

I dunno, subsystems sound great to me.

>> No.22786396

>>22786241
>>22786265
>>22786290

The thing is, if you play a THAC0 game these days, your character sheet will have a THAC0 chart on it. So you just roll and tell the DM what AC you hit, no addition or subtraction required.

THAC0 is pretty much the perfect balance between simplicity in mechanics and complex in character.

>> No.22786405

>>22786372
Then that's more complicated numb nuts

>> No.22786415

>>22786405

Seeing which number is bigger is more complicated than addition and subtraction?

Seriously?

>> No.22786421

>>22786396
So like...when I play 4th edition...and I roll an attack..and I get a 16 on the die, and I know my relevant bonuses add up to 7.
I tell my DM I rolled a 23.
Since it's "meet or beat" to hit their AC....
That's the same right...
Right?

>> No.22786426

To be honest, I did actually enjoy THAC0 more in the games as it was more understandable than the tabletop. For nostalgia's sake, and because I'm a faggot, I enjoyed THAC0 a lot. Probably prefer it to AC, but that's me.

Not that AC is a bad system, it works the best for the tabletops. I just feel like it's a bad system in comparison to the video games. I don't know why I do, honestly, I just understood Thaco in the games easy as compared to AC.

>> No.22786431

>>22786421
Nope because you still have to do the addition of your roll and bonuses.

>> No.22786439

>>22786168

I dont get why you said this, people who want 3d6 are the ones who actually understand math, so THAC0 should be no problem for them.

>> No.22786441

Okay, so I know 0e had ascending armor class, and THAC0 didn't come about until AD&D(?)/2e; what I wanna know is why?

Why was THAC0 implemented? Does it have any advantages over ascending armor class at all?

>> No.22786474

>>22786431
As opposed to looking at a chart that only works for whatever THAC0 I've calculated?
Or are you saying that--because THAC0 is generally not packaged with the same package of potential modifiers as, (to keep going with the example) 4th edition.
That it is less complicated.

I'm sure you can make the argument that running my finger down a column can be easier than thinking "12+4+2=18"
But I'd say they're pretty similar and the only differences are artificial. And incredibly minor in the first place.
I could make the same goddamned chart for another system.

In the worst case, I know what my bonuses add up to and always add that to the die roll, so I know what AC i'd hit with it.
Sometimes I'll add two to that for combat advantage..
Hell, the DM should do that for me anyway.

>> No.22786478

>>22786431

But that is already recorded on his sheet, like your THAC0 score is on yours.

>> No.22786497

>>22786474
Do note, before I am perceived as THIS MAD, I am this guy:
>>22786311


And give no shits either way.

>> No.22786505

The problem with THAC0 isn't that it's complicated.

It's that it is counter-intuitive.

In a game where for everything else (Attributes, damage, whatever), the immediate assumption if someone hasn't had the AC rules explained to them is that a 5 will be better than a 4, because that is how every other part of the game works.

It's the work of ten seconds to explain it, but that doesn't change the fact that someone who doesn't understand it will be less able to 'just get it', which is really important in game design.

There is no reason to have a counter-intuitive mechanic when you could (As they have) replace it with an equally simple mechanic that makes more sense alongside all the other mechanics in the game.

>> No.22786518

>>22786441
As someone who did a tiny bit of ad&d just before 3e came out and also plays the old infinity games, this is what I wanna know. I UNDERSTAND thac0, I just have never GOTTEN why they chose it over other systems. The answer is not *known* to me.

>> No.22786519

>>22786497

Why did you feel the need to post this

>> No.22786559

>>22786519
Because I wanted to defuse any potential shitstorms that might come from a seemingly derogatory tone towards THAC0, as though I might appear to claim that 4e (or 3.5, for that matter) are SO MUCH BETTAR than 2E, even though I just think that some of the arguments put forth were a bit silly.
Also, I'm a tremendous faggot that wants people to reply to his well-reasoned posts, and for that, I am the cancer.
I accept my role as the cancer.
Polite sage for being cancer.

>> No.22786561

>>22786348

So if you had THAC0 20, and they had an AC of 10, you need to roll above a 10 to hit them?

It doesn't seem that complicated, but IMO the way 3.5/PF handles it seems... simpler.
>Add your modifiers together
>the bigger your dick, the easier it is to make their dick insignificant
>slap dicks, compare whose is higher, their not-moving dick, or your dick with a chance to miss based on how well you roll.

Looking over it, both seem simple, but I guess that's because I spent four-five years slapping dicks when I could've played a system that wasn't Dnd.

>> No.22786605

It seemsthat the general consensus is that THAC0 isnt hard, its just a little counter intuitive.

>> No.22786611

The whole concept of AC is silly.

>> No.22786672

>>22786561
I'd say you've got the gist of it. THAC0 counts down, but rolls up, BAB counts up and rolls up.

Its only the difference of
>THACO 1 vs AC -5
>BAB +20 vs AC 40

>> No.22786678

>Last played AD&D with my brother when I was 11
>He had the rulebook open in front of me and told me if I hit or not
>Because of this I never learned how to calculate THAC0
>Find an electronic copy of every AD&D rulebook
>There's a table in both the Player's Handbook and the DMG for calculating THAC0 for players and monster respectively

Pic related.

>> No.22786682

>>22786415
>Determining what die to roll (a), determining what die to roll (b), rolling die (a), rolling die (b), comparison.
vs.
>Computing your bonus, selecting the DC, rolling the (always identical) die, comparison.

On the face of it, the second seems simpler, but there tends to be a lot behind "computing your bonus" (and sometimes the "selecting" is also "computing"). Too close to call, without details.

(The fact that you can do (a) and (b) in parallel doesn't make the first less *complex*, just potentially faster.)

>> No.22786706

>>22786682
Whoops, left out an 'addition' step in the second one when algorithmizing. Yeah, the first one probably wins the simplicity contest.

>> No.22786746

>>22786706
>>22786682
vs
>roll d20, determine HAC, comparison

THAC0 is simplest.

>> No.22786789

>>22786441
It came out in 2e (aka, "Stepchild edition", "Elf Edition", and "Trainwreck Edition").

The idea was to move the to-hit charts from behind the referee's screen and give them to the players. Theory was, by having the players roll their attacks, you'd speed up the combat.

It doesn't work. Rather than having one guy who understands the mechanics and knows exactly what the bonuses do, you've got a whole group with the information in front of them. In some cases, everyone understands and it's OK, but newbies often struggle. I even know some people who never got to grips with this kind of thing, but are otherwise good gamers.

One thing THAC0 did achieve was increasing dice sales. Nice one, TSR.

>> No.22786851

Another difference between thac0 and later editions' AC is that thac0 has a hard upper limit. -10 is the absolute best armor class you can possibly get. Most gods don't even have -10 armor class, and there is nothing in the universe that will put you at -11 or better.

>> No.22786920

>>22786851
Red Great Wyrms have an AC of -11. Gold Great Wyrms get to AC -12.

These are not obscure monsters.

>> No.22786948

>>22786851

See, that's not a fundamental part of THAC0 - I mean, you could design a d20 game where the highest AC is (... 30?) and have the same effect.

>> No.22786982

>>22786851
Okay, but they could have made that choice with the way AC worked in later editions, they just didn't.

Recent editions easily could have been written to have an upper limit.

Similarly, If I made my own homebrew using THAC0 and wrote a creature that had AC -15, and consequently gave ways to get your THAC0 into the negatives....
Shazam, it's nothing!

>> No.22787051

>>22786982
Why homebrew? He was in TSR9297. (Tiamat also has AC -15)

The AC -10 limit is a myth.

>> No.22787174

>>22786920
>>22787051
AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide

>> No.22787296

>>22787174
Monstrous Manual.

If you're arguing that the 2e designers had NO FUCKING CLUE what they were doing - yeah, bang on. But there are things with less than -10 AC even in the core books.

>> No.22787375

>>22787174
Just in case you're autistic, here's a shot from the Monstrous Compendium. Although I'm sure that "Dragons break the AC -10 barrier" is not something you learned today...

>> No.22787774

You have to be dumb to not be able to use THAC0, but you also have to be dumb to actually use it.

>> No.22787904

>>22787774
To-hit charts (and that's what we're really talking about), do have certain advantages, but they have to be lined up the right way. Some wargames have to-hit charts based on the type of weapon against the type of armour. AD&D could have done the same thing and then given each class a bonus "to hit" based on level. The actual course was making the chart level vs. AC, and then applying a modifier based on looking up a second chart for weapon vs. armor, and then not knowing what to do about monsters and shields. In practice, most groups just ignored weapons vs. armor, and this filtered into the rules. (2e makes a feeble attempt at weapons vs. armor, 3e just ditches it.)

tl;dr the best system would have both BAB & THACx.

>> No.22787917

>>22786151
I think that it's more complicated than it has to be.

>> No.22787974

>>22787904
The thing your missing here is that combat in DnD is supposed to be quick and simple. THAC0 is designed to be super fucking fast so that players don't spend too much time in combat and more time role-playing.

On it's own, as a combat system, it isn't very good. But in the context of a non-combat game, where it is just a piece of a much larger experience, it's very intuitive.

>> No.22788018

>>22786151
OK. I have been trying to ignore it, but the idiocy finally got to me.

What the fuck is up with the image? THAC0 began in 1989. It didn't exist before that. Even if you want to say that THAC0 is basically the same as the tables in 1e, it's still wrong, because "to hit" against AC based on Hit Dice or Level was in OD&D in 1974.

>> No.22788058

>>22787974
I'm not missing that. THAC0 didn't speed the game up appreciably. In practice, it slowed things down, because it was part of putting dice in the players' hands. The fastest way to resolve a combat is by having the referee do all the rolling.

I can have the characters' bonuses "to hit" memorized. I can apply bonuses for situation on the fly. The only thing I can't really memorize is three hundred different weapon vs. armor combinations, so that's where I want the chart.

>> No.22788110

>>22788058
>because it was part of putting dice in the players' hands. The fastest way to resolve a combat is by having the referee do all the rolling.

That is not inherent in THAC0, the DM could roll for the players attack if they really wanted to. But there has to be a balance. Combat should be quick but it shouldn't break the player's connection with their character.

>> No.22788148

>>22788110
A is a part of B does not mean that B is inherent in A.

Do you want to try again?

>> No.22788164

>>22788148
>A is a part of B does not mean that B is inherent in A.

Exactly.

>> No.22788176

>>22788164
OK, so you agree with me that THAC0 was part of putting the dice in the players' hands and slowing the game down. Good.

>> No.22788254

>>22788176
>OK, so you agree with me that THAC0 was part of putting the dice in the players' hands and slowing the game down. Good.

Are you slow? You just agreed that B is not inherent to A, so how can you blame A for what B does?

You're also fallacious in thinking it slows the game down because you're not using proper comparisons. In an RPG, it's important for the players to roll for their characters.

>> No.22788316

>>22788254
Hey guy, I'm on your side, but please stop abusing logic 101 with your poorly constructed association fallacies.

And please don't accuse people of being fallacious. Arguments can be fallacious--people can't.

Just stop. Even if you were using these things correctly, validity has nothing to do with who is or isn't right, about what is and isn't fun.

>> No.22788356

>>22788254
Let's try your reasoning with another example:

Being a car is not inherent to tires. Tires are part of a car.

>> No.22788369

>>22788254
>In an RPG, it's important for the players to roll for their characters.

Why? So they can cheat?

>> No.22788385

>>22788316
>Hey guy, I'm on your side

No you're not. Don't try nice guy tactics on 4chan.

>but please stop abusing logic 101 with your poorly constructed association fallacies

You not being able to comprehend them =/= poorly constructed

>And please don't accuse people of being fallacious. Arguments can be fallacious--people can't.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious


>Just stop. Even if you were using these things correctly, validity has nothing to do with who is or isn't right, about what is and isn't fun.

Just explain how THAC0 slows down combat. First by explaining what it slows it down from.

>> No.22788407

>>22788316
If you agree with that poster and see the problems with the way they're expressing themselves, can you put forward your version of the argument?

>> No.22788420

>>22788385
I'm not that guy. I'm the guy who is annoyed that you are using nominal claims about inherent properties to misrepresent a fallacy that, when correctly represented, appears as (∃x ∈ S : φ(x)) → (∀x ∈ S : φ(x)).

>> No.22788423

>>22788356
Ok, let's.

Let's say you're traveling across the country and you have two options.

1. Take a car
2. Take a plane

Now would you blame the tires for the car being slower when they happen to be top quality tires built for speed?

>> No.22788454

>>22788420
>Just explain how THAC0 slows down combat. First by explaining what it slows it down from.

>> No.22788486

>>22788454
Yeah, see, the issue has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with human beings and how fast they think, and the fact that it's easier to add a bunch of numbers together, rather than subtracting a +1 bonus from a number that descends and subtracting positive armor classes while adding negative ones. It's specifically about how quickly people make inferences, which is about neurology, rather than deductive claims about logical fallacies.

Caption related: sagacious.

>> No.22788499

>>22788423
I don't agree that THAC0 is high-quality. If you want to do that kind of resolution, BAB is faster. However, given the choice, I will fly.

>> No.22788501

>>22788486
This shit was already debunked. Using a THAC0 chart is faster than adding bonuses.

>> No.22788515

>>22788501
If you can't do basic math that doesn't break 50 in a second, you need to, literally, get your head examined.

>> No.22788519

>>22788356
>Logic Pro 2013

>> No.22788522

>>22788501
Except, if you've ever played 2e, you know perfectly well that dealing with combat isn't a simple issue of comparing Thac0 to AC, because you get butloads of penalties and bonuses depending on various situations, and having to figure out when a +1 means that you're supposed to subtract the number from the roll you have to make, rather than adding it to that roll, often becomes a cluster-fuck when you try incorporating different sourcebooks for monsters, kits and optional rules that have inconsistent representation of bonuses and penalties.

>> No.22788525

>>22788499
>I don't agree that THAC0 is high-quality

Then you're a plebe.

>If you want to do that kind of resolution, BAB is faster.

No it's not.

>However, given the choice, I will fly.

And almost every role-playing on earth will take the car

>> No.22788530

>>22788501
You are now defending 1e's system against THAC0.

>> No.22788557

>>22788522
Those are problems with 2e, not THAC0.

>>22788515
I DM 3 times a week with 3 different groups. 1 in 2e and 2 in 4e. It often takes players 5-10 seconds to do their math.

>> No.22788576

>>22788530
No I'm not. THAC0 and BAB are comparable in speed because they ultimately accomplish the same goals. THAC0 accomplishes those goals faster.

That is not to say that faster is always better because other systems don't accomplish the same goals.

>> No.22788578

>>22788557
Hurray, move those goal posts

>> No.22788581

This whole god damn thread

You people, you fucking people

>> No.22788595

>>22788525
I see that the bad logic just keeps on coming.

>> No.22788598

Can someone explain THAC0 to me in a nutshel? I know it's used in a few CRPGs I play such as Baldur's Gate and Planescape, but I never understood it.

>> No.22788604

>>22788578
What goal posts have I moved?

>>22788595
I see you still haven't come up with an argument.

>> No.22788606

>>22788576
No, you are defending 1e's method of presentation - charts - against THAC0.

But you're stupid, so you don't understand that.

>> No.22788635

>>22788606
>No, you are defending 1e's method of presentation - charts - against THAC0.
>But you're stupid, so you don't understand that.

Reread that post.

>> No.22788644

THAC0 is almost exactly the same as the current d20 system, its just written in an asinine way.

>> No.22788667

>>22786151
>Are there really people who think THAC0 is too complicated?

THAC0 was inconvenient and counter intuitive for new players, NOT complicated. On a whole it's better that we've switched to the scaling up d20 system.

That said: you stir memories of when said system of D&D did not have huge inflatable numbers. I kinda miss that.

>> No.22788682 [DELETED] 

>>22788667
D&D Next is going back in the direction of smaller numbers.

>> No.22788740

>>22786682
Huh. I never knew thac0. How does attack/weapon bonuses work with it?
I know "to hit" bonuses were rarer in previous editions but they still existed.

How'd those work?

>> No.22788750

>>22788682
So they say.
And I hope! I certainly do, but we'll see in the final product. As they keep saying "Still play testing"

>> No.22788759

>>22788740
They lower your THAC0,

>> No.22788775

>>22786678
I forgot that literally everyone in 2E had a lower 'BAB' progression than they did in 3E, while the glorious 2E Fighter master race was still the same 1 per level. It's a very different thing when the highest THAC0 next to yours takes forever to get going and ends up 7 behind you, as compared to being equal for most of the game and only slowly falling behind.

>> No.22788786 [DELETED] 

>>22788750
With the amount of discussion they've put into "bounded accuracy" I feel pretty safe that they're committed to slower modifier scaling.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604

http://community.wizards.com/hartlage/blog/2012/10/21/two_problems_that_provoked_bounded_accuracy

>> No.22788790

>>22788775
Even though they did, they got in just as many attacks and by God those attacks HIT.

>> No.22788816

>>22788759
No they're added to your roll, even if it's effectively the same thing.

>> No.22788857

>>22786746
>THAC0 is simplest.
Die vs. die is significantly quicker. Why? Well, each person probably knows their own attack die pretty well, just like they probably know their THAC0 or armor class pretty well. Each person rolls their die and the attacker sees if he matches or exceeds the defender's roll (much like you have to meet or exceed your target on a d20 when using THAC0). That effectively skips a step that you have to take with THAC0 (determining your target by subtracting your opponent's AC).

Of course, it makes the GM roll a die when he otherwise would only have to know a creature's AC, but during a player's turn, the GM should be focused on the player anyway, so it shouldn't be interrupting anything. Plus, it means that he doesn't have to give out vital information about the enemy, if he doesn't want to. He can roll the die behind a screen and simply tell the player if he succeeds or not, if he wants the creature's defenses to be somewhat of a mystery.

Now, where THAC0 is easy is when there are a bunch of creatures with the same AC, and the players can just remember or mark down the target number they need against them and quickly make repeated rolls. I tend not to run many combats like that, however, and am also fond of constantly throwing in modifiers depending on the situation. This is easier if I'm roll a die for the enemies, as I can modify it directly rather than having to tell the players to constantly adjust their target number accordingly.

>> No.22788862

>>22788557
>problems with 2e, not THAC0

Okay. Then someone show me a place where THAC0 is used successfully.

You get ten points if you can show me that it is any different than having my bonuses added up beforehand as a static number to add to my roll.
Pic related, I can make charts, too.

What are the ten points you ask?
Well, you add them to your THAC0, of course!

>> No.22788877

>>22788857
Die vs. die is not actually quicker in practice. Like, at all.

>> No.22788893

>>22786151
It's worded annoyingly in the book, but no it's not complicated.

Simple addition is *less* complicated than subtraction tho.

>> No.22788910

>>22788644
>THAC0 is almost exactly the same as the current d20 system, its just written in an asinine way.
Yeah. It's just a slightly different way of getting at the exact same thing. And you can very easily swap one out for the other, so I don't see why anybody would ever consider it a barrier to playing one edition or the other. I mean, that would be like throwing a fit because the book tells you that you succeed if you flip a coin and it comes up heads rather if you roll a 1-3 on a d6. They're the damn same. The point is that you're simulating a 50/50 chance with both methods, so roll a fucking d6 if you want to.

>> No.22788911

>>22788857
>That effectively skips a step that you have to take with THAC0 (determining your target by subtracting your opponent's AC).

No one fucking does that. You shouldn't know your opponents AC anyway unless you worked it out in combat, and even then there is no need to factor it in to your roll.

You roll, you tell the DM what AC you hit, and the DM tells you if you hit.

>> No.22788978

>>22788877
>Die vs. die is not actually quicker in practice. Like, at all.
Then we have conflicting anecdotal evidence. How much experience do you have with die vs. die? Because I have extensive experience with both systems. I actually started playing D&D before THAC0 was introduced, then played through the era of THAC0. I tend to homebrew games that use die vs. die systems. The only trick is to make sure everybody has their dice laid out in front of them--usually 2 or 3 of each type--without a huge clutter of excess dice to get in the way. Then, assuming people can quickly recognize which die is which, everything should run smoothly (sometimes newbies get d8s and d10s confused, but they usually get over that pretty quickly).

>> No.22789003

>>22788911
Then you're replacing recognition of higher/lower with subtraction, which is slower and easier to screw up.

>> No.22789007

>>22788978
>How much experience do you have with die vs. die?
I played Shadowrun regularly and it slowed the FUCK out of the game. Also played BESM a bunch of times and the play speed was objectively improved by making the defender in an opposed check just subtract half of the relevant skill from the attacker's check.

You're taking a step that doesn't actually need to be there.

>> No.22789021

>>22789003
Where is the subtraction coming from?

>> No.22789033

>>22789021
If your THAC0 is 15 and you roll 11, you hit AC 4. How do you know this?

>> No.22789043

>>22786162
Nice agenda.

>> No.22789044

>>22789033
I look at the THAC0 chart on my character sheet.

>> No.22789085

>>22789044
If you have an actual chart, you aren't really using THAC0, are you? You're using a to-hit chart. THAC0 is a single number that indicates what you need to roll to hit armor class zero. (And at that point, my objection to your system is that you need a chart.)

>> No.22789091

>>22789044
see the pic posted with
>>22788862


Quit acting like you're special.

>> No.22789141

>>22789085
To follow up. The way you'd know you hit AC 4 using just THAC0 is that 15 (your THAC0) - 11 (your roll) = 4 (the best AC you can hit)

>> No.22789147

>>22789091
That chart is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

>> No.22789175

>>22789085
>>22789141

Considering it says in the 2e books that tables should be used so that players don't have to do any calculations, no.

>> No.22789188

>>22789147
Done that way, and assuming you don't have to apply modifiers on the fly, I'll give you that that method is probably quicker than die vs. die. On the other hand, you have to amend that chart every time your attack bonuses change for some reason, and you may need a separate chart for each weapon, which is all sorts of ridiculous in my book.

>> No.22789218

>>22789175
Then my objection is to having to make / reference charts as opposed to having to subtract shit. The groups I played with usually went with subtracting shit rather than chart referencing though. I mean, before THAC0 got introduced, it was charts, but after that it was all "awesome, we don't have to fuck with charts anymore!"

>> No.22789261

>>22789147
By the way, that chart would work just as well with the d20 mechanic of 3.5. Or really any other system that relied on rolling a die to achieve a target number.

>> No.22789283

>>22789147
My bad.
I was looking at a bad example.
Fix'd.

>> No.22789356

Thac0 is a really odd way of implementing roll over.

Bonus + dice vs. target number is alot easier to understand. Also gives you an easy way to figure out when an attack would have not hit regardless of armor (bonus+die is 10 or less, or 10+half level for 4e)

>> No.22789469

>>22789283
Here, I made you a better one.

>> No.22789589

Hey this old thing again!

LETS ALL START THE SHITFEST, IT SEEMS I'M ALREADY LATE!

2e was a clusterfuck instead of consistent with what you're aiming at with your dicerolls. That's it. THACO has fucknothing to do with it. 2e was just a bloody mess as a system. What does it matter whether or not you need to add or subtract?

NOTHING.

Was 2e a clusterfuck with how it viewed dicerolls?

YES.

Thank you, good bye, lecture is over.

>> No.22790150

>>22789589
OH NO! SOMETIMES I WANT TO ROLL HIGH AND OTHER LOW I'M SO CONFUSED!

>> No.22790961

>>22790150

Yeah it boggles my mind.

I've had literally one person not understand THAC0 that I've gamed with. He didn't understand any game system we played though.

I've had many more people slow the game down making sure they added up all those little +1s instead of reading the fucking chart on their sheet.

>> No.22791125

>>22786151
I have never thought that THAC0 is complicated, but I have no idea why people would miss it outside of nostalgia.

>>22786168
>These are the same people who prefer 3d6 over 1d20
I can only assume you are trolling here.

>> No.22791141

>>22791125
What's wrong with 3d6?

>> No.22791182

>>22790150
>consistency is a bad thing

>> No.22792270

>>22791141
>What's wrong with 3d6?
It's the d20 systems that are far from perfect, not 3d6.

There is nothing weird with preferring 3d6 over d20.

>> No.22792356

>>22791141

2d12 is infinitely better.

>> No.22792468

YOU CAN ALL FUCK YOURSELVES!

1d100 SKILL CHECKS MOTHERFUCKER!

BASIC ROLEPLAYING MASTER RACE

>> No.22793034

>>22792468
>tfw glorious percentage-based master race

>> No.22795752

>>22786151
HEY. HEY DUDE.
HOW ARE BONUSES EXPRESSED.
YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS VALUE WHICH BECOMES BETTER THE LOWER IT IS

WHAT SYMBOL DO YOU USE TO DENOTE A BONUS
IS IT A MINUS?

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. THE PLUSES MEAN MINUS IF IT'S A BONUS.
FUCK

why are we even having this conversation

>> No.22796553

>>22795752
It's not exactly general fact... + is a bonus only for stuff we already assume "more = better". + AC means you have higher AC score. But you get the knowledge of wether it's good or not from an unrelated place. Negative logic is just as valid.

>> No.22798791

>>22789007
>I played Shadowrun regularly and it slowed the FUCK out of the game.
That's dicepool vs. dicepool, isn't it? That's a different mechanic (since counting successes is O(n)).

>Also played BESM a bunch of times and the play speed was objectively improved by making the defender in an opposed check just subtract half of the relevant skill from the attacker's check.

That's dice+modifiers vs. dice+modifiers. Also a different mechanic, although at least that one's constant-time. (Well, linear in the number of modifiers.)

>studyxp bounded
Don't worry, captcha, the bound is no worse than linear, assuming occasional breaks.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action