Was Thac0 really that bad?
- Thread starter foolish_mortals
- Start date
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
I was both elated and disappointed when D&D switched from THAC0 to ascending AC. I had recently started playing D&D with a group of pure newbies who were struggling to understand THAC0, and it was really killing the flow of the game. The change removed that obstacle because ascending AC made perfect sense to them.
On the down side, two weeks before I found out about the system, I had constructed a THAC0 calculator for each player. All that effort and of course my dreams of marketing it were flushed away.
In the end, I would vote to keep ascending AC. THAC0 is pure nostalgia, there isn't any aspect of the mechanic itself that makes it better and worth the confusion.
On the down side, two weeks before I found out about the system, I had constructed a THAC0 calculator for each player. All that effort and of course my dreams of marketing it were flushed away.
In the end, I would vote to keep ascending AC. THAC0 is pure nostalgia, there isn't any aspect of the mechanic itself that makes it better and worth the confusion.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
THAT was where "system mastery" was born - they just bent the definition. It was because the system had all the piecemeal bits (roll high here, low there, where you can simplify or modify) that it was fun and useful to know the differences. I'd honestly rather have that than be rolling a d20 for everything all the time (which I have come to find extraordinarily tedious).
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.024034,-117.423146
Bedrockgames
Legend
There Is something to be said for how mechanics feel. And it feels different to roll a d1O for this, a d20 for that, roll high here, roll low there, etc. I still generally prefer things unified but I do think it isn't so simple as d20 is objectively better than THAC0. Wrote something to this effect on my blog: The Bedrock Blog: Unified Mechanics
LeStryfe79
First Post
I personally liked Thac0 for a variety of reasons. I also played with several high school dropouts who never passed math 1 and had zero problem with it. I switched to an ascending system in the mid 90's for a while, but ultimately had to lose it since everyone hated it and couldn't equate it to D&D. I know Thac0's gone forever, now. Oh well, thems the brakes I guess...
Stormonu
Legend
The first time I remember running across THAC0 was seeing it on a DM screen late in 1E. I also believe I remember seeing it mentioned in a Dragon magazine article somewhere before 2E was announced. I think this was back in '85.
Anyway, THAC0 was an improvement over the tables in the 1E, and BAB, I feel was an improvement over THAC0. It served it's purpose admirably, but I'd rather not see it return.
For that matter, I can't think of any other game that uses negative numbers to represent the defense score/ability of a creature.
Anyway, THAC0 was an improvement over the tables in the 1E, and BAB, I feel was an improvement over THAC0. It served it's purpose admirably, but I'd rather not see it return.
For that matter, I can't think of any other game that uses negative numbers to represent the defense score/ability of a creature.
spaceLem
Explorer
THAC0 is tolerable in precisely one situation: the GM tells you your opponent's AC. Then, you roll your d20, add your modifiers and the AC you've been given, and if you match your THAC0 or better, then you've hit.
Example 1: THAC0 of 15, AC 3, +2 to hit. Roll a d20, get 13. So, 13 (d20 roll) +3 (AC) +2 = 17 (>THAC0). Enough to hit.
Example 2: THAC0 of 7, AC -5, +1 to hit. Roll a d20, get 8. So, 8 (d20 roll) -5 (AC) +1 = 4 (<THAC0). Not enough to hit.
Note how this arrangement removes the requirement for any subtraction (unless the AC is negative, but it's not too difficult to apply here). Also, except for the d20, it's pretty much all single digit numbers, which is a slight advantage. Just make sure to apply bonuses to the opponent's AC correctly.
That said, I still prefer Ascending AC and Attack Bonus, but it's the one way that THAC0 becomes usable. If your GM refuses to tell you the opponent's AC, then I suggest you do what we did when we played 2e: use the THAC0 to reconstruct a 1e style to hit table, and screw the stupid mechanic.
Example 1: THAC0 of 15, AC 3, +2 to hit. Roll a d20, get 13. So, 13 (d20 roll) +3 (AC) +2 = 17 (>THAC0). Enough to hit.
Example 2: THAC0 of 7, AC -5, +1 to hit. Roll a d20, get 8. So, 8 (d20 roll) -5 (AC) +1 = 4 (<THAC0). Not enough to hit.
Note how this arrangement removes the requirement for any subtraction (unless the AC is negative, but it's not too difficult to apply here). Also, except for the d20, it's pretty much all single digit numbers, which is a slight advantage. Just make sure to apply bonuses to the opponent's AC correctly.
That said, I still prefer Ascending AC and Attack Bonus, but it's the one way that THAC0 becomes usable. If your GM refuses to tell you the opponent's AC, then I suggest you do what we did when we played 2e: use the THAC0 to reconstruct a 1e style to hit table, and screw the stupid mechanic.
William Ronald
Explorer
I remember that at the Gen Con when 3rd Edition was announced telling someone from WotC that the only thing I could think of that worked like THACO was stellar luminosity charts. So, I do not miss the counter-intuitive system that made our hobby seem even more esoteric.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
There was an article in an issue of Dragon magazine written by, I believe by Peter Adkinson, describing how to use the 3e scaling math in a 2nd edition game. I remember reading the article and admiring the change so much, I wished it was done far sooner.
Wish I remembered the issue . . .
Wish I remembered the issue . . .
