thac0 sucks and needs to die in a fire!
taltamir
Member Posts: 288
3e is not revolutionary, it IS thac0 only without the stupid. (if you want something different look at gurps, WOD, etc)
3e AC = 20 - 2e AC
BAB = 20 THAC0
Every time someone complains about thac0 the immediate response I see is "you are too stupid to do subtraction".
No, we are not too stupid to subtract. The problem is that D&D authors simply can't keep thac0 straight since it is too counter intuitive.
1. THAC0 is explained in the most obtuse and unnecessarily complicated manner in 2e player guide. It is simpler than they make it out to be
2. items have the most confusing and inconsistent notation. This is a huge problem.
For example, here are the notations I have seen thus far in Baldur's Gate in game or in manual:
a. +X bonus; this reduces your AC (which is good) by X
b. -X bonus; this reduces your AC (which is good) by X
c. +X penalty; this increases your AC (which is bad) by X
d. -X penalty; this increases your AC (which is bad) by X
e. AC X; this alters your AC by 10-X; for example, AC5 item will givec you -5 to ac (which is good). An AC 15 item will alter your AC by +5 which is bad. It is often unclear which portion of the change comes from magical source and which from a mundane source
f. +X Protection (leather armor); what does this mean?
g. -X Protection (leather armor); what does this mean?
h. -X penalty (manual, two handed weapon proficiency); penalty to damage? to thac0? both?
i. -X AC against missile weapons (sword and shield proficiency); lowers your AC by X which is good.
This is just awful.
Ideally beamdog would get rid of thac0 in favor of BAB... but since this will never happen they should at least go through and standardize the notations on items to make them consistent.
PS. the main purpose of this thread is not to request beamdog replace thac0 or the notation, but to clarify my position of "when someone complains about thac0 they aren't too stupid to do subtraction, they are horribly confused by inconsistent notation and poor explanation"
3e AC = 20 - 2e AC
BAB = 20 THAC0
Every time someone complains about thac0 the immediate response I see is "you are too stupid to do subtraction".
No, we are not too stupid to subtract. The problem is that D&D authors simply can't keep thac0 straight since it is too counter intuitive.
1. THAC0 is explained in the most obtuse and unnecessarily complicated manner in 2e player guide. It is simpler than they make it out to be
2. items have the most confusing and inconsistent notation. This is a huge problem.
For example, here are the notations I have seen thus far in Baldur's Gate in game or in manual:
a. +X bonus; this reduces your AC (which is good) by X
b. -X bonus; this reduces your AC (which is good) by X
c. +X penalty; this increases your AC (which is bad) by X
d. -X penalty; this increases your AC (which is bad) by X
e. AC X; this alters your AC by 10-X; for example, AC5 item will givec you -5 to ac (which is good). An AC 15 item will alter your AC by +5 which is bad. It is often unclear which portion of the change comes from magical source and which from a mundane source
f. +X Protection (leather armor); what does this mean?
g. -X Protection (leather armor); what does this mean?
h. -X penalty (manual, two handed weapon proficiency); penalty to damage? to thac0? both?
i. -X AC against missile weapons (sword and shield proficiency); lowers your AC by X which is good.
This is just awful.
Ideally beamdog would get rid of thac0 in favor of BAB... but since this will never happen they should at least go through and standardize the notations on items to make them consistent.
PS. the main purpose of this thread is not to request beamdog replace thac0 or the notation, but to clarify my position of "when someone complains about thac0 they aren't too stupid to do subtraction, they are horribly confused by inconsistent notation and poor explanation"
Post edited by taltamir on
2
Comments
Its one thing to convert a 3e class into a 2e class (sorcerer) or a 3e prestige class to a 2e kit (shadow dancer), but its quite another thing to rewrite the entire engine of the game to switch from THAC0 to BAB. And technically speaking BG is a 2e game. 3e content becomes 2e content when adding to BG games not the other way around.
1. change the user readable description of items (not a single line of engine code has to be changed for that)
2. modify 2 lines of code in the character viewer UI to convert the internal engine thac0 value to bab value.
Although the code WOULD be cleaner if you actually changed the actual underlying engine from thac0 to bab rather than using the above cosmetic alteration.
Also, you are correct that we will never see thac0 dumped from BGEE; thank you for reminding me about the legal issues.
but there is no reason (technical or legal) to not go through item's text description and changing their descriptions to be consistent.
For example, "Bracers of Armor AC7" can be renamed to "Bracers of Armor -3" and their description changed from "AC: 7" to "-3 Armor bonus" (armor bonus because it counts as armor, not as a shield).
Full plate armor should have its item description changed from "AC: 1" to "-9 Armor bonus", etc
2. Setting your base to X and then calculating from there is completely obtuse, unintuitive, and confusing. Compared to clearly stating what CHANGE it makes. Oh, it makes sense once you mastered the rules, but half the people quit the game in frustration before mastery occurs
in a PNP game i'm playing, i have an archer/ranger named THAC0 & i was wondering how he had raised such ire
No hostilities intended towards people both real and fictional.
Speaking of characters named thac0, there is this one goblin from the comic Goblins whose name is thac0.
I wonder how common a name it is in D&D fiction
i am familiar w/ the Goblins comic...i like Dies Horribly
wonderful comic strip & worth the read
THAC0 is a **gasp** 4th ed. Ranger...i was protesting the rules choice when i named him...
This is an old game, using old rules. For some of us old guys, that's exactly how we like it!
That's no reflection on your intelligence, its a reflection on my game system of choice. If they switched it to 3E, or 4E, or Next or whatever that's fine too. I wouldn't play it then, but that's fine too.
that being said, slipping back into 2nd ed. AD&D rules is pretty easy...THAC0 makes total sense to me; i couldn't count the hours i used it...& remember, it was a step up from the original AD&D tables...
@taltamir...upon re-reading your post, i wish to chime in i've never, ever heard anyone referred to as "too stupid" to use THAC0...& i've been playing a good 30 yrs...
2. Once you get your base AC from the armor/bracers/robes you're wearing, apply Dex and other item bonuses/penalties. Most other items give bonuses to AC, e.g., RIngs of Protection. So, its not really that confusing. You don't even have to consult a table to check if your armor nullifies your Dex bonus.
+X to hit and -X to THAC0 both achieve the exact same thing.
Also, in general sense of roleplay, I find THAC0 to make more sense than AC of the later editions... THAC0 is the characters ability to hit with a weapon, it's a check against the characters skills basicly... Where as AC is just are you able to cut through something armor or not...
However it would be a pretty big job to change all of the in-game descriptions that refer to attack & armor bonuses just to make things a little easier to follow. While it would be nice, I can't really see it happening.
There actually are legal and technical reasons not to do as you suggest. First and foremost adding in references to 3e mechanics without permission can be a legal issue. I am fairly sure Beamdog needed approval to add those new kits which are 2e conversions of 3e prestige classes. And those conversions were probably looked at closely to ensure they were within 2e parameters before that approval was given. The D&D license holders are usually very picky about which edition is used in a product and often want to maintain the integrity of an old title, especially one as popular as the BG series.
And then of course, just because something seems simple to do doesn't mean that it actually is. Assuming the legal hurdles could be overcome, you're assuming the cosmetic suggestion you posted could be done easily and without any possible bugs resulting from it. Are you entirely certain of that? Do you personally know the code well enough to make such a change? Is your name Arcanaville? (ok that makes no sense to anyone who didn't play city of heroes but it made me smile ^_^) Then you don't know exactly how easy or difficult it would be to make the suggested change.
As for the item descriptions, I have to say I agree with points made. Bracers change base AC, not the total AC so they ARE accurate. As for changing THACO mods to say -2 instead of +2 that does make sense as far as THACO consistency is concerned...but at this point as Elminster said, who really wants to run around with a -2 longsword?
That said, unless someone has already written (or could quickly write) a program that can systematically replace all THAC0 references without taking hours of time from a more important project, I'd say leave it. Because, like the 5+2 analogy, it's not really doing all that much harm. Spending time and energy on fixing it would probably be more trouble than it's worth.
But nowadays I look at it is and it's a simple system that makes sense.
Since the attack roll is D20 + Target's AC + Modifiers vs. Your THAC0...
The game turns the Hit roll modifiers to a THAC0 bonus... Like if you have a +2 Weapon, it's actually a +2 to Hit Rolls, but it can also be treated alternatively as a -2 THAC0.
It's just adding a few numbers together and seeing if result is higher than your THAC0, it's not infintely complex.
And most things state if it's a penalty or a bonus anyways to avoid too much confusion... Bonus good, Penalty bad.
He just wants the manual/rules to be standardized so it is easier to understand the core rules when you start learning them.
However, changing BG:EE to 3E BAB and AC just isn't going to happen. They're separate rulesets, and you'd confuse as many people by changing them as you would by keeping it the same.