I want AD&D 2nd Edition with cleaned up math

[Matthew]

Mail Armour = AC 5
Banded Armour = AC 4
Mail Armour +1 = AC 4

There is no extra operation involved there, though it is a good example of how the terminology can be confusing. However, that is not a problem with the direction armour class goes, it is a problem with the terminology used to explain what is going on. A +1 bonus to hit lowers THAC0, a +1 bonus to a saving throw lowers a saving throw, and a +1 bonus to AC reduces AC.

[Ashtagon]

But... thats not a function of math. Mathematicly saves and attack rolls work exactly the same in pre-3e and in 3.x.

All that has changed is the way its written down.

Absolutely not true.

In 1e/2e, saves only varied by subject's class and level (and some miscellaneous magic item bonuses). In 3e, saves also vary by spell level and caster's primary casting ability score. This made high level magic into rocket tag far more than could have been possible in 1e/2e.

[MeeposFire]

Yea in 1e/2e your saves improved with level but they were static. No matter what the attacker had as a level the save was the same (unless the effect had a save penalty or the like). This gave classes like warriors much better survivability.

[Zombimode]

Absolutely not true.

In 1e/2e, saves only varied by subject's class and level (and some miscellaneous magic item bonuses). In 3e, saves also vary by spell level and caster's primary casting ability score. This made high level magic into rocket tag far more than could have been possible in 1e/2e.

And that contradicts my statement how, exactly?

There is no difference in the math involved.

And yes, they DO work exactly the same in both editions. That one of the elements involved is more likely to vary in one edition than the other (DC) does not change the way they are executed. Instead it has influence on the dynamic of the gameplay, as you have noted.

[erikun]

And that contradicts my statement how, exactly?

There is no difference in the math involved.

In one edition, it did not matter if a character had 25 Constitution or 5 Constitution; they both had an equal chance to survive an instant-death attack. Similarly, it didn't matter if the wizard had a 19 Intelligence or a 90 Intelligence; they both had the same chance of affecting a target.

Being able to increase your (generally only) casting stat to such high levels that nothing is capable of making their saving throws most certainly does mess up the math involved.

[Yora]

I just realized what the big problem with THAC0 is, that makes it so unintuitive (because I think for the first time in 12 years I finaly figured it out):

The fastes was to determine a hit not only has you make a substraction, but you also need to substract an enemy value from a character value and then compare it to the roll.

With BAB, you have everything related to your character on one side of the comparison, and everything related to the enemy on the other side.

THAC0:
(Attack value - Armor value) vs. (Attack roll)

BAB:
(Attack roll + Attack value) vs. (Armor value)

Yes, doing a substraction is only marginally more difficult than doing an addition. But this is counter-intuitive!
And even if someone thinks that this is a problem only for the first 30 minutes of playing the game and then it becomes a second nature to you, just as easy as using BAB. There's still the issue that THAC0 does not have any benefit over BAB, while BAB has two benefits over THAC0, however big or small you may regard them.

[ngilop]

I just realized what the big problem with THAC0 is, that makes it so unintuitive (because I think for the first time in 12 years I finaly figured it out):

The fastes was to determine a hit not only has you make a substraction, but you also need to substract an enemy value from a character value and then compare it to the roll.

With BAB, you have everything related to your character on one side of the comparison, and everything related to the enemy on the other side.

THAC0:
(Attack value - Armor value) vs. (Attack roll)

BAB:
(Attack roll + Attack value) vs. (Armor value)

Yes, doing a substraction is only marginally more difficult than doing an addition. But this is counter-intuitive!
And even if someone thinks that this is a problem only for the first 30 minutes of playing the game and then it becomes a second nature to you, just as easy as using BAB. There's still the issue that THAC0 does not have any benefit over BAB, while BAB has two benefits over THAC0, however big or small you may regard them.

1) you are doing it wrong, that is to me at least the big reason it took you 12 years to figur eout how to do THAC0.

here is THACO in an attack. you roll your d20, add the relative modifiers then subtract that number from your characters THAC0, THEN you compare that number to the enemy's AC

here is BAB in an attack you roll you D20, next you add the relative modifiers, then you add your BAB, THEN you compare that number to the enemy's AC.

Maybe the fact that you were doing it completely wrong is why you never understood it, Maybe somebody ( the person who showed you THAC0 in the first palce) should have expalined it better, or mayhaps explained it at all.

so they both come down to this

THAC0:
THAC0- (Attack roll + Attack value) vs. (Armor value)

BAB:
(Attack roll + Attack value) vs. (Armor value)

The only different is youhave to subtract your 'attack roll' from your THAC0.

2) what in the world are the two benefits over THAC0, that BAB has?
I understand making THACO into a positive number becuase bigger numbers are just better understood by the human mind, one of those 'funny things about how the brain works' but I have no idea what mysterious 2nd benefit you are talking about, and wholeheratedly beivle that it does not exist.

[nedz]

Sorry I still think thats confusing.

2E:
THAC0 - (d20 roll + Attack bonus) vs. (10 - Armor bonus)

3E:
BAB + (d20 roll + Attack bonus) vs. (10 + Armor bonus)

[Scots Dragon]

Here's another way to do it.

Roll a d20, add to target's AC. Compare to your THAC0.

Sometimes you can get your DM to do this if he doesn't want you to know the AC of the monster in question (though naturally knowing your own attack bonus and knowing your own roll would allow you to hazard a guess), but it's pretty much sound mathematically.

[Yora]

Well, I think this all just proves my point.

[Matthew]

It is the case that all the numbers are on a different side in AD&D as to D20, the result is that a penalty always affects hit chances negatively and a bonus always affects it positively, regardless of where the modifier is applied [i.e. to the roll or to armour class. When THAC0 was introduced it had the odd effect of reversing that in its own case (minuses applied to THAC0 are beneficial to hit chances, whilst positives are detrimental). It all goes back to the language used in Chain Mail for man-to-man combat, which ironically used ascending armour class.

[hamlet]

Well, I think this all just proves my point.

No, actually, it doesn't.

The simple fact is that the mechanic in and of itself is very simple and very elegant, as Narsil points out.

The problem is 1) it was explained incorrectly in the actual rule book, which is inexcusable and confused lots of people, and 2) people raised on 3.x who inherit prejudice and ignorance of it both.

Adding the die roll plus the AC and comparing to THAC0 is no more complicated than BAB, and is, in fact, probably quite a bit less so since, overall, there's going to be smaller numbers involved the entire time rather than the absurd rocket tag numbers that 3.x got into.

[J.Gellert]

No, actually, it doesn't.

The simple fact is that the mechanic in and of itself is very simple and very elegant, as Narsil points out.

The problem is 1) it was explained incorrectly in the actual rule book, which is inexcusable and confused lots of people, and 2) people raised on 3.x who inherit prejudice and ignorance of it both.

Adding the die roll plus the AC and comparing to THAC0 is no more complicated than BAB, and is, in fact, probably quite a bit less so since, overall, there's going to be smaller numbers involved the entire time rather than the absurd rocket tag numbers that 3.x got into.

Considering that my group and I were playing it just fine before 3rd edition came out probably means it's more the latter - It had simply not occured to us (or players in general, though that might be the result of less internet usage back then) that 2nd edition math NEEDED cleaning.

Of course now you'll see posts like this one ("2nd Ed with cleaned up math") but then it just wasn't a problem.

And I'm not trying to defend it, considering I haven't really looked back since 3rd edition (I have considered looking back, but haven't played it since ). In retrospect, the new way really is more elegant.

[hamlet]

And I'm not trying to defend it, considering I haven't really looked back since 3rd edition (I have considered looking back, but haven't played it since ). In retrospect, the new way really is more elegant.

I look at the new way as massively overwrought, ill thought out, having lost ALL brevity of any sort required four times the amount of room to explain basic concepts that prior editions did, and indulging with great gusto in rocket tag and even outright requiring it unless your group specifically agrees not to go there (never met a group that did).

So, to each their own, I say.

[Scots Dragon]

I feel that the rocket-tag of 3rd edition, to be fair for a moment, is less to do with the central system of d20+bonuses versus target number, and a lot more to do with everything else that surrounds it. Technically speaking, that central system, for attack rolls at least, was mathematically identical, just using a different formula to get to the end result.

[Yora]

I'd argue that straightening out the math was about the only thing d20 did right. Everything else is wa overdoing it in my oppinion.

[Crow]

I thought you just subtracted AC from THACO and that is what you needed to hit?

[J.Gellert]

I can't tell - given how started with 2nd edition, my games (and by extension the games of people whom I've taught d&d) haven't changed all that much.

The simplest example is how we never really used miniatures, but there's other things, subtler things, such as in the campaign settings we'd play.

I do understand what you're saying though. Someone with no RPG experience whatsoever, reading the 3.5 Player's Handbook, probably wouldn't receive the same things out of it.

But I talk too much - this is about the math, and it is more elegant now. Not just on the D20 roll.

An example: I am one of the people who "gets it", the reason mages used to level up slowly, then fast, then slowly again. And I never found the old way of doing saves (lower as you level up) weird at all. But at the same time I completely support the notion that the caster's skill should influence a saving throw DC.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not quite sure what you're calling an internet myth. That the Dvorak keyboard is better than the Qwerty? That's no myth, and that's not what that article talks about at all.
The DVORAK keyboard was laid out for ease of use. It has the most-used keys on home row, with the least-used keys being hit with the weakest fingers (pinkies).
The "QWERTY" keyboard was laid out to prevent commonly-used keys from binding up in a striker typewriter. It placed commonly used letter far apart, so that when their strikers hit the ink tape, they were less likely to tangle themselves up.
The reason "Qwerty" won the type off, is because its developer had those demonstrating it practice with it for some time before the contest. Those using the Dvorak keyboard were unfamiliar with typewriters at all. With no practice, they just couldn't compete with the Qwerty users.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1071357 has some great links. Long story short, dvorak predates any serious ergonomic research. Both creators thought their keyboard was superior. Repeated testing fails to show any notable advantage of dvorak.

Some elements of it are pretty terrible, like shifting more work to the pinky finger, which is notably much more vulnerable to getting tired on most folks. In addition, the right hand letter bias sucks for lefties. Dvorak isn't actually horrible for all people, but touting it as clearly superior to qwerty is simply perpetuating an old internet myth.

Which, incidentally, was the point of all this.

Me? I'm apathetic on thac0. I can easily do it either way. I'm not sure why everyone cares so much.

[hamlet]

I thought you just subtracted AC from THACO and that is what you needed to hit?

That's how it was explained, but that was just not terribly good in practice. Far better for player to roll his d20, add his specific bonuses, and inform the DM of the total. DM secretly adds this number to AC and compares to THAC0 and informs player if he hit or not. Functinonally not any different than the D20 model of operation in terms of number of operations or basic "intuitiveness" (Lord how I'm beginning to hate that word). Add a couple of numbers and compare. Done.

The way the PHB explained it was just flat out bad.

To be fair, they probably never should have moved away from the "to-hit charts" from 1st edition and Basic. The formula never really gained them anything mechanically.

[Yora]

That's how it was explained, but that was just not terribly good in practice. Far better for player to roll his d20, add his specific bonuses, and inform the DM of the total. DM secretly adds this number to AC and compares to THAC0 and informs player if he hit or not.

I don't understand this? This sounds even more complicated?

[Scots Dragon]

An example: I am one of the people who "gets it", the reason mages used to level up slowly, then fast, then slowly again. And I never found the old way of doing saves (lower as you level up) weird at all. But at the same time I completely support the notion that the caster's skill should influence a saving throw DC.

Castles & Crusades offers a good vague middle-ground that can be used with old AD&D rules with a minimum of modification. Hell, converting stuff back and forth between AD&D and C&C takes about ten minutes, and going for the 'primeless' system that someone linked elsewhere more or less allows you to make a fully-functional 'modern AD&D' system on the fly.

Functinonally not any different than the D20 model of operation in terms of number of operations or basic "intuitiveness" (Lord how I'm beginning to hate that word). Add a couple of numbers and compare. Done.

I believe that word is, at the very least, matched by the frequent misuse of the terms 'relatability' and 'balance'. In different contexts.

[hamlet]

I don't understand this? This sounds even more complicated?

Not at all. Instead of refiguring your target number for each armor class (which is what the first method essentially is), your THAC0 is your target number and is only figured once per level barring special circumstances (i.e., those really unforeseen things that might for some reason change it beyond the odd -1 penalty which applies to a die roll instead) and the AC now becomes a modifier to your roll instead of your target number.

Thus, something with a worse (higher) AC is easier for you to hit because it positively adjusts your roll while something with a better (lower) AC is more difficult because it either adds less (in the case of a still positive AC) or subtracts (in the case of a negative AC which is actually not as common as you believe).

EX: Bob is a 2nd level fighter attacking an orc with AC7. Barring all other modifiers, Bob must, accounting for everything, roll at least a 19 to hit the orc. He rolls a 15 and informs the DM so who adds the orc's AC7 (which Bob doesn't know) and announces that Bob has skewered the orc with his blade and done damage.

The method in the book involves taking Bob's THAC0, subtracting 7 from it, and then using that as a new target number. It takes up more time, gets confusing, and is clunky to say the least.

I believe that word is, at the very least, matched by the frequent misuse of the terms 'relatability' and 'balance'. In different contexts.

Not to leave out "DM Fiat" which is used almost as an obscenity nowadays. Let's face it, we have all been guilty of using these words or phrases too often to refer to things which are probably meaningless in the end.

[Yora]

Not at all. Instead of refiguring your target number for each armor class (which is what the first method essentially is), your THAC0 is your target number and is only figured once per level barring special circumstances (i.e., those really unforeseen things that might for some reason change it beyond the odd -1 penalty which applies to a die roll instead) and the AC now becomes a modifier to your roll instead of your target number.

And I dare to use the I-word here. This is not intuitive. This is anti-intuitive.

I roll my attack roll and add the targets defense score and hope that I can reach my attack score.

[Scots Dragon]

I suppose half of the English language consists of those sorts of words, pretty much all of them having a real meaning along the lines of 'thing I like' or 'thing I don't like' as applied to different contexts.

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

[Crow]

That's how it was explained, but that was just not terribly good in practice. Far better for player to roll his d20, add his specific bonuses, and inform the DM of the total. DM secretly adds this number to AC and compares to THAC0 and informs player if he hit or not. Functinonally not any different than the D20 model of operation in terms of number of operations or basic "intuitiveness" (Lord how I'm beginning to hate that word). Add a couple of numbers and compare. Done.

The way the PHB explained it was just flat out bad.

To be fair, they probably never should have moved away from the "to-hit charts" from 1st edition and Basic. The formula never really gained them anything mechanically.

I see what you're saying.

We always played with the numbers out in the open, so to speak. Not like the player knew what the monster's entire stat block was or anything. But we would just tell the player what the monster's AC was, and let them figure it out. That's probably why it felt so much easier for us.

[Scots Dragon]

And I dare to use the I-word here. This is not intuitive. This is anti-intuitive.

I roll my attack roll and add the targets defense score and hope that I can reach my attack score.

Makes sense to me. Simply put, the meaning of the acronym is 'to hit armour class zero'; it is a roll you have to beat in its very definition.

For instance, you have a THAC0 of 14. To hit a creature or character with AC 0, you must roll a 14 or better. If a character has AC 5 instead of AC 0, you add the roll to the higher number (or the higher number to the roll) and compare to your 'to hit' score.

It's simple addition and subtraction.

[hamlet]

And I dare to use the I-word here. This is not intuitive. This is anti-intuitive.

I roll my attack roll and add the targets defense score and hope that I can reach my attack score.

Makes prefect sense if you stop clinging to the idea that AC modifies target number instead of the attack roll. Your target number is always going to be the same (again, barring any unforeseen circumstances. It's just modifications to what you roll that change, and you the player doesn't have to worry about that.

[ngilop]

I love how in Post #67I pointed out how she was incorrectly doing THAC0 and she completely ignored that and continued on with her own mis-understanding of how attacks worked pre thrid edition, even though it has been pointed out as incorrect several times by different people.


I, for the life of me, just cannot wrap my head around why people get so stuck on hating something so much that the blind themsleves to any other point than their own.

that to me is the definitin of 'counter-intuitive' ( sorry felt left out that I was the only one who has yet to used that phrase)

anywyas, I see that she wants to stick to her own 'BAB is best, THAC0 is terrible and never works no matter what anybody else says ever ever ever!'

and that nothing in this world is going to convinve her otherwsie, sometimes opening ones mind to outside ideas is just too much for somebody and its is a kind of human-fault that we hate being called wrong.

anywyas that is my last point in this for I am done becuase nothing urkes me more than somebody who while being shown that what they are doing/how they are doing it is wrong, and just ignoring you and keeping on their own path just becuase its their path and not 'how they were raised.


.. its like im back during election week and arguing with people in NC over that dmaned amendant 1 and why I voted agiasnt that crap anti-constituional hypocritical bigoted, hate induced garbage!

[Scots Dragon]

Let's face it; mules haven't got anything on human beings when it comes to stubbornness.