[4.0] Insults intelligence.

[WalkingTarget]

Charge?

Yeah, that's what Basic Attacks are for, right? When you don't have a Power that fits your situation and you just want to hurt something.

[kc0bbq]

Charge?

Yeah, and you aren't supposed to talk to anyone ever. Despite the elegant mechanics for doing so.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Haven't read the thread, but I hardly think that it has anything to do with intelligence.

Just about anyone can understand pre-4e rules with some reading and experience with the game. You don't need to be super smart or anything to get it. Some things take time to understand, sure. But it takes time, not intelligence. If you think playing D&D makes you special or smart, please just..... no.

[Matthew]

A most excellent post, right there.

While I cannot discern to what degree the edition wars are driven by the wish for popularity, as you postulate, I can testify that the nature of the RPG community seems to allow for only one truly dominant game, and having one's favoured game remain the dominant one is crucial for its players for the very reasons you outlined.

Consider - in most (quite possibly all, I know of no exceptions) anglophone countries, D&D is the most popular RPG, and there are no other RPGs that could challenge its status. Does that mean it's the best RPG on the market? Hardly so, I'd argue - I know of many RPGs I consider superior, but even not accounting for that (as it's just my personal opinion), it seems unlikely that in a such a big field as tabletop RPGs no better alternatives would ever have been developed. But those alternatives never took over, condemned to an existence as mere niche games - because D&D's popularity alone provides it with enough momentum to dominate the scene, and keep dominating it. Hence only a new D&D version can provide any sort of rivalry for D&D.

Now, in Germany, the Dark Eye (DSA) got hold of the fantasy RPG genre, and D&D is but a minor niche game. And in Poland, Warhammer Fantasy RPG has taken hold of that, again displacing D&D into the role of a niche game. Quite different games, all three of them, and I'm sure if people were to argue the superiority of one of them over the other two, the arguments could get just as heated as the ones between D&D editions - only, these people never meet to argue with each other because of these games utter dominance in their respective countries. Hence why I assume that the objective quality of these games plays a very minor role - all that matters is that they totally dominate their respective roleplaying scene.

And it strongly indicates your point is right, too - a German Dark Eye player or a Polish WFRPG player has no interest in asserting their respective game's superiority over an American or English player's D&D, as it does not impact the dominance of their chosen game in their own roleplaying scene.

It is an interesting idea that what adherents covert is popularity. If you think about the AD&D scene this last ten years it has been the story of rebuilding a community, and it is a community highly interested in bringing in new players. Also worth noting is that these are internet communities, which are macrocosms of the following:

International Gaming Associations
National Gaming Associations
Local Games Clubs
Gaming Groups

I have never been involved with gaming much beyond the local level until I started browsing gaming forums on the internet. It is an interesting virtual society to be sure, and I am certainly less involved here at GitP since D20/4e came out because I have only dabbled in the game. Even before that my interest in D20/3e was in decline as we were constantly retreading the same old terrain, occasionally livened up by a new release.

One difference between the move from AD&D/2e → D20/3e is that AD&D had lost considerable popularity and was in deep decline as a gaming system. D20/3e was in no such morass, so D20/3e → D20/4e has been a troubled birth, not helped by being a radically different game. The online community is also more sophisticated now than a few years ago, and people are clearer about what they want in a game system.

Thinking back to before there was a D20/4e I had no idea that it was going to be the game that was released. I really was expecting a spiffed up D20/3e, and I think a lot of people were. The change was unexpected, and has been controversial.

It is true, though, popularity breeds popularity... up to a point.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've just spotted something weird...

A gaming system becomes better when more people are playing it. This is because you can just start talking and people can understand what you're saying. A bit like survival of the fittest.

This phenomenon is known as the Network Effect.

The More You Know

[Totally Guy]

This phenomenon is known as the Network Effect.

The More You Know

Cool, the idea relates back to reality. And is applicable to all kinds of stuff!

Like...
Money,
Language,
Systems of Measurements,
Console Wars,
Operating Systems.

Yeah.
People have become very wealth by creating a standard that gets stronger with increased use.

[shadzar]

Spoiler

Show

THAC0 is actually the problem, in the sense that it creates the idea that you have to convert a +1 bonus to a −1 penalty when applying it to THAC0, when you should not be storing anything under THAC0 at all. It is a misstep that seems simpler in practice, but is actually not. The reason there are less moving parts is because in AD&D many effects are described as imposing a −1 penalty on enemy attack rolls. In D20 you could convert this to +1 AC, in AD&D there is no need to. It is always −1, whether applied to the "to hit" bonus or armour class. Modifying THAC0 makes more work and gives the illusion of more moving parts.

In D20 you might add up a +7 armour class bonus and a +3 attack bonus, to get an overall modifier of −4. In AD&D you would have a −7 armour class bonus and a +3 attack bonus for an overall modifier of −4.

Both are simple formulas. The problem with THAC0 is people trying to look at it from a reasoning standpoint and just saying that AC going down rather than up is stupid.

Both can be expressed in simple math formulas. The thing that trips people up is the simple math including the minus sign. It really makes no sense why the minus sign is a problem, but that is where it boils down to.

Charge?

Isn't that a power though? How many actions does it take and of what types? What are the rules for impaling? Does it push the opponent?

With all the crazy power, to me, it seems like you don't get a choice in how something works. Flavor text is part of the rules. It is insulting to be thus.

So what happens when a power comes out called "impale"? Everyone that does not have the power can no longer perform this activity?

That is what is insulting. I like coming up with my own choreography for battle, so in 4th wouldn't take any powers as a fighter at all, and just use basic attacks. How would that affect the game and the system requiring to take powers? I prefer it where one cannot argue I cannot do something because I don't have the power that includes that flavor text.

Given time they will have to make these martial powers up or run out of things and move on to 5th edition because they codified everything and removed the ability to have the players choose something without it being defined by a power.

I prefer Stone to Mud over Fireball ANY day of the week for all the things it can do.

So forcing those powers on someone that doesn't want them...insulting. Fighters cant just hit things without screwing the game up for other players because they are not doing their duty for the group. And not using the powers means you don't like D&D, because there can be only one D&D.

Powers System in 4th = insulting.

[Oslecamo]

This phenomenon is known as the Network Effect.

The More You Know

I disagree. D&D has not gotten better by geting more players.

The more people you have, the more swallow the fluff and rules need to be in order to try to apease everybody. At this pace, soon D&D will follow the path of Warhammer and be nothing more than a shiny board wargame where you only roll dices for battle-stuff. And that will not definetely be better.

[Matthew]

I disagree. D&D has not gotten better by geting more players.

The more people you have, the more swallow the fluff and rules need to be in order to try to apease everybody. At this pace, soon D&D will follow the path of Warhammer and be nothing more than a shiny board wargame where you only roll dices for battle-stuff. And that will not definitely be better.

The network effect can be positive as well as negative, apparently, so it does work from even the perspective where the product becomes less useful to some people (network congestion). That, I believe, is also often described as the signal to noise ratio. D20/3e used to have a much higher noise factor, now the question is whether the signal has become more or less discernible.

[qcbtnsrm]

Now, I'll not assert that these defenses are true here. Is the 4e monster system really so much more elegant and flexible as to justify the reduction in unique monster descriptions? Is the PHB content so much clearer and more streamlined? Maybe, maybe not; I honestly don't have an opinion. My point is just that a direct comparison on word count or number of entries is a terrible metric to use. Take my word for it as a coder: an assertion that some piece of software is better than another because it has more lines of source code, or that a dozen individual explicit descriptions is better than a single framework for generating them all from five-word attribute lists or whatever, is laughable. I think that can be generalized to RPG design: I'm not paying for a number of words or pages or monsters, I'm paying for a well-designed system with creative content.

I agree word count isn't the best metric. But it is a simple one. And best of all it is objective. And it was a type of analysis that I don't ever recall having ever seen before.

And I grant that most of the time a simpler style is better. But only a fairly moderate portion of these books are actually rules. Take again the monster manual, the word count on the stat blocks are very close. By and large the description blocks are longer in 3.5, but not by much and that is made up by the existance of what is nothing more than raw padding in 4.0. Here is the already mentioned Bear Lore:

A character knows the following information with a successful Nature check.
DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves. Cave bears are ferocious predators that make their lairs deep underground and are accustomed to darkenss. Dire bears are savage hunters that east umanoids as readily as game animals.
DC 20: Dire bears typically maul prey with their claws or crush them to death with their thick bestial arms.

And that takes up 16% of the text for that page (page 29).

So I think we can say that the text is hardly ultra-refined prose communicating in the clearest and most concise fashion possible. The way they made up the word count difference was to remove content. Familiars? Gone. Animal companions? Gone. Mounts as a class ability or with associated combat options? Gone. There is roughly a 10 to 1 ratio of "animal" type monsters between the two versions. And the same is true of any class of encounters you want to mention. 4.0 has fewer of every type I've examined. Although admitedly animals were cut more heavily than most.

And those rules you want about adapting and modifying the base creatures? They are curiously absent from 4.0. But 3.5 covered multiple methods to improve the base creatures including adding templates and advancing by hit die. They also had a nice section on how to create your own unique creatures. This is also missing in 4.0.

So while I accept your point that word count is not the best way to express this. The basic point still stands, there is a lot less "there" there in 4.0 in comparison to 3.5.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I disagree. D&D has not gotten better by geting more players.

The more people you have, the more swallow the fluff and rules need to be in order to try to apease everybody. At this pace, soon D&D will follow the path of Warhammer and be nothing more than a shiny board wargame where you only roll dices for battle-stuff. And that will not definetely be better.

You're overstating the Network Effect.

Spoiler

Show

In short, a particular system becomes more "valuable" to an individual when other people (aside from himself) adopt the system as well. All RPGs work this way; the more people who adopt a given system, the larger the potential pool of players - which means a better chance of finding a game.

If you are the only person who plays a game, it isn't a very useful game for you to play, is it?

Also: I'm calling the quoted sentiment "the Indie fallacy" - the more popular the subject, the worse it is

[Matthew]

I'm calling the quoted sentiment "the Indie fallacy" - the more popular the subject, the worse it is

Well... in the case of D20/3e and the OGL there is some truth to network congestion, in the sense that far too much chaff was produced relative to wheat in terms of product. When you have a lot of players using the system a certain way the sheer impetus may cause people to do the same, rather than playing it the way it was intended (or other people think it was). So, the network can actually popularise things that are destructive to subsets of the community.

[Ravens_cry]

4E got me into this hobby, it was the first one I played and it's relatively simple rules allowed be to enjoy myself during my early apprenticeship.
And for that I am grateful. I don't play it myself because my group doesn't. But one thing the players can't complain about is that it's 'just an update'. It's almost a completely different game even though it uses the same dice, and WoTC should be congratulated for taking that risk. It's trying to appeal to a broader audience and is that so wrong? Do we want this fantastic and imaginative hobby to die out just because a bunch of geeks are too cliquey to share?
I have been playing Pathfinder over a year and I still know beyond little of the ins and outs and cracks and hacks to make a well wrought character.
As hard as it may be for some of you to understand, some of you who have probably been playing longer then I have been born, accessibility can be a good thing. It allows those who would be turned off by a mountain of rules to sit down and play. They may not play well, but they can play.
4E, in my opinion is an attempt to do that.

[Matthew]

4E got me into this hobby, it was the first one I played and it's relatively simple rules allowed be to enjoy myself during my early apprenticeship.
And for that I am grateful. I don't play it myself because my group doesn't. But one thing the players can't complain about is that it's 'just an update'. It's almost a completely different game even though it uses the same dice, and WoTC should be congratulated for taking that risk. It's trying to appeal to a broader audience and is that so wrong? Do we want this fantastic and imaginative hobby to die out just because a bunch of geeks are too cliquey to share?
I have been playing Pathfinder over a year and I still know beyond little of the ins and outs and cracks and hacks to make a well wrought character.
As hard as it may be for some of you to understand, some of you who have probably been playing longer then I have been born, accessibility can be a good thing. It allows those who would be turned off by a mountain of rules to sit down and play. They may not play well, but they can play.
4E, in my opinion is an attempt to do that.

This relates to the holy grail of rules heavy RPGs, the introductory books/set. One of the ways Classic Dungeons & Dragons was marketed followed this same idea - a gradual introduction and build up of rules. It seems as though it only works once per iteration, though. Once the consumer knows that there are more boxed sets to buy, they are no longer inclined to make the initial investment. It is a tough nut to crack.

[Arbitrarity]

And those rules you want about adapting and modifying the base creatures? They are curiously absent from 4.0. But 3.5 covered multiple methods to improve the base creatures including adding templates and advancing by hit die. They also had a nice section on how to create your own unique creatures. This is also missing in 4.0.

So while I accept your point that word count is not the best way to express this. The basic point still stands, there is a lot less "there" there in 4.0 in comparison to 3.5.

Very, very, very untrue. DMG "DM's Toolbox" is basically all of those rules, with templates, information on advancing and reducing the challenge of monsters, building monsters from scratch, and the information is much more succinct and balanced than 3.5's recommendations on creating monsters.

[Yakk]

Yeah, that is the game's fault for not explaining the whys and wherefores. THAC0 was originally a shorthand in 1e that became prominent in 2e. Prior to that it was just as usual to talk about "fighting ability", which was a number equal to fighter levels.

Wait a minute. I remember a table that had your class level in various classes along one axis, a collection of ACs along the other axis, and a to-hit number in the middle of the table.

There was some regularity in the table, not that much. The distance between to-hit numbers changing tended to be 1, but not always. Etc.

You could map this over to fighting ability -- using the table for your class, move over and look at the fighter level that corresponded to it.

But I remember classes would read "uses the to-hit table of Clerics", or something along that line.

And that sometimes one class would pass another, or fall behind, for unknown reasons possibly involving typos. Ie, a level 3 cleric would hit more accurately than a level 3 thief, but a level 6 thief would hit more accurately than a level 6 cleric.

This is all fuzzy at this point, however.

[Xallace]

That statement was made in a section of the DMG discussing how the focus should be kept on combat, and how non-combat interaction only detracts from the game. I'm sorry, but isn't that what seperated D&D from the original Chainmail TO BEGIN WITH?

OK, I think I found the part you're referencing?

...Don't make the players spend time discussing which character cooks what for dinner (unless the kind of group you are playing with finds this useful for building characters). Gloss over the mundane, unexciting details and get back to the heroic action as quickly as possible.

Was that it? I mean, I could see how this could be interpreted as "RP sucks, fight now!" save for the parenthesis there, but I really don't think that was the intention. I think it's really just saying:

"OK, does anyone have anything to do before we attack the bandit camp?"
"No."
"Not Really."
"Alright. *Ahem* Later that night..."

Y'know?

But anyway, if that's not the part you just say so and I'll see if I can find it. I'd like to read this myself before I start making more statements about possible meaning.

[Matthew]

Wait a minute. I remember a table that had your class level in various classes along one axis, a collection of ACs along the other axis, and a to-hit number in the middle of the table.

In AD&D 1e there are four tables.

There was some regularity in the table, not that much. The distance between to-hit numbers changing tended to be 1, but not always. Etc.

No, you are misremembering. The distance between each level of fighter is 1, counting down from 20 to 4 at level 17 (where the chart ends in 1e, but it continues in 2e down to 1 at level 20); you can also do it so that fighting ability increases by "2" at every odd level, for much the same result. Never understood why anybody would want to do that, though.

20|19|18|17|16|15|14|13|12|11|10|09|08|07|06|05|04 (THAC0)
01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17 (Fighter Level)
01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17 (Fighting Ability)

You could map this over to fighting ability -- using the table for your class, move over and look at the fighter level that corresponded to it.

But I remember classes would read "uses the to-hit table of Clerics", or something along that line.

The other three tables are for convenience only. They all map onto the fighter table. So, a level 5 thief fights as though a level 1 fighter, whilst a level 1 thief fights as though a level 0 fighter.

And that sometimes one class would pass another, or fall behind, for unknown reasons possibly involving typos [i.e. a level 3 cleric would hit more accurately than a level 3 thief, but a level 6 thief would hit more accurately than a level 6 cleric].

In second edition magicians and thieves were "bumped up" a category, which occasionally resulted in that, but does not make any difference to calculating their fighting ability.

[shadzar]

Wait a minute. I remember a table that had your class level in various classes along one axis, a collection of ACs along the other axis, and a to-hit number in the middle of the table.

There was some regularity in the table, not that much. The distance between to-hit numbers changing tended to be 1, but not always. Etc.

You could map this over to fighting ability -- using the table for your class, move over and look at the fighter level that corresponded to it.

But I remember classes would read "uses the to-hit table of Clerics", or something along that line.

And that sometimes one class would pass another, or fall behind, for unknown reasons possibly involving typos. Ie, a level 3 cleric would hit more accurately than a level 3 thief, but a level 6 thief would hit more accurately than a level 6 cleric.

This is all fuzzy at this point, however.

Something like these? Table 1, Table 2

[Matthew]

Something like these? Table 1, Table 2

Those tables appear to be in error. According to my PHB, Warrior THAC0 goes down to 1 at 20th level in 2e. Are they taken from the Leomund's Tiny Hut articles in Dragon Magazine for 1e?

[Asheram]

*coughs* About this Thac0 stuff.
Doesn't all this arguing about it warrant the statement that it really is needlessly complicated?

*puts my two cents over the eyelids of this threads original intent*

[Matthew]

*coughs* About this Thac0 stuff.
Doesn't all this arguing about it warrant the statement that it really is needlessly complicated?

*puts my two cents over the eyelids of this threads original intent*

Have you seen the two weapon fighting iterative attack threads that used to appear around here (and occasionally still do)? Nah, it is not indicative of anything but a lack of familiarity with the system and hazy recollections of bygone days.

[Yakk]

Note that the table shows that 1 always misses, even as a level 20 warrior with a THAC0 of 1. (!)

Naw, the table was pre-THAC0. Because if I remember right, the pre-THAC0 table was set up so that to-hit numbers would fall off at a non-uniform rate.

The change to THAC0 (or the pre-THAC0 simplified system) made each point of AC change the to-hit number by 1, which was then turned into the THAC0 trick, which was then formalised in the next version of D&D.

THAC0 itself was a massive simplification of what I remember to be a complicated system.

Ie: THAC0 was simple. Pre-THAC0 D&D was more complicated. 3e "d20 system" was simpler than THAC0, because it removed the "+1 weapon lowers your THAC0 by 1" problem (and while the system was mathematically equivalent, the problem was that you had phrases like "-1 bonus" and "+1 bonus" which arguably meant the same thing when applied to THAC0 -- it was a bonus of size 1, that lowered THAC0 by 1 -- the THAC0 'negatives are good' and 'lower AC is good' ended up tripping over the verbiage of the rest of the system where 'positives are good').

And then you had the +1 modifier to your ability to hit something that wasn't qualified with penalty or bonus. Was it a penalty or a bonus? WTF?

This wasn't an inherit problem with using THAC0 -- but rather a problem with copy-editing and writing about THAC0.

[shadzar]

Those tables appear to be in error. According to my PHB, Warrior THAC0 goes down to 1 at 20th level in 2e. Are they taken from the Leomund's Tiny Hut articles in Dragon Magazine for 1e?

Note: These charts are modified for critical hit/fumbles. Meaning any roll of a 1 will automatically miss and a 20 will automatically hit. Modifiers are only taken into account if any number 2 through 19 is rolled.

I wrote them myself with simple math from the THAC0 per class/level and using the critical miss/hit concepts as noted at the bottom of each page.



Was my way of making an attack matrix for 2nd as existed for 1st where people didn't like counting their THAC0 each level.

THAC0 itself was a massive simplification of what I remember to be a complicated system.

THAC0 was reducing the 4 tables of attack matrices into a simple formula to print in the books instead, assuming people could do basic algebra to make their own math work rather than looking things up on the tables that were the attack matrices.

[Matthew]

I wrote them myself with simple math from the THAC0 per class/level and using the critical miss/hit concepts as noted at the bottom of each page.



Was my way of making an attack matrix for 2nd as existed for 1st where people didn't like counting their THAC0 each level.

That will not work if you want to apply any modifiers, that is the problem. For instance, if an opponent has hit you with a curse spell and you have −1 to hit then you will need to adjust for that against AC 0. The natural 20, natural 1 rule should not be combined with THAC0, in my opinion, it just muddies the water.

Note that the table shows that 1 always misses, even as a level 20 warrior with a THAC0 of 1. (!)

Naw, the table was pre-THAC0. Because if I remember right, the pre-THAC0 table was set up so that to-hit numbers would fall off at a non-uniform rate.

The change to THAC0 (or the pre-THAC0 simplified system) made each point of AC change the to-hit number by 1, which was then turned into the THAC0 trick, which was then formalised in the next version of D&D.

THAC0 itself was a massive simplification of what I remember to be a complicated system.

Ie: THAC0 was simple. Pre-THAC0 D&D was more complicated. 3e "d20 system" was simpler than THAC0, because it removed the "+1 weapon lowers your THAC0 by 1" problem (and while the system was mathematically equivalent, the problem was that you had phrases like "-1 bonus" and "+1 bonus" which arguably meant the same thing when applied to THAC0 -- it was a bonus of size 1, that lowered THAC0 by 1 -- the THAC0 'negatives are good' and 'lower AC is good' ended up tripping over the verbiage of the rest of the system where 'positives are good').

Nope, you are mistaken. I am looking at the 1e DMG right now. It's 1:1 all the way along (or 2:1 if you are using 10% increments at odd levels) as I pointed out above. The only table that prefigures THAC0 is the one from Original Dungeons & Dragons (or maybe Classic Dungeons & Dragons, I haven't looked it over), and that is a completely different kettle of fish.

And then you had the +1 modifier to your ability to hit something that wasn't qualified with penalty or bonus. Was it a penalty or a bonus? WTF?

This wasn't an inherit problem with using THAC0 -- but rather a problem with copy-editing and writing about THAC0.

Do not modify THAC0! That is where the problems of verbiage come in. THAC0 is the target number, all modifiers apply to the dice (or armour class of the opponent). Trying to apply your hit bonus to THAC0 in AD&D creates the same problems as trying to apply your hit bonus to your opponent's AC in D20.

[Bassetking]

Charge?

Bullrush? Trip? Disarm? Basic Attack?

There are a ton of non-"Power" attacks available to a fighter.

There are also plenty of At-Will's, which are situationally better than those in almost every way.

You get your choice of two abilities from:

1) Hit an enemy, Enemy next to that target takes Str. mod damage.

2) Guaranteed damage on a miss

3) +2 to hit on this attack

4)Hit, knock them back a space, and you can move into the space they were in.

5) Damage + Con mod.

6) Damage, and gain hit points = to your Con mod.

7) Attack with main hand and off hand weapon

8) Hit 'em, move a square, move the enemy into the square you were just occupying.

So, you can choose any two of those. You can also swap that choice out any time you level, if it turns out that it's not being used as much as you thought it would.

Those are just your at will abilities. These are the things that a fighter can do every round of combat over and over.

So, two At-wills, basic attack, trip, disarm, bullrush, charge.

Seven attacks, all performable any time a fighter chooses.

This doesn't include Encounter powers, Utility powers, Daily powers, or path-based abilities.

This is all at FIRST LEVEL.

How is the 4e fighter worse off in terms of options than the 3.5 fighter, again?

He isn't?

Well, then.

[shadzar]

That will not work if you want to apply any modifiers, that is the problem. For instance, if an opponent has hit you with a curse spell and you have −1 to hit then you will need to adjust for that against AC 0. The natural 20, natural 1 rule should not be combined with THAC0, in my opinion, it just muddies the water.

Then this is used.

The lookup tables just give you the flat amount. Like tax tables. Anything you have to adjust be it THAC0, BAB, whatever you still have to be able to adjust the mod in the proper direction.

Meaning the modifier adjust the die roll in all cases. Depending on the system then still all modifiers are applied to the dice roll and you compare the numbers. BAB the number is the AC, THAC0 the dice roll is compared to THAC0. Both you must roll equal/higher than the "target number".

No matter what game or system you are using you must always know what you are rolling for to determine what the "target number" is to know if you succeed or not in the roll.

[Matthew]

Then this is used.

The lookup tables just give you the flat amount. Like tax tables. Anything you have to adjust be it THAC0, BAB, whatever you still have to be able to adjust the mod in the proper direction.

Meaning the modifier adjust the die roll in all cases. Depending on the system then still all modifiers are applied to the dice roll and you compare the numbers. BAB the number is the AC, THAC0 the dice roll is compared to THAC0. Both you must roll equal/higher than the "target number".

No matter what game or system you are using you must always know what you are rolling for to determine what the "target number" is to know if you succeed or not in the roll.

I cannot really see the point in the lookup tables if you are using the calculator.

[Shadowbane]

This refers to the paragraph on page 218 of the Player's Handbook, which explicitly states, "Hey, that intelligence of yours? He fights like a dairy farmer".

Also, chocolate.

That made me snicker in real life. Kudos.

Anyway, I'm not sure why people seem to think it insults your intelligence. I really don't understand.

[Yakk]

Do not modify THAC0! That is where the problems of verbiage come in. THAC0 is the target number, all modifiers apply to the dice (or armour class of the opponent). Trying to apply your hit bonus to THAC0 in AD&D creates the same problems as trying to apply your hit bonus to your opponent's AC in D20.

If you didn't motify THAC0 it wasn't that useful.

If you applied your strength modifier to your THAC0 and your magic weapon modifier to your THAC0, you reduce the math required to determine a hit to a single addition (or subtraction) of a single number.

Of course, you could do:
d20 + opponents AC + your to-hit bonuses
and see if it matched your THAC0. But that slowed the hit calculation down. :)