[4.0] Insults intelligence.

[shadzar]

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

You mentioned modifiers. The tables do not include any modifiers. You would have to know where to ad modifiers for any system. The tables just replace having to actually work out each level of play for THAC0. I reversed the process from 1st to 2nd by creating the tables, where 2nd reduced the tables to a simple formula.

Take 3.x and make a table for an attack matrix. It would be the same thing. It only tells you the info needed based on BAB and AC. You would still need to know how to add the modifiers to work with the die roll. Penalties takes away from the die roll, and bonuses add to the die roll. Same with 2nd and THAC0, same with 1st and the attack matrices.

It is all the same info, just written differently.

Compare a dice roll to a needed number. Adjust dice roll by any modifiers before comparing.

That is it in each and every system. The difference moving to 3rd+ editions is there is no ceiling to AC. Wherein 2nd and before had a limited AC range for everything.

The calculator just helps you figure out how to adjust the dice roll for your modifiers, and has less modifiers than you would have in 3rd+ editions because of the maximum number of pluses you can get from things.

[Matthew]

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. :)

Nah, you apply all modifiers separately to avoid confusion. There is no speed difference in rolling a die and adding a modifier, but it depends how you do the actual in play event. I have heard of people saying stuff like "I hit AC 3", or something along those lines, instead of calling out their roll, in which case the calculation would need to be done before hand.

However, it can also work like this

Target Number = 21 (always)

Player: Rolls Dice, adds fighting ability and any other modifiers
Game Master: Adds armour class of target to the total, if it equals or exceeds 21 it is a hit.

The player can always know what AC he hits this way as well, of course [e.g. "19 isn't a hit? God damn, this thing has better than AC 2!"].

Alternatively, THAC0 eliminates fighting ability and becomes the target number, but all the player needs to do then is:

Target Number = THAC0

Player: Rolls dice and adds modifiers
Game master: Adds armour class of target and checks target number.

There is no difference in the second case, except transparency of the maths for the player [e.g. "15 isn't a hit? Hmmn, what's my THAC0 again? Oh yeah, 13, so it has better than AC −2?"]. However, the game master needs to have the unmodified THAC0 of all combatants written down in addition to their attack roll modifiers.

You mentioned modifiers. The tables do not include any modifiers. You would have to know where to ad modifiers for any system. The tables just replace having to actually work out each level of play for THAC0. I reversed the process from 1st to 2nd by creating the tables, where 2nd reduced the tables to a simple formula.

Take 3.x and make a table for an attack matrix. It would be the same thing. It only tells you the info needed based on BAB and AC. You would still need to know how to add the modifiers to work with the die roll. Penalties takes away from the die roll, and bonuses add to the die roll. Same with 2nd and THAC0, same with 1st and the attack matrices.

It is all the same info, just written differently.

Compare a dice roll to a needed number. Adjust dice roll by any modifiers before comparing.

That is it in each and every system. The difference moving to 3rd+ editions is there is no ceiling to AC. Wherein 2nd and before had a limited AC range for everything.

The calculator just helps you figure out how to adjust the dice roll for your modifiers, and has less modifiers than you would have in 3rd+ editions because of the maximum number of pluses you can get from things.

Right, but your tables are not usable with modifiers, which is why I was confused about what you were doing. I am still not clear on the point of your tables beyond showing the maths for an unmodified attack roll, but since you explained my original confusion, I am not really that worried about it.

[shadzar]

I am still not clear on the point of your tables beyond showing the maths for an unmodified attack roll

Print the thing out and use it rather than the formula to see the THAC0 for any player all at once.

No need for the player to know the AC, and no need for the DM to look up or count up the THAC0 of each PC when needed. Just level and class group and then let the player add any modifiers to the die roll and look it up on that sheet real quick.

Monster AC = 5, Rogue Level 7 got a modified roll of 12....

Go to Rogue table. Choose AC 5 and Level 7....Rogue hits target! Tell player to roll for damage.

Never again need to work up each PC versus differing monster, just look it up on the table.

That is why I made the tables.

[Decoy Lockbox]

Minimus is the simplest game system I have ever played (or seen). The rules fit on 2 sheets of paper. Does Minimus insult my intelligence? No, it provides a system for an ultra rules light gaming experience. I'm playing in a Miminus campaign right now and it is going swimmingly well.

Based on my experience playing all four editions of D&D (1e/2e AD&D, 3e/3.5, 4e), 4th edition is indeed the simplest of all of them (as well as the best balanced, by far). I like my games to a bit rules-heavy, but balanced, and 4e delivers on both of those fronts. It gives me fantasy roleplay experience combined with a balanced, tactical combat resolution system; that's all I ever wanted out of D&D. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Does it insult my intelligence? No.

[Thane of Fife]

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.

There are, in fact, some things which explicitly modify THAC0, such as the Weapons vs Armor Table.

Personally, I've always just used Roll higher than THAC0 - Armor Class, but there are many ways to do it. Really, though, I taught myself to play from a D&D introductory box when I was 5, and it used THAC0, so it certainly isn't anywhere near as incomprehensible as some people make it out to be.

[Matthew]

There are, in fact, some things which explicitly modify THAC0, such as the Weapons vs Armor Table.

Personally, I've always just used Roll higher than THAC0 - Armor Class, but there are many ways to do it. Really, though, I taught myself to play from a D&D introductory box when I was 5, and it used THAC0, so it certainly isn't anywhere near as incomprehensible as some people make it out to be.

The second edition one? Yeah, I think that optional rule is about the only instance. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the diversity of methods of calculation are in fact what leads people to believe it is "counter intuitive". Indeed, THAC0 could stand for the entire second edition game in that respect.

[warrl]

Also, it opens up the game to todays audience, some of whom are not giant nerds who crunch numbers in their spare time.

I disagree with this characterization. I'm in a large (typically 10-12 people) D&D3.5 game where the youngest player is probably over 25, and most of the players have been in *this game* for more than four years. In short, they aren't kids or beginners; I'd say all are at least decent players. Two or three of them have to grab a calculator to add a base score and two dice.

[warrl]

The Fighter's mark is essentially a challenge on the monster to fight him rather than to stab the rogue pointing his dagger at its kidney. He's harrying the monster constantly, keeping it from moving away or fight anyone but himself.

I think that's the idea, but what I immediately saw was the opposite: mark an opposing fighter, then stay away from him and let the rest of the party handle him

[nightwyrm]

I think that's the idea, but what I immediately saw was the opposite: mark an opposing fighter, then stay away from him and let the rest of the party handle him

That doesn't work. A fighter's mark only lasts until the end of the fighter's next turn. Most defender's marks requires the defender to keep focusing on that particular enemy. The only exception is the swordmage.

[Panda-s1]

Well here is a different take on the OP. And one of the things I first noticed when I got the 4.0 rules.

Price:
3.5 was $30 a book. $90 total.
4.0 is $40 a book. $120 total.
A 33% increase in price.

Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa-- That's $35 per book (unless you're Canadian, which judging by your price of 3.5 books, not so). The only 4e books going for $40 are supplements meant for GMs, like the campaign guides, and the Draconomicon.

Content:
3.5 was 969,987 words long including all three books.
4.0 is 537,300 words long including all three books.
A 45% reduction in content.

*snip*
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.

Okay, so we come to my main argument about content. Now MM being kinda sparse on info is a valid point (though as a DM I kinda like it, but that's for another thread). Removing content like familiars? While they were nice, they had issues that needed working (though the majority of mounted combat rules are in the DMG), so it's understandable they weren't in there from the beginning, and being a completely new edition I can't agree that it's a valid point from a content view.

But back to my main argument on content, well here's percentages:
AD&D: 47 out of 126 pages, 45.24%
2nd Ed. AD&D: 105 out of 255 pages, 41.18%
Revised 2nd Ed. AD&D: 122 out of 320 pages, 38.13%
3.5 D&D: 122 out of 319 pages, 38.24%

What are these pages? Pages that detail spells! In every iteration of AD&D before 4e, nearly half the book catered to caster classes. Holy crap. I mean from one standpoint, yes I can understand why this needs to be done, having a loose interpretive magic system doesn't work well with D&D (and was probably a nearly unfathomable idea in the early days of tabletop gaming). Still, that's quite a bit dedicated to only half the classes.

If we compare this to pages devoted to powers, we get about 95 of 319 pages (29.78%). More importantly, these are for all classes, not just casters.

And those rules you want about adapting and modifying the base creatures? They are curiously absent from 4.0.

Someone already pointed this out, but seriously *facepalm*

[Panda-s1]

(Since this addresses players in general, I thought this deserves it's own post).

Material:
This is a bit more subjective. The 4.0 books are made of a lower quality paper and ink. Even a full year after I purchased my books the ink still smuges easily. This was a problem I never had with 3.5. Also within my group within 1 month of play we had three broken bindings between about 15 books total. That excedes the 3.5 binding problems for 5+ years for the same group.

Okay, really, do I like treat my books delicately? 'Cause I've had almost no problems with my books. In fact, I think I only have two ink smudges in my DMG, and I keep my PHB in my backpack at most times and at worst the corners of the covers are worn. And I'd like to say it's just me, but I don't know any other players whose 4e books are falling apart.

Yeah, 3.X books have sturdier pages, but 2nd ed. books were printed on what seems like paper flimsier than 4e pages, so all I can say to everyone is please, please, take better care of your books.

[nightwyrm]

Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa-- That's $35 per book (unless you're Canadian, which judging by your price of 3.5 books, not so). The only 4e books going for $40 are supplements meant for GMs, like the campaign guides, and the Draconomicon.

You guys are crazy. I have no idea where you people are getting your books but Amazon and Indigo sells them for about 25 cdn and you can get the core set of 3 for less than 80 (before tax and shipping).

PHB

3 book core set

[hamishspence]

Things being moved out of core 3 books , rather than thrown out entirely, is what I noticed about 4th ed- Martial Power has Animal Companions, Arcane Power has Familars, Illusions, Summoned Monsters, Adventurers Vault has a list of Mounts, and several of the weapons left out of PHB.

Now, this may be irritating if you wanted everything put in the first 3 books, but its not a complete disaster.

There is quite a lot of material for customizing monsters- DMG character classes, templates, etc.

The lack of animal statblocks is a bit more irritating.

[The New Bruceski]

(Since this addresses players in general, I thought this deserves it's own post).



Okay, really, do I like treat my books delicately? 'Cause I've had almost no problems with my books. In fact, I think I only have two ink smudges in my DMG, and I keep my PHB in my backpack at most times and at worst the corners of the covers are worn. And I'd like to say it's just me, but I don't know any other players whose 4e books are falling apart.

Yeah, 3.X books have sturdier pages, but 2nd ed. books were printed on what seems like paper flimsier than 4e pages, so all I can say to everyone is please, please, take better care of your books.

Seconded. When people started complaining about this I TRIED to smudge my pages, and couldn't do it. And I have oily skin, so it should be easy.

[hamishspence]

I noticed it first with Keep on the Shadowfell (fingerprints appeared on the cover and back page within moments) so I handled all other books with extreme caution and have had no problems since.

Binding is more my problem (and it goes right back into 3.5) The covers of some books are poorly bound- with pages connecting to spine, in back of book, frequently being loose.

Which again, means handle with extreme caution to avoid loosening it further.

[Talic]

Reasons THAC0 was nonintuitive.

It was additive, rather than opposing. In other words, you added your opponent's AC to your attack roll. This essentially AC into more or less, a bonus/penalty to hit... And your skill as the goal. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

After all, the Armor Class, your opponent's defenses, are the obstacle. They're what you're trying to overcome. In the Thac0 system, you were trying to overcome your skill.

Contrast to 3.X, where Armor Class isn't a modifier, it's the final goal. In other words, it bases your hit ability around a single Armor Class, which is actually fairly rare. You needed to derive your actual success based on how hard it was to hit that one.

Now add in that armor that improved your AC by four lowered it, even while you added your AC to that attack roll. Magic swords also lowered your THAC0, but, due to the convoluted way it was set up, lowering your Thac0 makes it easier to hit, and lowering your AC makes it harder.

In other words, bonuses to hit modified the final difficulty, not the attack.

It's like saying that the wall is actually physically weaker because a master sniper is shooting at it... In the Thac0 system, you were modifying the target number, not your attack.

[Matthew]

Reasons THAC0 was nonintuitive.

It was additive, rather than opposing. In other words, you added your opponent's AC to your attack roll. This essentially AC into more or less, a bonus/penalty to hit... And your skill as the goal. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

After all, the Armor Class, your opponent's defenses, are the obstacle. They're what you're trying to overcome. In the Thac0 system, you were trying to overcome your skill.

Not really, it is equally "correct" or logical to think of an opponent's armour class as a modifier to your difficulty to hit.

Contrast to 3.X, where Armor Class isn't a modifier, it's the final goal. In other words, it bases your hit ability around a single Armor Class, which is actually fairly rare. You needed to derive your actual success based on how hard it was to hit that one.

Now add in that armor that improved your AC by four lowered it, even while you added your AC to that attack roll. Magic swords also lowered your THAC0, but, due to the convoluted way it was set up, lowering your Thac0 makes it easier to hit, and lowering your AC makes it harder.

In other words, bonuses to hit modified the final difficulty, not the attack.

It's like saying that the wall is actually physically weaker because a master sniper is shooting at it... In the Thac0 system, you were modifying the target number, not your attack.

You are doing it wrong.

[Talic]

Not really, it is equally "correct" to think of an opponent's armour class as a modifier to your difficulty to hit.

And the Skill as the final goal? No thank you, argue all you like, it's not intuitive to ADD your opponent's AC to your attack. This lends to the notion that it's HELPING you hit.
It would be more intuitive (and complex) if it SUBTRACTED from your attack roll, but an AC that scales positive and negative is inherently more complex than one that starts at 0, and goes up. (or down)

The basic, simple undeniable fact is that subtracting negative numbers is more complex than adding positive ones.

You are doing it wrong.

Thank you. Thank you very much. When I wrote my statement, my entire intent was to solicit a contrary view that was smug, and yet so frustratingly abstract and vague, as to have no practical application.

If you wish to say I'm doing it wrong, the constructive action is to explain how it's being done wrong... what is being done wrong... and what is the correct way.

But just doing as you did? Comes off as "I know something you don't know..."

And thus, I react to the pretentious statement.

[Gorbash]

Again, I'm not looking for edition wars, just some concrete (page numbers please?) examples of how the game 'treats players like morons'.

I got that impresison when I started reading entries for races where they state something like this (for a tiefling):

If you want to play a dark, brooding character with inner darkness, play a tiefling.

And I know that's just a suggestion, but why is it there in the first place? People can't decide for themselves what characters they want to play? Not to mention, they're using the lamest tiefling stereotype, emo goth boys.

[Mystic Muse]

okay no offence guys but this is a thread about whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. not how intuitive or otherwise THACO is. however to offer my personal opinion it doesn't make much sense.

now I did not get the feeling 4th edition insulted my intelligence. I got the feeling it was simple and would be much easier to teach to the only people who would be capable of playing D&D with me at the time. my cousins who are all twelve and under.

about the part where it says "say yes." to me what that is saying is don't restrict your campaign. I will still exercise my right to homerule my campaign whether WOTC wants me to or not. I haven't read the entire DMG but I didn't see where they were saying people who played 3.5 were idiots, playing it badly or otherwise. maybe they did in which case they're kind of stupid for a company that's trying to stay in business.

and also I liked how this game was more balanced while 3.0 the wizard will kill you in one round with moves like nail to the sky.

[hamishspence]

some of the comments in promotional material (Races and Classes, Worlds and Monsters) could be taken as condescending- "when was the last time you used Profession in your game"

But I think it was intended to stress that, in their view, you are supposed to be adventurers first and foremost, not businessmen.

[Talic]

okay no offence guys but this is a thread about whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. not how intuitive or otherwise THACO is. however to offer my personal opinion it doesn't make much sense.

And differences between systems lie at the core of that question. Thus, similar issues that happened in previous edition changes have merit and relevance.

now I did not get the feeling 4th edition insulted my intelligence. I got the feeling it was simple and would be much easier to teach to the only people who would be capable of playing D&D with me at the time. my cousins who are all twelve and under.

And Fisher Price takes the same approach to teaching colors and shapes to toddlers. See the comparison?

about the part where it says "say yes." to me what that is saying is don't restrict your campaign. I will still exercise my right to homerule my campaign whether WOTC wants me to or not. I haven't read the entire DMG but I didn't see where they were saying people who played 3.5 were idiots, playing it badly or otherwise. maybe they did in which case they're kind of stupid for a company that's trying to stay in business.

There are a lot of companies that aim for one goal (such as simplicity), and end up with another (such as people who read it feel like it's marketed at 9 year olds). And houserule all you want. But houserule isn't what's on discussion here. The books are.

and also I liked how this game was more balanced while 3.0 the wizard will kill you in one round with moves like nail to the sky.

You didn't get that particular ability until about 30 splatbooks into 3.x. Give it time.

[Mystic Muse]

some of the comments in promotional material (Races and Classes, Worlds and Monsters) could be taken as condescending- "when was the last time you used Profession in your game"

But I think it was intended to stress that, in their view, you are supposed to be adventurers first and foremost, not businessmen.

yeah I have noticed that. on the bright side no players ruining social encounters but seriously. no diplomatic encounters? while the point in my opinion shouldn't entirely focus on that not having it at all would be kind of boring. I guess that's what makes people claim it's an MMORPG. and if that's the way you're playing the game I agree. heck I'd rather just play silk road if that's the case. I come to D&D to play D&D not an MMORPG.

[Yora]

I got that impresison when I started reading entries for races where they state something like this (for a tiefling):

If you want to play a dark, brooding character with inner darkness, play a tiefling.

And I know that's just a suggestion, but why is it there in the first place? People can't decide for themselves what characters they want to play? Not to mention, they're using the lamest tiefling stereotype, emo goth boys.

It's the way they decided to approach their audience.
And it just doesn't appeal to me, and doesn't make me feel like a potential customer for that product.

I think it comes down do that for most people.

[Mystic Muse]

And differences between systems lie at the core of that question. Thus, similar issues that happened in previous edition changes have merit and relevance.

except you're not comparing it to 4.0 or answering the question. you're in a debate about THACO and ONLY THACO which is not relevant to whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. only about whether THACO is intuitive or not.

And Fisher Price takes the same approach to teaching colors and shapes to toddlers. See the comparison?

yes I can see the comparison. in my humble opinion they're trying to target a larger fanbase. I dare you to try to teach 3.5 to my eight year old cousin Charlie. oh and if you ever insult him during the process believe me. he will go insane and kill you.

There are a lot of companies that aim for one goal (such as simplicity), and end up with another (such as people who read it feel like it's marketed at 9 year olds). And houserule all you want. But houserule isn't what's on discussion here. The books are.

yes and a point earlier on was that the books seemed to discourage houseruling so my point is still valid. and I agree with your first point. however simplicity can tend to do that. you can play monopoly and easily feel like you're playing a game made for eight year olds or you can play monopoly and have fun doing it rather than complaining about the simplicity making you feel like an eight year old.

You didn't get that particular ability until about 30 splatbooks into 3.x. Give it time.

the spell itself isn't my point. it's how Wizards have spells that kill every other class as soon as they hit them with said spells.

[Talic]

the spell itself isn't my point. it's how Wizards have spells that kill every other class as soon as they hit them with spells.

What was that 4.0 Ranger trick that gave them hundreds of attacks?

Yes, it got errata'd, but as long as an increasing number of books come out, there will be imbalances. Touting 4E as more balanced is like saying an infant's soul is more pure than the soul of a 40 year old man.

Maybe, but it hasn't had time do develop, so it's not particularly relevant.

It's easier to balance 5 things, than 5,000.

[Mystic Muse]

What was that 4.0 Ranger trick that gave them hundreds of attacks?

Yes, it got errata'd, but as long as an increasing number of books come out, there will be imbalances. Touting 4E as more balanced is like saying an infant's soul is more pure than the soul of a 40 year old man.

Maybe, but it hasn't had time do develop, so it's not particularly relevant.

It's easier to balance 5 things, than 5,000.

then don't make 5,000

and I have no clue but there's also a trick that makes demigods unbeatable if they hit with a vorpal weapon and have the "reroll attack" encounter power as their last remaining encounter power. that's why I'm banning that from my eventual campaign.

[Talic]

then don't make 5,000

and I have no clue but there's also a trick that makes demigods unbeatable if they hit with a vorpal weapon and have the "reroll attack" encounter power as their last remaining encounter power. that's why I'm banning that from my eventual campaign.

Banning imbalances does not mean the game's balanced. If Rule 0 must be invoked to preserve balance, the game isn't.

As for not making new material? I have a feeling that conflicts with WotC's business model.

[Mystic Muse]

what are these rules people keep mentioning exactly? my google-fu is underdeveloped due to the fact I'm afraid I'll find a porn site by accident.

and sometimes the game is imbalanced because something can be used in a way it wasn't intended ot be used. or most LIKELY wasn't intended to be used.

and I'm aware it conflicts with their business model and that it's impossible to balance two thousand different classes, feats and powers. it is possible to make them REASONABLY balanced though.

and even if 4th isn't COMPLETELY balanced you ahve to admit it's more balanced than 3.5

[Yora]

In all my years on the net, it happened extremely rarely, that I ended up on a NSFW site by googling. ^^

And balance isn't everything. To me, an interesting game has to be unbalanced! If everyone can do the same things equally well, it's just boring. Being good at widely different things is actually quite important to me.