[4.0] Insults intelligence.

[Mystic Muse]

yeah I doubt it will either but people put some STRANGE things up.

and we're getting off track AGAIN so somebody PM me a link to these rules and get back to the topic at hand. whether 4.0 insults our intelligence.

[Matthew]

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.

Again, you are thinking about it wrong. If you set up your preconceptions so that "armour class is the difficulty" then you are misunderstanding the way it works (and the reason why it works the way it does); armour class modifies a set difficulty, and there is nothing unintuitive about that.

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.

You are welcome; since you apparently paid no attention to the earlier discussion it seemed the appropriate response.

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.

Do not not modify THAC0. That is why virtually everything is expressed as a modifier to the attack roll and not THAC0. The modifier is always the same [e.g. positive or negative], and that is why THAC0 works the way it does. Trying to modify THAC0 in AD&D is like trying to modify your opponent's armour class by your attack bonus in D20/3e.

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.

Right, and this came up because somebody was using THAC0 as an example of an unintuitive overcomplicated rule that needed to be dropped so that the game was more understandable. Of course, the issue with that is the person did not understand the purpose of THAC0 in the first place, which is our analogue here to D20/4e. That is to say, D20/4e is designed to meet different goals than D20/3e. When people complain that it insults their intelligence (or is more like World of Warcraft or whatever else) they are typically missing (or ignoring) the point of the system. It is one thing to dislike the simplicity of D20/4e, it is another to find it insulting.

[Talic]

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

No. I don't. 4E is so newly developed that it's not a fair comparison. Your argument is akin to saying that a stick figure is better than a feature length animated movie, because the movie has a 100 errors, and the stick only 2. Complexity does that.

When you have 1,000,000 distinct pieces of information, cross referencing them is infinitely more complex than when you have a handful of shoddily made books, at 25% more cost, with 45% less material.

So it's not remotely a fair comparison, on the grounds that it's so much easier to balance a game where every single character does pretty much the same thing in slightly different ways, and each race is pigeonholed into narrow-minded stereotypes on how you should act if you are one.

That's another thing. Their broad-stroke depiction of races such as tiefling basically instructs people to play attitudes based on race. 3.0 kept most of that on the DM-side of the screen, but in 4.0? They're throwing that racial garbage right up into the player's side of the house. No. Tieflings are dark and brooding because of their race, not because of any actual roleplay issues that might actually make a game interest.

So burning creativity to further balance?
Furthering racial profiling over character development and roleplay?

That may be your D&D. It ain't mine.

[Talic]

Again, you are thinking about it wrong. If you set up your preconceptions so that "armour class is the difficulty" then you are misunderstanding the way it works (and the reason why it works the way it does); armour class modifies a set difficulty, and there is nothing unintuitive about that.

No, I'm not. It can be phrased a hundred different ways. But if it's so easy to confuse that it merits explaining 30 times?

THAT MEANS IT IS NOT INTUITIVE.

Why? Because if it was, it would be less complex to follow. 3.x requires very little other than basic math skills.
2e required algebra. Why? Because the AC isn't typically known, so you have to change around the printed formulas to solve for AC. At this point, it ceases to be simple, and ceases to be intuitive... and starts being homework.

Your welcome, since you apparently paid no attention to the earlier discussion it seemed the appropriate response.

I'd like to refer you to the forum's posting guidelines. Specifically the section on implying that others didn't read what you wrote. Please and thank you.

Do not not modify THAC0. That's why virtually everything is expressed as a modifier to the attack roll and not THAC0. The modifier is always the same, and that is why THAC0 works the way it does. Trying to modify THAC0 in AD&D is like trying to modify your opponent's armour class by your Attack Bonus in D20/3e.

When Thac0 is the known variable, and AC is not, then you must solve for AC. NOT THAC0. This means the equation must be shifted in such a factor that the final result is the AC that you hit. And Thac0 becomes one more modifier. And it's a modifier that you have to compare to a random roll to figure out exactly what it is. Disagree all you like. But the fact of the matter is, the math level needed to easily calculate what you are saying disagrees with you.

Instead, 3.x designed everything from the get-go to be all centered towards simple, lightweight, no conversion needed, that allowed people that did not know the AC of the target to figure out how well they hit. No muss. No fuss.

Really. If 2e got rid of negative integers, switched AC to a positive number that represented the difficulty to hit a target, and provided ability to attack a target that scaled upward to represent increasing skill, then it would seem intuitive to me.

Odd, I think I just described the 3.x system.

As for 4e? They'll do a lot better with me if they don't tell me how to play my tieflings.

[Matthew]

No, I'm not. It can be phrased a hundred different ways. But if it's so easy to confuse that it merits explaining 30 times?

THAT MEANS IT IS NOT INTUITIVE.

Why? Because if it was, it would be less complex to follow. 3.x requires very little other than basic math skills.

2e required algebra. Why? Because the AC isn't typically known, so you have to change around the printed formulas to solve for AC. At this point, it ceases to be simple, and ceases to be intuitive... and starts being homework.

There is no algebra involved in THAC0. It works like this:

Roll dice, add modifiers, add armour class of target = THAC0?

What you are describing is the process by which a player works out his opponent's AC, not the process by which a hit is determined.

I'd like to refer you to the forum's posting guidelines. Specifically the section on implying that others didn't read what you wrote. Please and thank you.

If you feel that the forum rules have been broken, report the post. By informing me of the forum rules you are also contravening them (which I am now also doing by informing you; yes it is a vicious circle). As it goes, I was trying to answer your question as to why I did not explain how you were "doing it wrong", that is to say because I had already done so. It was not intended as a rhetorical trick or a veiled insult.

If you in fact did read the explanation and simply disagreed with it, then I cannot fathom why you did not address it when you felt the need to present your analysis. Restating opinions already expressed without reference to their counter arguments is bound to irritate.

When Thac0 is the known variable, and AC is not, then you must solve for AC. NOT THAC0. This means the equation must be shifted in such a factor that the final result is the AC that you hit. And Thac0 becomes one more modifier. And it's a modifier that you have to compare to a random roll to figure out exactly what it is. Disagree all you like. But the fact of the matter is, the math level needed to easily calculate what you are saying disagrees with you.

Instead, 3.x designed everything from the get-go to be all centered towards simple, lightweight, no conversion needed, that allowed people that did not know the AC of the target to figure out how well they hit. No muss. No fuss.

Really. If 2e got rid of negative integers, switched AC to a positive number that represented the difficulty to hit a target, and provided ability to attack a target that scaled upward to represent increasing skill, then it would seem intuitive to me.

Odd, I think I just described the 3.x system.

As for 4e? They'll do a lot better with me if they don't tell me how to play my tieflings.

The AD&D system is set up to use THAC0, and it is perfectly intuitive. For instance, if a character is under the effects of a prayer spell he receives an effective −1 modifier to armour class, which is expressed as a modifier for his opponent to hit him of −1. There is no conversion needed, but if you try to use a rule for a purpose for which it was not designed (such as converting it to +1 to THAC0), then you will of course find it unintuitive.

This is a microcosm of the larger problem in this thread. D20/4e no more insults your intelligence than Monopoly, Zombies! or, indeed, D20/3e. It is simpler. It was designed that way to cut down on preparation time and the amount of investment required to understand the rule set. If you do not like it, that is fine, continue playing D20/3e. If Wizards of the Coast told you that D20/4e is more difficult and involved than D20/3e, then that would be an insult to your intelligence.

[bosssmiley]

Mid 2009, and they're still arguing over THAC0.

D&D, it really is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Matthew]

Mid 2009, and they're still arguing over THAC0.

D&D, it really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Of course. Strangely these arguments almost never come up in AD&D forums (where you would think there would be an interest in adopting a more intuitive rule)... just places where the need is felt to justify the change.

[Talic]

Roll dice, add modifiers, add armour class of target = THAC0?

What you are describing is the process by which a player works out his opponent's AC, not the process by which a hit is determined.

Wrong. I'm describing the process by which a player determines what AC he hit.

1d20 + Modifer(X) +AC(Y) = Z.
Hm. I don't know Y. So, I have to Solve for what AC I hit. Whether that's AC 2 or AC -9 is irrelevant. As is the actual AC of the target. What you are trying to do is be able to tell the DM "I hit AC -3." Because "I rolled a 13" has no meaning. None. Not until you deduce what that 13 MEANS. And, if you have to solve an equation to find out what you hit?

That's Algebra.

If you feel that the forum rules have been broken, report the post. By informing me of the forum rules you are also contravening them (which I am now also doing by informing you; yes it is a vicious circle). As it goes, I was trying to answer your question as to why I did not explain how you were "doing it wrong", that is to say because I had already done so. It was not intended as a rhetorical trick or a veiled insult.

Here's a link to the Forum Rules, again. I'd really rather stay off this topic, if it's all the same to you. I personally find reporting posts distasteful, and prefer to keep things friendly, if at all possible.

If you in fact did read the explanation and simply disagreed with it, then I cannot fathom why you did not address it when you felt the need to present your analysis. Restating opinions already expressed without reference to their counter arguments is bound to irritate.

You, perhaps. But if those counterarguments were not stated clearly, were wrong, or made little sense, then I will not speak to their veracity. Make one that is true, and I'll include it.

The AD&D system is set up to use THAC0, and it is perfectly intuitive. For instance, if a character is under the effects of a prayer spell he receives an effective −1 modifier to armour class, which is expressed as a modifier for his opponent to hit him of −1. There is no conversion needed, but if you try to use a rule for a purpose for which it was not designed, then you will of course find it unintuitive.

The fact that you've spent more than one page in this debate with more than one person suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you would lead us to believe. The fact that it is very widely viewed as a bulky, unwieldy, counterintuitive system, with only a small following suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you'd like us to believe. If a system that scales from positive to negative, starting at an arbitrary 10, and dealing with negative improvement, that deals less with what you have, and more with what you need; if that seems like it makes sense to you?

Congratulations. But don't suggest that it's intuitive when most of the people that see it need it explained a half a dozen times to grasp it, and are then left scratching their heads as to WHY.

This is a microcosm of the larger problem in this thread. D20/4e no more insults your intelligence than Monopoly, Zombies! or, indeed, D20/3e. It is simpler. It was designed that way to cut down on preparation time and the amount of investment required to understand the rule set. If you do not like it, that is fine, continue playing D20/3e. If Wizards of the Coast told you that D20/4e is more difficult and involved than D20/3e, then that would be an insult to your intelligence.

No, if they said that Tieflings in D20/4e should be played as dark brooding angsty loners, and that all classes should have the exact same mechanics and little ability variation, THAT would be an insult to my intelligence.

Oh wait. They DID do that.

[Matthew]

Wrong. I'm describing the process by which a player determines what AC he hit.

1d20 + Modifer(X) +AC(Y) = Z.
Hm. I don't know Y. So, I have to Solve for what AC I hit. Whether that's AC 2 or AC -9 is irrelevant. As is the actual AC of the target. What you are trying to do is be able to tell the DM "I hit AC -3." Because "I rolled a 13" has no meaning. None. Not until you deduce what that 13 MEANS. And, if you have to solve an equation to find out what you hit?

That's Algebra.

Right, and that is a difference in process for what THAC0 is designed to do. It is not designed so that the player determines what AC he has hit. It is designed so that the game master knows whether a hit has been scored. This was addressed a few pages back. Metaphorically speaking, you are trying to drive a nail into a wall with a pair of pliers.

It is allowed to direct others to forum rules. It is actually explicitly allowed as the only method to deal with such things. I prefer to not report people, because I like keeping things friendly. You are making that increasingly more difficult, and I'm not sure whether or not that's intentional.

Please feel free to report me, I would rather you did that than feel the need to chastise me over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things.

You, perhaps. But if those counterarguments were not stated clearly, were wrong, or made little sense, then I will not speak to their veracity. Make one that is true, and I'll include it. The fact that you've spent more than one page in this debate with more than one person suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you would lead us to believe. The fact that it is very widely viewed as a bulky, unwieldy, counterintuitive system, with only a small following suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you'd like us to believe. If a system that scales from positive to negative, starting at an arbitrary 10, and dealing with negative improvement, that deals less with what you have, and more with what you need; if that seems like it makes sense to you?

Congratulations. But don't suggest that it's intuitive when most of the people that see it need it explained a half a dozen times to grasp it, and are then left scratching their heads as to WHY.

All it suggests is a lack of familiarity with the system in question, and a persistent desire to apply the D20 mode of thought to its comprehension. That is something continually demonstrated in this thread. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink. The intuitive advantages of THAC0 can be demonstrated continually to different individuals, but people will still think what they prefer to think and attempt to misuse it, just human nature.

No, if they said that Tieflings in D20/4e should be played as dark brooding angsty loners, and that all classes should have the exact same mechanics and little ability variation, THAT would be an insult to my intelligence.

Oh wait. They DID do that.

That is not an insult to your intelligence, just Wizards of the Coast presenting an archetype for you to play in the way they designed it to be played.

[Talic]

Right, and that is a difference in process for what THAC0 is designed to do. It is not designed so that the player determines what AC he has hit. It is designed so that the game master knows.

And thus, the game master has to keep track of all the modifiers for everyone. I'd much prefer to spread that accounting out a bit. Players are not infants, to be sheltered from everything. Just as a fighter knows when his aim is true, a fighter should know how accurate he is. Just not always if it's enough. "I hit AC 5" doesn't even let the player know if he HAS hit. If the critter is AC 3? Then he didn't. You're now making excuses.

Please feel free to report me, I would rather you did that than feel the need to "chastise other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things."

I AM NOT DOING THAT, AND I AM DONE WITH THIS ASPECT OF THIS DISCUSSION. This does not further the discussion in any way; it actually detracts from the focus. Further comments on this line of reasoning will be summarily ignored.

All it suggests is a lack of familiarity with the system in question, and a persistent desire to apply a different mode of thought to its comprehension. That is something continually demonstrated here. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink.

I played 2ed for 7 years. Please don't make assumptions to what I have and haven't done. I'm quite capable of determining that, please and thank you.

That is not an insult to your intelligence, just them presenting an archetype for you to play.

No, it's saying "If you want this type of character, be this race." (almost verbatim the recommendation for Tiefling) First, it suggests racial similarities in behavior, attitude, and moral outlook (read: Stereotyping). Second, it pigeonholes characters. I personally find both insulting to my intelligence and understanding.

In closing, please, PLEASE, direct comments to the issues at hand, not me personally. I'm not responding to any further posts that reference my unfamiliarity with something, or my blah blah whatever. If you think I'm not familiar with something, by all means, explain your view in a constructive manner; I'm all ears.

But when all I get is "You've got it wrong " and "You don't know what you're talking about", I hope you can at least see why I'm more than a little irritated at your discussion style.

[elonin]

This is my first post about my dislike of 4e. In a few words that may over generalize 4e has caused us to looose versitility. Perhaps you think the fighter should be nearly as skillful as the rogue, but I like the idea of the fighter having a bunch of feats and the rogue having skill points out the wazoo. I've heard comments to the effect of "everyone ends up maxing out their skills so 4e made that the rule". I like having the abiility to choose that for myself. Since I love playing skill monkeys I'll state that I tend to max about 1/3 to 1/2 of my skills, put 1/2 ranks in some and with others put 5 ranks in. And in 3.5 if you want to increase your number of skills you can assign a higher score to intelligence, whereas in 4th you are stuck wasting a feat. Yup, for me who wants to play effectively the intelligent rogue is a thing of the past cause now intelligence is a dump stat.

[Matthew]

And thus, the game master has to keep track of all the modifiers for everyone. I'd much prefer to spread that accounting out a bit. Players are not infants, to be sheltered from everything. Just as a fighter knows when his aim is true, a fighter should know how accurate he is. Just not always if it's enough. "I hit AC 5" doesn't even let the player know if he HAS hit. If the critter is AC 3? Then he didn't. You're now making excuses.

No, he doesn't. The players keep track of their own modifiers and call out the number they have scored. You appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the process for which it was designed. All the game master needs to know is what armour class they are targeting.

I AM NOT DOING THAT, AND I AM DONE WITH THIS ASPECT OF THIS DISCUSSION. This does not further the discussion in any way; it actually detracts from the focus. Further comments on this line of reasoning will be summarily ignored.

I would ask you to remain civil and not resort to capitalising your comments.

I played 2ed for 7 years. Please don't make assumptions to what I have and haven't done. I'm quite capable of determining that, please and thank you.
No, it's saying "If you want this type of character, be this race." First, it suggests racial similarities in behavior, attitude, and moral outlook (read: Stereotyping). Second, it pigeonholes characters.

I am not. I made no assumptions about you, except what I can see by your writing. I imagine that it has been some time since you played AD&D, but that is beside the point. You are not using THAC0 in the most intuitive way, which is why it seems unintuitive to you.

In closing, please, PLEASE, direct comments to the issues at hand, not me personally. I'm not responding to any further posts that reference my unfamiliarity with something, or my blah blah whatever. If you think I'm not familiar with something, by all means, explain your view in a constructive manner; I'm all ears.

But when all I get is "You've got it wrong " and "You don't know what you're talking about", I hope you can at least see why I'm more than a little irritated at your discussion style.

Talic, honestly I find your discussion style just as jarring as you seem to find mine, but I would ask you not to direct comments at me personally and then with the other hand ask me not to do so towards you. As I have tried to explain to you, the reason THAC0 is set up as it is, is to allow modifiers to cancel one another out without an extra step of math.

Let's take an example:

A 5th level fighter with 17 strength has +1 to hit. He is also wielding a cursed sword, which is imposing a −1 to hit. In addition, his target is enjoying the effects of a prayer spell, imposing a further −1 to hit.

The player attacks his opponent and rolls a 13, which he modifies by −1 to get 12. The game master checks the armour class of his opponent, which is 5 and adds it to the result to get 17, which is better than his THAC0 of 16. A hit has been scored.

In this instance, the player was told there was a prayer effect in play and asked to modify his attack roll accordingly. If the game master had wanted to keep that secret, then he could have applied the same modifier to the armour class of the target.

[elonin]

Two comments to the post above. First, I never found THACO to be difficult and I was 8 at the time this system was out. The only clunky thing about it was the lower armor class being better. IE the statement of I hit a -8 (good roll and/or high level) sounds odd.

2nd who got to decide that CAPS=shouting? This rule is clearly arbitrary and I know some people who prefer caps since the letters are easier to read.

[Matthew]

2nd who got to decide that CAPS=shouting? This rule is clearly arbitrary and I know some people who prefer caps since the letters are easier to read.

Nobody decided it, but it reads as shouting to me to capitalise the words you wish to emphasise, hence my asking Talic not to do so. That strikes me as somewhat different to writing all in capitals as a courtesy to somebody who finds it difficult to read script.

[Talic]

No, he doesn't. The players keep track of their own modifiers and call out the number they have scored. You appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the process for which it was designed. All the game master needs to know is what armour class they are targeting.

No, I'm not. Either the DM needs to know the Thac0 of the players and make all the hit/miss calculations, or the players need to be able to figure out what AC they hit. Even then, it's still algebra.

<snipped>
I am not. I made no assumptions about you, except what I can see by your writing. I imagine that it has been some time since you played AD&D, but that is beside the point. You are not using THAC0 in the most intuitive way, which is why it seems unintuitive to you.

Again, please do not speak about ME. You don't know me. You really don't. I can imagine I've spent 30 more years knowing me than you have. As such, I consider myself eminently more qualified to know what is true. Idle speculation serves nobody.

The topic at hand is 4.0 and ancillary topics. My personal experiences, and your blind, idle assumptions to those, are not part of that. Any further statements directed at me (rather than the subject) will now be summarily ignored.

<snipped>
As I have tried to explain to you, the reason THAC0 is set up as it is, is to allow modifiers to cancel one another out without an extra step of math.

And as I have shown you more than once, it creates extra math. If you wish to agree to disagree, fine, but stating that something is crystal clear when it the only thing that's clear is that it's neither crystal, nor clear? No. I'm not gonna agree. The Thac0 system is more math, not less. If you wish to disagree with that, fine.

Let's take an example:

A 5th level fighter with 17 strength has +1 to hit. He is also wielding a cursed sword, which is imposing a −1 to hit. In addition, his target is enjoying the effects of a prayer spell, imposing a further −1 to hit.

The player attacks his opponent and rolls a 13, which he modifies by −1 to get 12. The game master checks the armour class of his opponent, which is 5 and adds it to the result to get 17, which is better than his THAC0 of 16. A hit has been scored.

And now the DM is keeping track of Player information. As I said. Last post.

As opposed to the following:
A 5th level fighter with a 17 strength has a +9 to hit. He has a bane effect on him, imposing a -1 to attack rolls. In addition, his target has declared him a dodge target, which increases the target's AC by one.

The fighter rolls, and gets a 13. He looks to the DM, and says "I hit AC 22." (13+9) The DM compares it to the AC of the target (20), adds 1 for the dodge (player doesn't have that knowledge), and declares the hit.

In this way, the DM, as storyteller/mediator, is letting players control player information, and handling privately only the information that players are not privy to. He doesn't need to know the Thac0 of his players. Only the roll, and the modifiers that players are not privy to. Simple.

In this instance, the player was told there was a prayer effect in play and asked to modify his attack roll accordingly. If the game master had wanted to keep that secret, then he could have applied the same modifier to the armour class of the target.

And yet, the DM still has to look at a player sheet, and a monster sheet, to determine the hit. The DM has to process the number and compare to a player number. Whereas, in 3.x, the DM compares the player number only against the privy information. Each player can handle more of the equation, and the DM is left mediating the information that isn't.

When a process is streamlined in such a manner, it's called "simplification".

[Talic]

Of course. Strangely these arguments almost never come up in AD&D forums (where you would think there would be an interest in adopting a more intuitive rule)... just places where the need is felt to justify the change.

There was.

Which is why the vast, vast majority of D&D players moved to a new edition.

[Matthew]

No, I'm not. Either the DM needs to know the Thac0 of the players and make all the hit/miss calculations, or the players need to be able to figure out what AC they hit. Even then, it's still algebra.

Of course the game master needs to know the THAC0 of the players, that's how the system is set up!

Again, please do not speak about ME. You don't know me. You really don't. I can imagine I've spent 30 more years knowing me than you have. As such, I consider myself eminently more qualified to know what is true. Idle speculation serves nobody.

The topic at hand is 4.0 and ancillary topics. My personal experiences, and your blind, idle assumptions to those, are not part of that. Any further statements directed at me (rather than the subject) will now be summarily ignored.

Look, I am not having a go at you personally. I speculated on a possibility, which you are now blowing out of proportion seemingly to suit your own rhetorical ends.

And as I have shown you more than once, it creates extra math. If you wish to agree to disagree, fine, but stating that something is crystal clear when it the only thing that's clear is that it's neither crystal, nor clear? No. I'm not gonna agree. The Thac0 system is more math, not less. If you wish to disagree with that, fine.
And now the DM is keeping track of Player information. As I said. Last post.

As I said, I do not agree with you on this issue, there is no extra math involved. Your example is fallacious because it seeks to integrate modifiers with THAC0.

As opposed to the following:
A 5th level fighter with a 17 strength has a +9 to hit. He has a bane effect on him, imposing a -1 to attack rolls. In addition, his target has declared him a dodge target, which increases the target's AC by one.

The fighter rolls, and gets a 13. He looks to the DM, and says "I hit AC 22." (13+9) The DM compares it to the AC of the target (20), adds 1 for the dodge (player doesn't have that knowledge), and declares the hit.

In this way, the DM, as storyteller/mediator, is letting players control player information, and handling privately only the information that players are not privy to. He doesn't need to know the Thac0 of his players. Only the roll, and the modifiers that players are not privy to. Simple.

It's the same process:

Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = THAC0?
Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = Armour Class?

The only difference are that the game master almost always adds a modifier by way of armour class in AD&D, and that in D20 the modifiers are typically much larger. The trade off is that in AD&D negative modifiers are always good for the defender, and positive modifiers always good for the attacker.

And yet, the DM still has to look at a player sheet, and a monster sheet, to determine the hit. The DM has to process the number and compare to a player number. Whereas, in 3.x, the DM compares the player number only against the privy information. Each player can handle more of the equation, and the DM is left mediating the information that isn't.

If the game master needs to look at the player sheet it means he does not have their THAC0 already available, but he should have their THAC0s and that of all the combatants in play available, just like he should have their armour classes available in D20. That is not extra math, it is just like having BAB noted separately from AB.

When a process is streamlined in such a manner, it's called "simplification".

When sentences are constructed in such a manner it is called "patronising."

[charl]

I felt a little insulted when I flipped through the 4E monster manual and couldn't find any written explanations of the creatures, just stats and tactics. Either they wanted me to fill it out myself or they assumed I wasn't interested in any fluff and just wanted all the numbers, and it really felt like the latter.

I want monster manuals that have two full page explanations of each monster, and 3/4 of that better be fluff or a short little story about the monster.

[Talic]

Of course the game master needs to know the THAC0 of the players, that's how the system is set up!

Therein lies one problem.

Look, I am not having a go at you personally. I speculated on a possibility, which you are now blowing out of proportion seemingly to suit your own rhetorical ends.

Not rhetorical. I asked you to not speculate on me personally. You've not yet obliged that request.

As I said, I do not agree with you on this issue, there is no extra math involved. Your example is fallacious because it seeks to integrate modifiers with THAC0.

No more than you used.

It's the same process:

Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = THAC0?
Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = Armour Class?

Incorrect. Your analogy only rings true at the most basic level. Otherwise, things get better as the numbers get smaller (counterintuitive). Some numbers add, others subtract (+1 armor subtracts from AC, and a +1 sword adds to rolls... counter-intuitive)

The only difference are that the game master almost always adds a modifier by way of armour class in AD&D, and that in D20 the modifiers are typically much larger. The trade off is that in AD&D negative modifiers are always good for the defender, and positive modifiers always good for the attacker.

Well, that in every edition after thac0, bonuses added, and penalties subtracted. Rather than having to remember whether this is a bonus that added to this score, or it was a bonus that subtracted from that one. Counter-intuitive.

If the game master needs to look at the player sheet it means he does not have their THAC0 already available, but he should have their THAC0s and that of all the combatants in play available, just like he should have their armour classes available in D20. That is not extra math, it is just like having BAB noted separately from AB.

Or, he has 17 creatures to keep track of already... Why not let the players handle their own bonuses, rather than ensuring that they will always have an unknown modifier in the form of AC... Which would be more easily expressed by making it the target number. That way, in many fights, the PC could handle most of the work. As is, the DM, in AD&D ALWAYS has to add in a modifier before comparing. Always. In 3.x and beyond? If there are no surprises? He can just look at the two numbers. This reduction in variables streamlines combat, and makes things move faster. That's a good thing.

[Starsinger]

I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty. As I understand it, older editions were built on a solid foundation of DM Fiat. The rules were there, but a good many situations were based on players interacting with the DM, not the DM reading a list of rules from the book and then voicing NPCs... or maybe I'm misinformed and the "Good old days" were filled with pedantic rule worshipping insanity too..

[Talic]

I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty. As I understand it, older editions were built on a solid foundation of DM Fiat. The rules were there, but a good many situations were based on players interacting with the DM, not the DM reading a list of rules from the book and then voicing NPCs... or maybe I'm misinformed and the "Good old days" were filled with pedantic rule worshipping insanity too..

There's nothing wrong with Rule 0. It just can't be meaningfully discussed in a cross-game evaluation. Everyone uses Rule 0 differently. If I try to say it works perfect with change x or y... Well, not everyone uses that.

Rules are the common denominator.

[Matthew]

Therein lies one problem.

One man's problem... etcetera

Not rhetorical. I asked you to not speculate on me personally. You've not yet obliged that request.

Since the sum of my speculation is that I doubt you have played much AD&D in the recent past, which you have yet to confirm or deny, I consider this an unfair characterisation.

No more than you used.

?

Incorrect. Your analogy only rings true at the most basic level. Otherwise, things get better as the numbers get smaller (counterintuitive). Some numbers add, others subtract (+1 armor subtracts from AC, and a +1 sword adds to rolls... counter-intuitive)

Yes, magical armour and shields are the only area in which it does not hold true, but that's because they are armour type descriptions with corresponding armour classes.

Well, that in every edition after thac0, bonuses added, and penalties subtracted. Rather than having to remember whether this is a bonus that added to this score, or it was a bonus that subtracted from that one. Counter-intuitive.

Again you misunderstand. You are assuming these terms:

My plusses are good for me
My minuses are bad for me
His pluses are bad for me
His minuses are good for me

In AD&D it is:

Plusses against him are good for me
Minuses against him are good for me
Plusses against me are bad for me
Minuses against me are bad for me

Neither is more intuitive than the other.

Or, he has 17 creatures to keep track of already... Why not let the players handle their own bonuses, rather than ensuring that they will always have an unknown modifier in the form of AC... Which would be more easily expressed by making it the target number. That way, in many fights, the PC could handle most of the work. As is, the DM, in AD&D ALWAYS has to add in a modifier before comparing. Always. In 3.x and beyond? If there are no surprises? He can just look at the two numbers. This reduction in variables streamlines combat, and makes things move faster. That's a good thing.

Not always, of course, not on AC 0. However, I do not really think that you can make the case that there are typically less modifiers in D20 than AD&D.

I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty. As I understand it, older editions were built on a solid foundation of DM Fiat. The rules were there, but a good many situations were based on players interacting with the DM, not the DM reading a list of rules from the book and then voicing NPCs... or maybe I'm misinformed and the "Good old days" were filled with pedantic rule worshipping insanity too..

Generally speaking (and this isn't characterisation particular to Talic) I find that D20 players are much more interested in the maths and explicit rules of the game than in AD&D. That is to say D20 encourages you to learn how the maths work and how to apply them to various common situations, whilst AD&D leaves things more vague. That is usually a playing style difference that often leads to these sorts of "edition skirmishes". The classic example is converting description to modifiers [e.g. "There is a strong wind blowing", "Right that's minus X to my AB with ranged weapons."]

[Starsinger]

There's nothing wrong with Rule 0. It just can't be meaningfully discussed in a cross-game evaluation. Everyone uses Rule 0 differently. If I try to say it works perfect with change x or y... Well, not everyone uses that.

Rules are the common denominator.

But nobody plays strictly by RAW (and if they do I feel bad for them). So by limiting discussions to RAW only, you're not really discussing the game as people actually play it, which sounds like meta-nerd wank to me, if you're discussing the "perfect" game with the knowledge that nobody plays it that way....

[Talic]

My plusses are good for me
My minuses are bad for me
His pluses are bad for me
His minuses are good for me

In AD&D it is:

Plusses against him are good for me
Minuses against him are good for me
Plusses against me are bad for me
Minuses against me are bad for me

Neither is more intuitive than the other.

Wrong. I assume:
Plusses are good for the roll.
Minuses are bad for the roll.

Plusses increase things.
Minuses decrease things.

AD&D assumes:
Plusses are good for the roll... unless they're to AC, when they're bad for the roll.
Plusses increase things... With the exception of this and that and the other.

Intuitive is when Plusses add, and minuses subtract. Intuitive is when 5 is better than 4.
Intuitive is when the AC system doesn't start with a number as completely arbitrary as whether the MacGuffin is a book or a badger.
Thac0 cheerfully says no to all of these.

Not always, of course, not on AC 0. However, I do not really think that you can make the case that there are typically less modifiers in D20 than AD&D.

No, just that the ones that are there are not modifiers. The AC of your foe is the whole goal. That's the resistance you're overcoming. Beat the AC, accomplish the goal.

In football, if you overcome your opponent's defense? It's a touchdown.
In hockey or soccer? Goal.
But in AD&D, there is no overcoming defenses. There's overcoming your Thac0. The sports? Intuitive. The Thac0? NOT.

[Yora]

Most tips and advice I see on chracter buidling assumes level 20 with all books ever printed at hand and allowed in the game. And I strongly doubt that many people play like that either.
I think thats really a problem about almost all internet discussions.

I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty.

Most people who hate D&D told me they hate it exactly because of that. And I always have to tell them, that it's the gaming groups who do that, not the rules system. The rules can be used as much or as less as the group want it to.

[Matthew]

Wrong. I assume:

Plusses are good for the roll.
Minuses are bad for the roll.

Plusses increase things.
Minuses decrease things.

AD&D assumes:
Plusses are good for the roll... unless they're to AC, when they're bad for the roll.
Plusses increase things... With the exception of this and that and the other.

Intuitive is when Plusses add, and minuses subtract. Intuitive is when 5 is better than 4.
Intuitive is when the AC system doesn't start with a number as completely arbitrary as whether the MacGuffin is a book or a badger.
Thac0 cheerfully says no to all of these.

Pluses to the roll in AD&D are good for the person rolling the die, minuses to the roll are bad for the person rolling the die. Same in D20.

No, just that the ones that are there are not modifiers. The AC of your foe is the whole goal. That's the resistance you're overcoming. Beat the AC, accomplish the goal.

In football, if you overcome your opponent's defense? It's a touchdown.
In hockey or soccer? Goal.
But in AD&D, there is no overcoming defenses. There's overcoming your Thac0. The sports? Intuitive. The Thac0? NOT.

This initial idea that Armour Class is a number to be overcome, rather than a modifier to a roll. That is completely non intuitive, since "armour class" does not denote that at all except by learned exposure. If it were called "defence rating" you might have a point.

[oxybe]

I want monster manuals that have two full page explanations of each monster, and 3/4 of that better be fluff or a short little story about the monster.

i'm not sure if you're being serious or just yanking someone's chain

the issue i have with this is that there is no default world to take the explanation or story into context with. 4th ed does not have a perceived world and "points of light" is at best a vague proto-setting idea. a short story with no context isn't much help in this situation IMO.

the other issue i have is that having a lot of fluff requires GMs to "deprogram" then "reprogram" players if they veer away from what's in the books. having lots of fluff comes with giving those players preconceived notions on what to expect in ALL games based on the core rules.

as is, the small blurb and knowledge checks are perfect for me.

[Yora]

That's why players are not supposed to read these books.

It doesn't hurt if they do, but they should be able to handle, that the campaign will not be like it's written in a book with inspirations for GMs, how to possibly fill out their own world.

Some of the people I play with know far too much about the Monster Manual. So I long decided not to use it, at least as written. They pretty soon figure out that the tales they characters have heard about are complete fabrications of people who never meet the creatures first hand.

[Starsinger]

It doesn't hurt if they do, but they should be able to handle, that the campaign will not be like it's written in a book with inspirations for GMs, how to possibly fill out their own world.

I'm not paying $30 for a game book for it to be filled with stories if it's supposed to be a mutable setting to change as I wish. I'm paying $30 for a game book to be filled with tools to use in my personal setting when I buy a game book for a game where the assumed setting is "make your own."

[Talic]

This initial idea that Armour Class is a number to be overcome, rather than a modifier to a roll. That is completely non intuitive, since "armour class" does not denote that at all except by learned exposure. If it were called "defence rating" you might have a point.

A rose by any other name. Naming differences aren't the issue here. The fact that Armor Class combines (in all discussed editions):
Bonuses from armor
Bonuses from agility
Bonuses from magic
Miscellaneous other Bonuses

Shows that regardless of what you call it, what it actually IS, is a measure of a character's ability to dodge/block/parry or otherwise avoid being hit.

In other words, whether it's called armor class or defense rating, it IS a rating of the character's defense.

So thank you. I now have a point.