Thac0 and 5e.

[TheBlueFox]

Can someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS what they're talking about please tell me how Thac0 and the D20 attack system used in 5e are any different, at all?


Thac0.
Each class has a separate Thac0 table. This stands for the Roll on a d20 needed to hit an Armor Class of "0". A level 4 fighter has a Thac0 of 17, and must roll a 17 to hit an Armor class of 0. This roll is modified by their strength value, and further modified by their weapon style proficiency, and FURTHER modified by any bonuses that they may have active.

So, looking at an enemy with an armor class of 4, that fighter must roll 17-4 = 13 on their dice roll.

A fighter, with 18/51 strength gets a -2 thac0, that 13 becomes a 11.
With 3 pips (Mastery) in a weapon style they get a further -3? (or 2? I can't remember offhand) so they need to roll an 8.

A level 4 fighter with 18/51 strength using a weapon he is mastered with needs to roll an 8 to hit an AC 4 enemy



D20 5e.
Each class has the SAME attack bonus, known as a proficiency bonus. Provided they are using weapons they are proficient with. This bonus levels up at the same rate as they go through their careers and starts at +2.

Strength/Dexterity is used depending on the weapon (barring other feats or spells), and offers a +1 bonus to your attack and damage for every 2 points above 10. A fighter with 16 strength has a +3 to their attack.

Some fighting styles offer bonuses, and some spells offer bonuses to this. Some Class based features offer bonuses to this as well.

A level 4 fighter trying to attack a creature with 14 AC needs to roll a 14.

His roll gets his strength added, and his proficiency added, giving him a 3+2 = +5 bonus to his attack.

To hit an AC 14 enemy, a level 4 fighter with 16 strength needs to roll 14-5 = 9




Aside from the minute details, both systems use "Roll, Modified by bonuses/penalties, against enemy target value"

Why is one better than the other? Is it because each creature has "Blunt/Piercing/Slashing AC" depending on their armor? Is it because it requires addition AND subtraction rather than just Add Add Add compare?

[Hobocop]

You're just adding values together and if your roll meets or beats a target number, you succeed.

Difference is THAC0 is dumb because it's arbitrarily lower = better when everything else in the system is higher = better and that passes for depth or complexity or something. If you wanted different AC values vs different damage types, you could do that without needing to resort to counter-intuitive math.

[sim-h]

You say it yourself in your post - each class has their own THAC0 table, so it's necessary to consult an additional table before rolling the die. So THAC0 is more cumbersome.

[TheBlueFox]

So essentially, people are praising Thac0 for being... cumbersome and counter-intuitive?

[Shwin]

It isn't about a system being better or worse than the other. Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, as well as Baldur's Gate 3, use the d20 system for calculating hits. I am not sure what the point of your post is if you explained the major differences in the systems.

Thac0 seems more complicated to calculate compared to the more streamlined D&D 5e d20 system. Instead of having a table for each class, race and character as well as monster and mob you find, you get one number to "meet or beat." Instead of subtracting your scores and base numbers to find what to roll to successfully do damage, you add them then compare to the enemy's AC. Proficiency is also changed as you level up (+3 at lv 5-8, +4 at lv 9-12, +4 at lv 13-16 and +5 at lv 17-20), and may or may not apply to all attacks because of spell effects, conditions or attacking with a weapon you're not proficient with.

If you are playing 5th Edition with optional rules, you roll a d4, d6, d8, d10 or d12 depending on level to determine your bonus instead of adding the same flat bonus. I don't know if Larian is going to add this as a variant rule or to make the game more difficult, but its worth mentioning since you made a stink about proficiency being "the same".

Also as a side note; in 5e, classes also gain damage based on their primary classes stat if and when applicable. You can be a Fighter with a low Strength Score and still be viable as a Dexterity character provided the weapons you use can apply damage calculated with DEX. When adding in subclasses like the Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, the Rogue and Fighter's spellcasting won't have the same bonuses as a Wizard unless they dumped their stats into their caster's stat.

[Panic Fire]

Origineel geplaatst door TheBlueFox:

Can someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS what they're talking about please tell me how Thac0 and the D20 attack system used in 5e are any different, at all?


Thac0.
Each class has a separate Thac0 table. This stands for the Roll on a d20 needed to hit an Armor Class of "0". A level 4 fighter has a Thac0 of 17, and must roll a 17 to hit an Armor class of 0. This roll is modified by their strength value, and further modified by their weapon style proficiency, and FURTHER modified by any bonuses that they may have active.

So, looking at an enemy with an armor class of 4, that fighter must roll 17-4 = 13 on their dice roll.

A fighter, with 18/51 strength gets a -2 thac0, that 13 becomes a 11.
With 3 pips (Mastery) in a weapon style they get a further -3? (or 2? I can't remember offhand) so they need to roll an 8.

A level 4 fighter with 18/51 strength using a weapon he is mastered with needs to roll an 8 to hit an AC 4 enemy



D20 5e.
Each class has the SAME attack bonus, known as a proficiency bonus. Provided they are using weapons they are proficient with. This bonus levels up at the same rate as they go through their careers and starts at +2.

Strength/Dexterity is used depending on the weapon (barring other feats or spells), and offers a +1 bonus to your attack and damage for every 2 points above 10. A fighter with 16 strength has a +3 to their attack.

Some fighting styles offer bonuses, and some spells offer bonuses to this. Some Class based features offer bonuses to this as well.

A level 4 fighter trying to attack a creature with 14 AC needs to roll a 14.

His roll gets his strength added, and his proficiency added, giving him a 3+2 = +5 bonus to his attack.

To hit an AC 14 enemy, a level 4 fighter with 16 strength needs to roll 14-5 = 9




Aside from the minute details, both systems use "Roll, Modified by bonuses/penalties, against enemy target value"

Why is one better than the other? Is it because each creature has "Blunt/Piercing/Slashing AC" depending on their armor? Is it because it requires addition AND subtraction rather than just Add Add Add compare?

THAC0 is simply a by product of D&D's precursor game "Chainmail" Which used tables for specific weapons vs specific armors for its to hit tables. 3.0 simplified the entire system (for the better).

[R3sistance]

My understanding is that THAC0 is a backwards way of calculating an attack roll and I'm not going to deep into that but rather into the 5E side of things.

3rd edition got rid of THAC0 for the simpler system we have of rolling to beat AC, the system had a huge flaw however. In 3E each class had a BAB (or base attack bonus) where each class has essentially a +1, +3/4 or +1/2 BAB each level and to counter balance this AC also had to increase at around the same pace. This created a treadmill affect of AC and Attack needing to be ever increasing values.

In 5E the concept of bounded accuracy was brought in which simplified the system more, no longer is the a cat and mouse game of AC, rather AC and attack increase slowly every few levels. It means falling behind or getting ahead becomes significantly harder which is open to everybody. Most characters at level 1 have around 5 attack (+3 attribute and +2 proficiency), it's fairly obvious and easy to see that most characters will want to get a +5 in their attribute and that proficiency itself will increase overtime but nowhere near as aggressively as BAB did, so a level 20 character will generally have +5 attribute modifier and +6 proficiency meaning an attack of 11 without magical items or feats/features.

An AC of 16 can be hit 50% of the time by an attack of 5 whereas an AC of 20 can be hit 50% of the time by an attack of 11. A creature you fight at level 1 isn't suddenly a target for magical homing bullets at level 20, rather their 16AC can be hit 75% of the time by an attack of 11. In 3rd edition this reduction of 50% to 75% only happens within 5 levels for any +1 BAB class and gets to 95% at level 8 (since nat 1's always miss this never changes).

Most 20th level characters would have an attack higher than 11 of course but a campaign designer or a DM can adjust things around what they expect. Overall the system in 5E is more than a simplification for the players, it is also a simplification for the DM and for encounter design. This means experiences can be more tailored.

While AC got simplified the attack system in someways got more complicated in a way that is more fun for the player, now instead of just straight attack and a target to hit (which AC simplifies), you now also get the system of Advantage and Disadvantage. Players can actively try to find ways to achieve advantage or avoid disadvantage.

Overall simplification isn't done for just simplifications sake but to make the game more streamlined and thus enjoyable to the players and DM. Part of the reason 4E wasn't that popular would come from this, (never played 4E), my understanding was there was too many complicated things going on and while 4E did have some good ideas the overall system wasn't enjoyable to vast majority of players. As for 5E, it is the opposite scenario where it's easy for most people to join and understand, the barrier to entry is lower. This is the reason why systems like THAC0 were got rid off, they were unnecessarily complicated.

[sevenfoothamster]

Why is one better than the other?
Look at the very first sentence of your THAC0 description.
Remind yourself D&D 5e has 13-14 classes.
That's your reason.
3E got rid of it in favor of the DC system, so you only needed a single d20 and determined your bonuses via addition rather than subtraction

[dolby]

so you want Thac0 or what? whats the point of this

Origineel geplaatst door TheBlueFox:

So essentially, people are praising Thac0 for being... cumbersome and counter-intuitive?

Who's praises Thac0?!? this is a joke right? Half of players wouldn't know what to do with it and we would get 100 +posts a day on how it works and why negative AC numbers is better?!

[xposethedarkside]

I was the opposite of most of you. When I was a kid all I played was AD&D 1st edition, so all I knew was THAC0. I stopped playing D&D when I discovered skateboarding and guitar, and later, girls, etc etc.

The next time I tried anything D&D related was 30 years later when I got BG3 on a whim. The ability scores and most stuff were still understandable to me, but armor class was completely backwards. It confused the hell out of me.

I decided to get the 5th edition rulebooks just to read up on the changes.
What did I learn? The new way IS better. Demonstrably better. THAC0 was just all I ever knew, but it is actually backwards to the way everything else works in D&D.

D&D is far more streamlined and easier to understand now than it ever was in 1st edition. Don't get me wrong, I loved 1st edition as a kid and I spent many hours playing it with my friends. But it was damn cumbersome, sometimes needlessly so.

As someone who never got to play 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition, I'm only seeing the very beginning to where were at now. And I think 5th edition is a giant leap forward from 1st edition. Both in terms of things making more sense, removing alot of the more tedious mechanics, as well as just streamlining the whole affair to make the game more accessible.

THAC0 was backwards, and it's all I ever knew, and after getting into 5th edition, I now know why.

[Panic Fire]

Origineel geplaatst door xposethedarkside:

I was the opposite of most of you. When I was a kid all I played was AD&D 1st edition, so all I knew was THAC0. I stopped playing D&D when I discovered skateboarding and guitar, and later, girls, etc etc.

The next time I tried anything D&D related was 30 years later when I got BG3 on a whim. The ability scores and most stuff were still understandable to me, but armor class was completely backwards. It confused the hell out of me.

I decided to get the 5th edition rulebooks just to read up on the changes.
What did I learn? The new way IS better. Demonstrably better. THAC0 was just all I ever knew, but it is actually backwards to the way everything else works in D&D.

D&D is far more streamlined and easier to understand now than it ever was in 1st edition. Don't get me wrong, I loved 1st edition as a kid and I spent many hours playing it with my friends. But it was damn cumbersome, sometimes needlessly so.

As someone who never got to play 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition, I'm only seeing the very beginning to where were at now. And I think 5th edition is a giant leap forward from 1st edition. Both in terms of things making more sense, removing alot of the more tedious mechanics, as well as just streamlining the whole affair to make the game more accessible.

THAC0 was backwards, and it's all I ever knew, and after getting into 5th edition, I now know why.

Actually we don't really know why THAC0 was backwards because its there due to "Chainmail" (that's how chainmail did its to hit basically) however Chainmail did its to hit positive. So THAC0 was actually backwards to Chainmail as well.

[Lλmbdλ]

Origineel geplaatst door TheBlueFox:

So essentially, people are praising Thac0 for being... cumbersome and counter-intuitive?

Yup
Tradition bias of people never get out of their basement since BG2

[TheBlueFox]

The issue I was having is that I've seen arguments pop up in the last few days touting how the old way is better. The old way is more thematic. The old way is more adherent to the rules.

But both ways are the same.

I dont mean 1 to 1 word for word. But looking at the steps taken to receive the same results they are identical.

How can anyone say "I miss thac0" when nothing has changed.
Step 1 base bonus
Step 2 my roll
Step 3 bonuses and penalties
Step 4 compare

[Jack Hawklight]

Origineel geplaatst door TheBlueFox:

The issue I was having is that I've seen arguments pop up in the last few days touting how the old way is better. The old way is more thematic. The old way is more adherent to the rules.

But both ways are the same.

I dont mean 1 to 1 word for word. But looking at the steps taken to receive the same results they are identical.

How can anyone say "I miss thac0" when nothing has changed.
Step 1 base bonus
Step 2 my roll
Step 3 bonuses and penalties
Step 4 compare

Welcome to the BG3 forums haha. There is more than its fair share of arguments happening on this forum for a variety of reasons. Most people are pretty good about following the rules and putting together decent posts, but sometimes individuals can get pretty heated about things.

[Lλmbdλ]

Origineel geplaatst door Pumis:

Origineel geplaatst door TheBlueFox:

The issue I was having is that I've seen arguments pop up in the last few days touting how the old way is better. The old way is more thematic. The old way is more adherent to the rules.

But both ways are the same.

I dont mean 1 to 1 word for word. But looking at the steps taken to receive the same results they are identical.

How can anyone say "I miss thac0" when nothing has changed.
Step 1 base bonus
Step 2 my roll
Step 3 bonuses and penalties
Step 4 compare

There is sense of elitism behind it. When something looks more complicated, it gives sense of pride and superiority to people who used to play with it.

It's general trend to trash talk anything that streamlines overly complex things and mock them as "making the game stupid". While in some cases they have a point, but most of the time they don't. It's like rough diamonds and some people don't like that when someone is polishing diamond into perfection.

But in all honesty I have never met a single person in real life who actually licked and prefers Thac0. First time I saw it's fans was in BG3 forums. So I have my suspicion over are they for real or just trolling.

I seriously talk with a person defending ThacO, and why OSR and old school rpg was better than "modern games" evolving around PCs

[Aldain]

I think I have seen more people who unironically like 4e than THAC0.