Bring back the THACO!!!!

[Smiths Chips]

I have mixed feelings about this game, so far, I still haven't gotten further then Luskin but I've enjoyed playing a game where iconic familiar Forgotten Realms terms, towns, names and characters are referenced and represented.

Unfortunately though, like most in this forum, I don't like the mechanics. I bought the D&D game based on the fact it was just that, a D&D game. The updated rule set annoys me because its just like playing a top down Never Winter Nights (online version). Although I didn't begin with table top like most people who play D&D games, I did start with Baldurs Gate when it was released back in 98 (or whenever it was). I loved the whole dynamic of the AD&D experience and like most, fell in love with being able to rest, restore and strategically plan out my assaults and level my party up into unique multi-classed characters that each brought something vastly different to the party. I also like the exploration - I feel too constricted with SCL as you cant just go to places like Waterdeep unless quests have lead you to that point in the game. At least with BG I could go to most parts on the map by clicking on borders and randomly exploring, adventuring into the unknown and picking up mission that were just well and truely above my head/XP rank!

I know that I'm ranting, but one last point that I hope some ppl share similar views with is the loot system. I don't understand why everything has to be randomized - have specific placed weapons in specific placed areas. For instance don't have randomized loot caches that just buff up the stats on a generic looking ring with only 1 or 2 stats difference. I want to be able to find quality items (like the secrete ring near Candle Keep at the beginning of BG that was OP as ♥♥♥♥ that you probably weren't supposed to have) and not be overloaded with 20 different magical rings that seem to all look the same in 1 level - how many magical rings do you think there are! I will say that at least they have tried to keep some element like the forging of cool unique weapons like the 'Sword of Life Stealing' - I've to say though, these have nothing on the good ol' Crom Faeyr. I know that I must sound like a running record, but honestly BG loot system worked, it was awesome and I play online with my brother still to this day thanks to the revamped EE version and Trent Oster's similar vision.

I will keep playing the single player campaign of SCL, but as far as I'm concerned I'm disappointed with Wizards of the Coast who seem only concerned with modernize the Genre and being greedy ♥♥♥♥♥♥ for not letting Overhaul/Beamdog and Trent Oster develop a true Baldurs Gate sequel in fear that somehow the story line will become to convoluted and screwed - most people want to take the plot to the next level - the god realm - I agree with this. At least Trent is keen to keep the classic THACO system in place (unlike SCL) and I hope that his new BG game sticks to their guns with the Infinity engine but with Pillars of Eternity-style updated rendering.

Kudos to Pillars of Eternity, I thought that was a great game and though it really stuck to the top down genre of gaming, it was invoking, innovative and interesting... If you are like me and are looking for great top down RPG experiences, I strongly recommend Waste Land 2 (even though its an entirely different genre) or Divinity (though it leans more towards SCL style gameplay), other good current games to note are, all of the BG/IWD EE games and if you can get your hands on a beta copy of Torment: Tides of Numenera do it!

Vice versa, let me know if you know of any games that are like what I am seeking, I'd be happy to check them out and support the genre that I'd like to desperately see back in full stride again.

I will finish by saying don't change things that work and keep it simple stupid!

[chrstnmonks]

I don't think they can implement THACO like you want. I believe you have to use the current D&D ruleset. And someone correct me if I am wrong but there is no THACO in 5E.
To the exploration point Yes BG 1 had places you could explore. It sucks that alot of those places did not have much in them. Notice alot of them where removed in BG2?
I personally have no prolbem with the way wizards are implemented without the rest mechanic.

[Sapper Woody]

Rather than a THAC0, I liked the BAB system better. Basically the same, but easier to understand for a new player.

[Papa Yash]

Nothing wrong with 5 ed. sir. Also, the adaptation they made create a very fun tactical ambient without lose the D&D essence. We got a fast pace rpg and its pretty cool.

[TheBlueFox]

Thac0 is a horribly complicated nightmare of a system. Second only to Speed Factor. Please, Dear god no, I never want to do Thac0 Math in a game about having FUN ever again.

My enemy has an AC of 2, I have a Thac0 of 16, with my weapon and stats I get a -3. at a GLANCE, tell me, did I hit if I rolled a 14?

If it takes you more than 3 seconds, that means it's not very intuitive.

if you're wondering, in the above example to hit a 0 I need 16, but with my abilities that's brought down to a 13, my opponent has AC 2, so I only need an 11 to hit it, so yes, I hit

But that is so much harder than AC 15, I get a +3 to my attack, I rolled a 13, did I hit? 13+3= 16>15 , yes.

And speed factor! EUGH, it was a decent idea to give an advantage to players using weaker, swifter weapons, but the bookkeeping is a nightmare...

[Smiths Chips]

Originally posted by TheBlueFox:

Thac0 is a horribly complicated nightmare of a system. Second only to Speed Factor. Please, Dear god no, I never want to do Thac0 Math in a game about having FUN ever again.

Yeah I get it, good points from the previous comments too. I know that it's complicated if you play the table top version (even though it’s probably more cooperative and fun) but Baldur’s Gate made it simple - you didn't have to think about it. The THACo title for this thread wasn't to be taken so literally, but more as a common thought process to capture fans who share the same desires for a classic RPG like Baldur's Gate as I do.

I really do like some mechanics in SCL, especially when it comes to thief/rogue-type classes - I feel that the search in SCL is awesome and far exceeds other games of this nature! Not everything in this game is bad, far from it. I just didn't expect to play a top down Never Winter Online when I purchased the game (my own ignorance is to blame for this), regardless I am starting to enjoy it more and more as I play it, (in my opinion) it just won't be anywhere near as awesome compared to classic CRPGs. I guess any game that revolves around 'kiting', infinite heal spells and revivals won't ever get my appreciation.

[MoNKeZi]

I understand this is just your headline title, but Thac0 hasn't existed in over 15 years. Sorry to say.

As to bulk of your post though, I understand the desire to explore in an open world environment. Hopefully one day, N-Scape will give us the ability to place area transitions in our modules, then those of us that enjoy creating non-DM content for solo players will be able to give you an open world experience.

[Rune]

Actually, the extra amusing part is that BAB [which replaced THAC0 when 3rd came out] is exactly the same math, just reveresed and easier to read.

In OD&D and AD&D thac0 for warriors increased at a rate of one per level, for clerics at a rate of 2 each 3 levels, Thieves one every two levels and Magic Users at a rate of one better each third level.

In 3rd edition, all characters advanced at these exact same rates, but counting up and added to the D20 roll instead of compared to an arcane table that counted Down from 10.

It's the exact same math.

Personally, I find the 5th edition version of much lower bonuses based on level, keeping AC relevant and combat skills better balenced between the classes, far superior to the old sytems.

[TheBlueFox]

The thing is, it's not the exact same math, there is an extra step because you're comparing to AC 0 instead of directly against the enemy's AC, due to it being backwards math. The Base Attack Bonus system uses the same variables, but with direct addition, you save the step of comparing to 0, then comparing further to your target AC

[MoNKeZi]

Originally posted by TheBlueFox:

The thing is, it's not the exact same math, there is an extra step because you're comparing to AC 0 instead of directly against the enemy's AC, due to it being backwards math. The Base Attack Bonus system uses the same variables, but with direct addition, you save the step of comparing to 0, then comparing further to your target AC

Yup. The game has been much simpler on the mathematic side of things since 3e. I'm surprised they didn't continue on that path and make d20 + skill level vs DC for everything. They could have easily moved weapon and armor feats of 3e (simple, martial and exotic) into the skills category and players could just roll their weapon skill vs monster AC or even roll their AC (rather than assume the take 10 rule on AC) based on their skill in armor. Something for the house rules maybe.

[TheBlueFox]

But the base attack bonus is essentially your skill with weapons you're proficient in.

Rolling for armor AND rolling for attacks seems like a pretty bad idea to me, the more rolls that have to be resolved the more time it takes. I like things snappy. Thats why I love the advantage system

"Lets see, I get +2 from this, +1 from this, +1 from this, Oh, but -2 because of that." No, Enough of that "Do you have advantage? yes? Roll twice, take the bigger roll" So much better.

Yes there are combat bonuses, but the numbers are much tighter and compact, the range of variables is less, so there are fewer bonuses that are needed, and a second roll is a much bigger benefit.

[MoNKeZi]

Originally posted by TheBlueFox:

But the base attack bonus is essentially your skill with weapons you're proficient in.

Rolling for armor AND rolling for attacks seems like a pretty bad idea to me, the more rolls that have to be resolved the more time it takes. I like things snappy. Thats why I love the advantage system

"Lets see, I get +2 from this, +1 from this, +1 from this, Oh, but -2 because of that." No, Enough of that "Do you have advantage? yes? Roll twice, take the bigger roll" So much better.

Yes there are combat bonuses, but the numbers are much tighter and compact, the range of variables is less, so there are fewer bonuses that are needed, and a second roll is a much bigger benefit.

If I were to allow rolls for AC it would only be for players. Like an active defence. It's been done in other RPGs (D6 system); it works quite well. BAB or PB is level based progression though; I think it would be more interesting if attacks were based off a weapon skill, in the same way 3e handled lock picking or spellcraft or any other skill check.

It's beside the point anyway, I'm waffling on about house rules for a previous edition of D&D. Not relevent to this discussion at all.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Smiths Chips:

...as far as I'm concerned I'm disappointed with Wizards of the Coast who seem only concerned with modernize the Genre and being greedy ♥♥♥♥♥♥ for not letting Overhaul/Beamdog and Trent Oster develop a true Baldurs Gate sequel in fear that somehow the story line will become to convoluted and screwed - most people want to take the plot to the next level - the god realm - I agree with this. At least Trent is keen to keep the classic THACO system in place (unlike SCL) and I hope that his new BG game sticks to their guns with the Infinity engine but with Pillars of Eternity-style updated rendering.

That's your point let bash SCL and "punish" WotC for bothering Beamdog and then help Beamdog make their BG sequel?

Firstly SCL is no BG3 lol, and SCL is no concurrent to any Beamdog remake or future followup of BG series, at least BG1. You help no game by bashing another and even less if that other game has few link.

If it's just spaming pub for Beamdog, sigh. And the thaco arguing is absurd because Beamdog uses the D&D BG ruleset that is more or less D&D 3.5e. SCL is D&D 5e. Re sigh.

Originally posted by Smiths Chips:

Kudos to Pillars of Eternity, I thought that was a great game and though it really stuck to the top down genre of gaming, it was invoking, innovative and interesting... If you are like me and are looking for great top down RPG experiences, I strongly recommend Waste Land 2 (even though its an entirely different genre) or Divinity (though it leans more towards SCL style gameplay), other good current games to note are, all of the BG/IWD EE games and if you can get your hands on a beta copy of Torment: Tides of Numenera do it!

Ooops no, you bash SCL to sell more PoE, LOL.

Only a superficial point of view would believe SCL and PoE are concurrent, I'm 100% sure some players didn't like that much PoE and will prefer SCL. Their strength and weaknesses are rather different and no way PoE is superior in everything to SCL.

And facepalm to compare a released game to another not yet released, some people will never learn. Sigh.

EDIT: To clarify my general point of view on party CRPG:
Fallout 1 > Dragonfall > Wasteland 2 DC > Legend of Grimrock 2 > Divinity Original Sin Vanilla > BG1 > NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer > BG2 > DAO > Drakensang River of Time > Mass Effect 3 > Might & Magic X > Mass Effect 2 > Blackguards 2 > Pillars of Eternity > Sword Coast Legends > Dungeon Siege > Icewind Dale 1 > Dragon Age 2 > Drakensang 1 > Temple of Elemental Evil > Blackguards 1 > NWN2 OC > Dungeon Siege 2 > Icewind Dale 2 > NWN1 > Dungeon Siege 3 > Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader...

I enjoyed play them all, they don't need be all top class party CRPG.

[TheBlueFox]

Originally posted by Elth:

If I were to allow rolls for AC it would only be for players. Like an active defence. It's been done in other RPGs (D6 system); it works quite well. BAB or PB is level based progression though; I think it would be more interesting if attacks were based off a weapon skill, in the same way 3e handled lock picking or spellcraft or any other skill check.

It's beside the point anyway, I'm waffling on about house rules for a previous edition of D&D. Not relevent to this discussion at all.

There's a fighter combat ability that allows you to add your superiority dice to your AC to defend against an attack, you roll defence, but you use up a superiority die to do so.

[MoNKeZi]

Originally posted by TheBlueFox:

Originally posted by Elth:

If I were to allow rolls for AC it would only be for players. Like an active defence. It's been done in other RPGs (D6 system); it works quite well. BAB or PB is level based progression though; I think it would be more interesting if attacks were based off a weapon skill, in the same way 3e handled lock picking or spellcraft or any other skill check.

It's beside the point anyway, I'm waffling on about house rules for a previous edition of D&D. Not relevent to this discussion at all.

There's a fighter combat ability that allows you to add your superiority dice to your AC to defend against an attack, you roll defence, but you use up a superiority die to do so.

Yeah I'm aware of 5e rules. I just don't like them that much. It's too close to 2nd edition AD&D. It's like WotC reached the pinnacle at 3.5e and then went completely off the rails with 4e and have gone back to something in between 2e and 3e in an attempt to fix 10 years worth of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and loss of sales. 3.5 wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.

[TheBlueFox]

Originally posted by Elth:

3.5 wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.

No, it wasn't broken, it was just bent and stretched and limping.

Take Grappling for example.

To grapple in 3.5:
1. First you provoke an attack of opportunity against you for trying to grapple, unless you have a feat to avoid doing so. If this attack hits you, you automatically fail your attempt.

2. Make a melee touch attack, if you don't know what this is, it's a melee attack using no bonuses (d20+ strength + BAB) against an enemy who doesn't add their armor to their AC, (10+dex).,

3. If you hit, you then enter a strength contest with your opponent. (d20 + strength + size bonus + grapple feats) vs their similar roll.

4. if you win the contest, you are grappling, and you deal some unarmed damage! BUT you have to maintain the grapple every turn by moving into your target's space, basically meaning you have to be conscious to maintain the grab.


in 5e, it's just a straight up contest. You attempt to grab with a contest, thats it. So much more streamlined.

Same thing with tripping!
1. attack of opportunity
2. strength contest
3a. if failed, drop weapon or get counter tripped
3b. if success they fall prone (and subsequent attacks take advantage of that if you did a full attack)

In 5e it's just a strength(vs str or dex) contest to knock someone off their feat.

Hide AND move silently are composited into "stealth"

Individual skill points, that give bonuses and synergies, are just shrunk down to "Skill proficiencies" that get better with level. No more worrying about splashing 5 points into balance or getting 1 point in something for training, also the amount of skills are shrunk down into just the necessities, the DM can rule on specifics with that. (Did anyone ever skill train "Use Rope"?)

Feat tax!
Two weapon fighting, Two weapon Defence, and ambidexterity are now just ONE feat. feats in 5e are packages of the essentials, you get less of them because of it, but they're more effective. AND you have to weigh your option of getting a feat OR stat points.

I'm not ragging on 3.5, I LOVE 3.5, I still play it and want to play more of it, But don't say it wasn't broken, because it really had some strange and awkward mechanics.