
thejeff |
DungeonmasterCal wrote:I, for one, hated THAC0.
I liked THAC0. Of course, I never found it all that hard to figure out or use.
20 THAC0 means you need a 20 to hit AC 0.
You subtract enemy AC from whatever your THAC0 was...
So, if an enemy has a 7 AC....
20 - 7 = 13.
Easy, peasy.
of course, some people probably had problems with the negatives
AC = -2
20 - (-2) = 22?
No...just 20.
But overall, I find it far easier than today's stuff with half a dozen modifiers to combat and figuring out whether someone got an Attack of Opportunity\Opportunity Attack or not.
Not so much problems with the negatives, but weird that AC was the only thing where negative was better. (But magic armor was still a +1, which meant you subtracted one from your AC. Just like attack bonuses were given as plusses, but subtracted from your THAC0.)
It's easy enough, but flipping the numbers around so AC is a target number and you just roll and add modifiers is simpler and better. In principle 3.x could have kept THAC0 and still added all the modifiers and AoO and such.
And TOZ, there's nothing special about THAC0 20, other than a natural 20 being an autohit. The example works just as well if he'd started with "10 THAC0 means you need a 10 to hit AC 0"
Though in that case, since 20 is an auto hit: AC = -2
10 - (-2) = 12.

Alex Martin |

Not so much problems with the negatives, but weird that AC was the only thing where negative was better. (But magic armor was still a +1, which meant you subtracted one from your AC. Just like attack bonuses were given as plusses, but subtracted from your THAC0.)
I joke about THAC0, but really didn't have much trouble with it either. Although - as pointed out - it could seem contradictory with the pluses and modifiers did to your rolls.
If I would say it became problematic it was in 2nd Edition when they started adding Player Options in combination with things like weapon proficiencies; called shots; and the grappling concept. THAC0 worked great in generalization style of play, but you start piling on all the points and conditional applications, and it just became a tedious mess.
And no I-phone/android apps around to do the crunching for you. ;-)

thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Not so much problems with the negatives, but weird that AC was the only thing where negative was better. (But magic armor was still a +1, which meant you subtracted one from your AC. Just like attack bonuses were given as plusses, but subtracted from your THAC0.)
I joke about THAC0, but really didn't have much trouble with it either. Although - as pointed out - it could seem contradictory with the pluses and modifiers did to your rolls.
If I would say it became problematic it was in 2nd Edition when they started adding Player Options in combination with things like weapon proficiencies; called shots; and the grappling concept. THAC0 worked great in generalization style of play, but you start piling on all the points and conditional applications, and it just became a tedious mess.
And no I-phone/android apps around to do the crunching for you. ;-)
IIRC, THAC0 was a 2nd Edition thing. 1st just had the charts.
As I said, I don't recall much trouble with it. I do recall reading 3.0 and going: Well, that makes sense. Why weren't we doing this all along?

dragonhunterq |

One of the problems with thac0 seeming to be contradictory was because people did it wrong (including me and every group I played with). AC was designed as a modifier to the dice roll.You were supposed to roll your d20 add your pluses to hit and modify it by the AC and compare that to your thac0.
When you do it that way round it all makes perfect sense.
It meant you needed to know the AC of your target which I suspect a number of GMs didn't like giving out, also not as easy as going "I hit AC -4".

John Benbo RPG Superstar 2011 Top 8 |

Lemmy Z wrote:But just a vague one... I remember THACO and apparently, quite a few people around here have been playing for a decade (or two) longer than me. oOI was joking when I mentioned it, but I guess I should have emphasized "remembering" as opposed to knowing what it is. Just from the couple of responses above, there's a distinct line of experience you'll get from folks who played in a certain timeframe with THACO.
Of course, if someone mentions playing first edition Harn or Rolemaster as their first RPG, then you are really talking hard-core grognard (and possibly a masochistic one at that). And I say that with a wink; not a criticism.
My friend wasn't allowed to play D&D until high school because his mother bought into the controversy (even though it was late 80s at this point) surrounding the game. However, this didn't apply to any other RPG. So, while I had my D&D group, with him I would play a lot of Marvel Superheroes through elementary school. Middle school it was a lot of MERP (Middle-Earth Roleplay Game- Rolemaster light) and then Rolemaster in high school.
Now, if you're thinking, "But, John that doesn't make any sense. How could his parents forbid your friend from playing D&D but allow Rolemaster where he was running a demonic fueled chaos warrior?" I would say that I agree with you, but I wasn't going to bring it up to his mother in case she forbade him from any RPG :).
Good news is that he runs Pathfinder for his kids so I occasionally pick up books for them like the new Playground Adventures modules and the Strategy Guide.

GreyWolfLord |

thejeff wrote:IIRC, THAC0 was a 2nd Edition thing. 1st just had the charts.Yea - the way I worded it was wasn't clear.
1e DMG page 196 Appendix E, third column after Monster and Size.
I believe in the errata there may have been a paragraph omitted that explained it a little more and also in regards to player characters.
There are also some who state that it was referenced in White Dwarf before that, however, while it may have been used by some UK players, it is hardly considered anywhere close to being official in regards to Americans.
I believe as per Frank Mentzer, the first official reference to THAC0 outside the DMG and officially to use the word THACO was in 1982 via the R series of modules.
I believe he also mentioned that those who created 2e utilized many of his ideas (such as the word Thac0/Thaco) and dragons with much larger HD, etc....as things used directly or for inspiration in their making 2e.

thejeff |
Alex Martin wrote:thejeff wrote:IIRC, THAC0 was a 2nd Edition thing. 1st just had the charts.Yea - the way I worded it was wasn't clear.1e DMG page 196 Appendix E, third column after Monster and Size.
I believe in the errata there may have been a paragraph omitted that explained it a little more and also in regards to player characters.
There are also some who state that it was referenced in White Dwarf before that, however, while it may have been used by some UK players, it is hardly considered anywhere close to being official in regards to Americans.
I believe as per Frank Mentzer, the first official reference to THAC0 outside the DMG and officially to use the word THACO was in 1982 via the R series of modules.
I believe he also mentioned that those who created 2e utilized many of his ideas (such as the word Thac0/Thaco) and dragons with much larger HD, etc....as things used directly or for inspiration in their making 2e.
Huh. I don't remember ever using that table, though I might well have, at for the XP, which wasn't explicitly given elsewhere IIRC.
Still, it's not actually called THAC0 and there's no explanation given. The combat tables saw far more use. I don't have any of the R-series, but I do have an I module by Mentzer, which did use it in '87. So it does appear to have been creeping in, though possibly only in Mentzer's work.
Interestingly, THAC0 technically doesn't work in AD&D, which I didn't realize until looking at it now. The combat charts have a range of 6 ACs that need a 20 to hit, before moving up to 21.
A 1st level fighter, for example, needs a 19 to hit AC 1, a 20 for AC0 through AC-5 and a 21 for AC-6.
That can't be represented by a single THAC0 number. That fighter has a THAC0 of 20, which means he needs a 19 to hit AC1. A 1st level mage also has a 20 THAC0, but needs a 20 to hit AC1, according to the chart.

GreyWolfLord |

GreyWolfLord wrote:Alex Martin wrote:thejeff wrote:IIRC, THAC0 was a 2nd Edition thing. 1st just had the charts.Yea - the way I worded it was wasn't clear.1e DMG page 196 Appendix E, third column after Monster and Size.
I believe in the errata there may have been a paragraph omitted that explained it a little more and also in regards to player characters.
There are also some who state that it was referenced in White Dwarf before that, however, while it may have been used by some UK players, it is hardly considered anywhere close to being official in regards to Americans.
I believe as per Frank Mentzer, the first official reference to THAC0 outside the DMG and officially to use the word THACO was in 1982 via the R series of modules.
I believe he also mentioned that those who created 2e utilized many of his ideas (such as the word Thac0/Thaco) and dragons with much larger HD, etc....as things used directly or for inspiration in their making 2e.
Huh. I don't remember ever using that table, though I might well have, at for the XP, which wasn't explicitly given elsewhere IIRC.
Still, it's not actually called THAC0 and there's no explanation given. The combat tables saw far more use. I don't have any of the R-series, but I do have an I module by Mentzer, which did use it in '87. So it does appear to have been creeping in, though possibly only in Mentzer's work.
Interestingly, THAC0 technically doesn't work in AD&D, which I didn't realize until looking at it now. The combat charts have a range of 6 ACs that need a 20 to hit, before moving up to 21.
A 1st level fighter, for example, needs a 19 to hit AC 1, a 20 for AC0 through AC-5 and a 21 for AC-6.
That can't be represented by a single THAC0 number. That fighter has a THAC0 of 20, which means he needs a 19 to hit AC1. A 1st level mage also has a 20 THAC0, but needs a 20 to hit AC1, according to the chart.
Yes, it works a little different if I recall. Once you hit 20, you have 20 for 5 ACs and then it ascends.

Zaister |
THAC0 is basically the same as BAB, only counting down instead of up. In AD&D AC started at 10 and went down from there, so old AC 0 is the same as new AC 20. If your THAC0 is x, it means you need to roll x to hit that AC. So, in modern parlance that means you need to roll x to hit AC 20, which means THAC0 x is the same as BAB (20-x). Simple as that.

Neriathale |

Fighting Fantasy books when they first came out (1982 onward)
But my first proper RPG was D&D / AD&D 1st Ed (I honestly can't remember which) aged 16 in 1984. It was run at lunchtime at school and we played "In Search of the Unknown" - everyone else died, but I survived, and the other players gave up after that.
Then at University I played loads of different game systems - MERP, Rolemaster, Dragonquest, Chill, The Arcanum, Palladium Fantasy, Stormbringer... most of which are still sitting on the study shelf behind me.

Scythia |

Scythia wrote:At age 14, 2nd ed (AD&D).
Started as a DM, stayed one since (although I cringe a bit thinking about those early games).
I started earlier...but on the early games we played or DM'd...
You too?
I was a DM exclusively for the first couple years. We had the books, and were curious to try. I was the only person in my group of friends willing to DM. (I was kind of a ringleader type, so it wasn't surprising really.)
I was also the only one who had bought the books. :P

Alex Martin |

So, while I had my D&D group, with him I would play a lot of Marvel Superheroes through elementary school. Middle school it was a lot of MERP (Middle-Earth Roleplay Game- Rolemaster light) and then Rolemaster in high school.
In hindsight, I think MERP was really an underappreciated take on the Middle-Earth mythology and world as a game format at the time. Looking at it in light of all the LOTR success, it certainly was a lot better of a system than I thought at the time.

GreyWolfLord |

GreyWolfLord wrote:Scythia wrote:At age 14, 2nd ed (AD&D).
Started as a DM, stayed one since (although I cringe a bit thinking about those early games).
I started earlier...but on the early games we played or DM'd...
You too?
I was a DM exclusively for the first couple years. We had the books, and were curious to try. I was the only person in my group of friends willing to DM. (I was kind of a ringleader type, so it wasn't surprising really.)
I was also the only one who had bought the books. :P
I wasn't the ring leader, and started as a player, but I did some absolutely very embarrassing things now that I look back on my days back then.

Scythia |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Scythia wrote:I wasn't the ring leader, and started as a player, but I did some absolutely very embarrassing things now that I look back on my days back then.GreyWolfLord wrote:Scythia wrote:At age 14, 2nd ed (AD&D).
Started as a DM, stayed one since (although I cringe a bit thinking about those early games).
I started earlier...but on the early games we played or DM'd...
You too?
I was a DM exclusively for the first couple years. We had the books, and were curious to try. I was the only person in my group of friends willing to DM. (I was kind of a ringleader type, so it wasn't surprising really.)
I was also the only one who had bought the books. :P
Oh yeah, I know what you mean. I did alot of terrible DM things. The super powered NPC, the express railroad, punishing players for making a choice I didn't expect, running a module without reading it first, not knowing enough about the system to spot blatant cheating, encouraging metagaming, and (while not a DM specific thing, something I'm embarrassed by) allowing a player bullying pile on.
I honestly didn't improve as a DM until I got away from that group.

Tarondor |

I remember when THAC0 was the new hotness ( a phrase which would itself be decades in the future) . Before that I actually had a paper slide rule that figured all the charts quickly. It was really an impressive low-tech achievement.
I begged my dad to take me to the one hobby store that sold D&D stuff to get the AD&D PHB the day it came in. I had been using photocopies of the charts that had previewed in "The Dragon" ( not yet called Dragon magazine") and they were worn out after 4 months of constant use.

Malefactor |

I was 14 years old, just started freshman year, and decided I wanted to see what this D&D business was all about so I joined the school club, which was playing 3.5. I rolled up a dwarf fighter, fought a singular skeleton, then was thrown through a door, then beaten with the door, for disagreeing with the local DMPC.
Not my finest hour.

GreyWolfLord |

I was 14 years old, just started freshman year, and decided I wanted to see what this D&D business was all about so I joined the school club, which was playing 3.5. I rolled up a dwarf fighter, fought a singular skeleton, then was thrown through a door, then beaten with the door, for disagreeing with the local DMPC.
Not my finest hour.
DMPC...doesn't sound like your DM's finest hour either (or at least, I hope it wasn't from the sounds of it).

Haladir |

11 or 12. It was 1982, I was taking a Pascal programming class at the local community college. I was the youngest kid there, by far. Some of the high school kids taking the class were into D&D and invited me to join them. They were playing an amalgam of OD&D and AD&D in a third-party game world. Their GM was older still. I had fun, but I only played with those guys for a couple of months, mainly because of the age difference.
I got the Tom Moldvay Basic Set for my birthday that year, and I started running D&D games with my friends.

Vincent Takeda |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'll always remember my first tabletop gaming purchase. Red box and blue box each on sale at goodwill for a buck each. If I couldn't have joined the hobby for 2 bucks I can't guarantee I'd ever gotten into the hobby in the first place.
Gaming has always been the 'most fun per dollar' of anything I've ever done.

GM 1990 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
11yrs old and it was the '81 edition of the Red Box Basic D&D. Rules, a module, -and- set of dice with a crayon.
I remember seeing adverts for it in comics for a while and was just amazed at the concept of taking on one of the roles shown in the pictures. From the second I opened the box and holed up in my room going through Keep on the Border lands by myself I was hooked. Quickly convinced my parents to get the Expert Blue-box. Until my last move a couple years ago I still had the Isle of Dread module that came in the Expert box.
I didn't play a lot in HS just the one off pickup game now and then, as nobody else gamed, and that was during the "D&D is satanic" years.
Started AD&D in 89, my first year of college, and pretty much played weekly (or multiple times a week for the next 4 years, primarily as GM).
Long break:
Last year introduced my 12, 10, 8, and wife 47 to PF. The 5 and 7 year old don't get to "fully play" yet, but have jumped in and tossed some goblin attack dice from time to time.

GM 1990 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THAC0 is basically the same as BAB, only counting down instead of up. In AD&D AC started at 10 and went down from there, so old AC 0 is the same as new AC 20. If your THAC0 is x, it means you need to roll x to hit that AC. So, in modern parlance that means you need to roll x to hit AC 20, which means THAC0 x is the same as BAB (20-x). Simple as that.
I remember as the 2E PHB and DMG came out trying to convince my group we should switch to THAC0 using a similarly simple explanation. It never took, which was crazy because our group religiously followed the Weapon vs Armor Type adjustments from the Unearthed Arcana which -really- messed with your To Hit rolls. It presumed an AC9 was shield, AC8 Leath+Shield, etc. So some weapons got some nice bonus vs some armor types, even heavier armor for some weapons like a pikes, pole-arms, and military picks.
It probably didn't help that we'd been playing roughly 4yrs through college at that point, and didn't really even like much of the 2E things. We were already using UA, Wilderness and Dungeoneer Survival guides for non-weapon proficiencies and plenty of house-rules/classes, so there was less to be desired in changing at that point.
If it wasn't for THAC0 and the whole decending AC, I might not have even looked at PF to teach my kids, but I wanted something more simple. (not claiming PF in general is simple...lots of crunch, but the concepts are easier for us)

Vidmaster7 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Zaister wrote:THAC0 is basically the same as BAB, only counting down instead of up. In AD&D AC started at 10 and went down from there, so old AC 0 is the same as new AC 20. If your THAC0 is x, it means you need to roll x to hit that AC. So, in modern parlance that means you need to roll x to hit AC 20, which means THAC0 x is the same as BAB (20-x). Simple as that.I remember as the 2E PHB and DMG came out trying to convince my group we should switch to THAC0 using a similarly simple explanation. It never took, which was crazy because our group religiously followed the Weapon vs Armor Type adjustments from the Unearthed Arcana which -really- messed with your To Hit rolls. It presumed an AC9 was shield, AC8 Leath+Shield, etc. So some weapons got some nice bonus vs some armor types, even heavier armor for some weapons like a pikes, pole-arms, and military picks.
It probably didn't help that we'd been playing roughly 4yrs through college at that point, and didn't really even like much of the 2E things. We were already using UA, Wilderness and Dungeoneer Survival guides for non-weapon proficiencies and plenty of house-rules/classes, so there was less to be desired in changing at that point.
If it wasn't for THAC0 and the whole decending AC, I might not have even looked at PF to teach my kids, but I wanted something more simple. (not claiming PF in general is simple...lots of crunch, but the concepts are easier for us)
I remember that chart It was so bizarre I know what they were thinking that say a war pick could go through fullplate easier then other weapons so it should have a higher to hit but it made for some weird corner cases.