The Gaming Den

Number inflation is more rampant in 3E due to the bonus system, but has nothing to do with the basic principle of THAC0, but just a failing of 3E's designers creating too many ways to max out your AC or attack bonuses.

The actual streamlined system of 3E were nothing but good things, and having the roll 1d20, add bonuses, then compare against a DC is a good mechanic for everything. You don't need to have some rolls be roll-under and some roll-over.

fbmf wrote:

shadzar wrote: the problem herein lies not with the fact that THAC0 and BAB are the exact same thing with just the number line reversed and shifted, but BAB removes the finite range of ACs.

ok you say it is simpler, but i can...just as WotC did, create and use BAB in 2nd edition in place of THAC0, should i want to.

the thing i cannot do then is explain under BAB why i would have an arbitrary limit of 21 ACs. BAB allows for an infinite range, and since bigger is better, then why should the game force a restriction to just those 21 places on the number line?

THAC0 may seem a bit funky on the outside, but it picks its 21 range from a VERY specific set with an absolute value of 10. that gives 10 above and 10 below.

Sorry, by "box" I meant "game" as in "out of the box". For a man who frequently uses non-standard English written communication, you certainly are picky about others.

Now then, the AC 10 to -10 thing was a guideline only. This is not me ragging on your favorite 2E mantra (although it fits). This is my personal experience. It didn't happen often, but I actually played a character in 2E (remember, I'm old too) with an AC of -13.

Thac0 was theoretically infinite just like BAB is. Number inflation in 3E just canonized what a number of people (certainly in the 2E games I played) were already doing.

I'm not saying it was good for the game. I'm saying a number of people were already doing it.

Game On,
fbmf

well the game did come in some boxes, oh which i have long since list.. IE: Red Box...and various other beginning boxes, boxed set campaigns, etc...

so didnt know if you were speaking of one of those in particular.

very few things actually fell outside the -10 ~ 10 AC range, and if you somehow had -13 AC...then i would love to see how you puleld that off...

while YES it is a system of guidelines, the system itself didnt include things outside its own range. whatever you had to give you a -13 AC had to be your own groups/DMs creation, and therefore not indicative of the system itself.

as a DM i could have always made a AC -100 monster if i wanted to, but there was no need or want. Tarrasque set the limit of the baddest SOB out there, and no need to give better AC than it had to ANYTHING. but it only had -3...go figure.

THAC0 had a set range. presented on MANY character sheets in the "chart" to place your THAC0 for certain levels, etc. as well the monsters in the MCs and MM...not to mention being stated in the book.

PHB2eR wrote:Armor Class is measured on a scale from 10, the worst (no armor), to -10, the best (very powerful magical armors)

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

BAB NEVER makes claims to a finite range, while 2nd clearly states the games fit and was designed within a range.

YES, you may step outside of that range, but you cannot fault the game when you do.

BAB you can NEVER step outside the range, because a range doesnt exist in the first place.

THAC0 = run 21 yards
BAB = RUN!

"people" were doing ALL sorts of things, but they didnt all get put into 2nd or 3rd from previous.

but that gets into where 3rd REALLY came from, which isnt the point of THAC0 v BAB.

seriously i would like to see the write-up for that character with -13, with any supplements items came from, and also things that were houseruled, because there had to be some stacking going on that wasnt in the game, or the game suggested against, or just an item created to instantly give a -13 AC.

As far as I know, 2E never suggested against stacking. That was a 3E innovation, and a good one.

And OF COURSE it was houseruled. 2E was all about houserules. You crow about this relentlessly. You insist on quoting us the rulebook where houseruling is encouraged any time anyone starts saying something isn't allowed in the rules.

We were playing the game, Shad, not the rules.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:As far as I know, 2E never suggested against stacking. That was a 3E innovation, and a good one.

And OF COURSE it was houseruled. 2E was all about houserules. You crow about this relentlessly. You insist on quoting us the rulebook where houseruling is encouraged any time anyone starts saying something isn't allowed in the rules.

We were playing the game, Shad, not the rules.

Game On,
fbmf

very good, glad you had fun, but because you altered a segment of the rules, does not make what you played definitive of 2nd, you just used its strengths to your advantage.

we are also talking here about direct correlation of BAB and THAC0, which you have to looka t the book to find, and IF you can do the math, it doesnt matter how you move the formula around, it is still the same formula.

F=mv, m=F/v, v=F/m
all these are the same equation

d=st, t=d/s, s=d/t
all these are the same equation

you always solve for what you dont have, in the case of THAC0, you didnt have the AC, so you have to fix both Zeb, and Steve's mistakes for giving the wrong formula configuration.

as for the "stacking"

Cloak of Protection:

This device can be combined with other items or worn with leather armor. It cannot function in conjunction with any sort of magical armor, normal armor not made of leather, or with a shield of any sort.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

the "no stacking" guidelines are littered throughout the items themselves

The magical properties of a ring of protection are cumulative with all other magical items of protection except as follows:
1. The ring does not improve Armor Class if magical armor is worn, although it does add to saving throw die rolls.

2. Multiple rings of protection operating on the same person, or in the same area, do not combine protection. Only one such ring--the strongest--functions, so a pair of protection rings +2 provides only +2 protection.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

some could stack with other things, while some could not stack with specific things.

IF you houseruled it differently, your results causing a problem are your own doing, not that of the edition. if you had no problem due to your houserules, then you had fun and who cares....

you keep coming at this like i am saying you shouldnt houserule, but that is crossing purposes.

2nd was made for houseruling, but YOUR houserules dont define 2nd, nor do mine.

so back to the THAC0 v BAB....and more to the point this thread.... the way BAB and THAC0 worked with each edition drove strong focus to changing other things including but not limited to abilities, saves, etc because of the nature and how they were connected or not connected in their respective editions.

shadzar wrote:
we are also talking here about direct correlation of BAB and THAC0, which you have to looka t the book to find, and IF you can do the math, it doesnt matter how you move the formula around, it is still the same formula.

F=mv, m=F/v, v=F/m
all these are the same equation

d=st, t=d/s, s=d/t
all these are the same equation

No. You are objectively wrong. They are not the same equation. In each set, the latter two are methods of solving the first in the set. Just because each equation in each set is true does not make them equal.

Eight quarters may be worth the same as two dollar bills, but they are not the same. If I am at a gumball machine, I can use one of my quarters without having to go bother someone for change first. Even though I have the same amount of purchasing power if I have the two dollar bills, one is easier to use because it skips a step and therefore requires less.

Now then, BAB is easier to use. That is its advantage. I know this pisses you off. I know how you feel cause I felt the same way. When 3E came out, I was like you. Seriously. It took me about eighteen months to get over my antiquated 2E notions.

2E may have recommended you stay within the 10 to -10 range, but houseruling was specifically encouraged so they must have known the true range was infinite. As you constantly crow, everything in 2E was a guideline.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:

shadzar wrote:
we are also talking here about direct correlation of BAB and THAC0, which you have to looka t the book to find, and IF you can do the math, it doesnt matter how you move the formula around, it is still the same formula.

F=mv, m=F/v, v=F/m
all these are the same equation

d=st, t=d/s, s=d/t
all these are the same equation

No. You are objectively wrong. They are not the same equation. In each set, the latter two are methods of solving the first in the set. Just because each equation in each set is true does not make them equal.

Eight quarters may be worth the same as two dollar bills, but they are not the same. If I am at a gumball machine, I can use one of my quarters without having to go bother someone for change first. Even though I have the same amount of purchasing power if I have the two dollar bills, one is easier to use because it skips a step and therefore requires less.

Now then, BAB is easier to use. That is its advantage. I know this pisses you off. I know how you feel cause I felt the same way. When 3E came out, I was like you. Seriously. It took me about eighteen months to get over my antiquated 2E notions.

2E may have recommended you stay within the 10 to -10 range, but houseruling was specifically encouraged so they must have known the true range was infinite. As you constantly crow, everything in 2E was a guideline.

Game On,
fbmf

the denominations are different but the value is the same ($2), as such is true of those equations. your need for 25 cents has no reflection on how many quarters you have, save for the number of those gumballs you CAN afford. the fact the machine does not take your two-dollar bill doesnt matter to the math. which is why i explain to people to USE A NUMBER LINE, with THAC0, such as on the character sheet, then worry not about addition or subtraction as they are both complex when compared tot he absolute value of the AC and such and counting is simpler, so you can count 5 spaces left on the number line as:

|-5| = 5

the absolute value of negative 5 is 5, because absolute value has nothing to do with negative or positive, JUST the value, like your $2 in whatever combination of denomination of currency it is.

ergo your gumball analogy falls flat, because you arent asking the right question when looking for the value, your question should be do you have anything of the correct denomination, not your total buying power.

___________

f=mv is the equation for momentum in ALL its forms. m=f/v is still the formula for momentum.

well p =mv is the representation, but you can measure the force by multiplying the mass by the velocity....

likewise the THAC0 equation is STILL the THAC0 equation no matter which way you organize it so long as it is organized correctly as per the rules of algebra.

you car is going 60 mph

s=d/t
speed = distance over time

60 = miles over hours = miles per hour

60 mph

the formula is still the same formula whether you were looking for the speed, distance or the time.

thus is also true of THAC0, AC, and the die(attack) roll. the function of the formula remains the same, only your unknown variable changes based on what information you have, and what you are looking for to need the formula to begin with.

___________

BAB isnt easier to use, because the same equation will always work the same way. it just literally scares people less because the removal of subtracting negative numbers. it really is all about fear of math. it isnt about ease of use or understanding, but alleviating fear of the math.

_________________

yes, the true range of AC in 2nd was what you wanted to make it, same as you could add or remove anything, but you cannot truely discus BAB v THAC0 with your or my houserules, i remind you a second time.

NOTHING in 3.x specifies that there IS a range of AC or a limit that it could reach. Punpun had what AC?

strictly speaking about comparison of the systems we MUST look at the systems AS written.

when you talk about things that arent defined by the system (playstyle, allowed races/classes, etc) then you go into subjective territory wherein your way is not right except for me, and my way is not right except for you.

you are trying to punch holes in my views, but the fact is you are only strengthening them, by showing where houserules come into play in discussions. as i have said before houserules or general misunderstandings of the system itself has led to MUCH edition war from people commenting on THE SYSTEM, when they are actually commenting on hearsay or bad memory about how THEY USED the system and altered it.

here is a fallacy for you:

"you breaking a part of the game does not mean the game was broken to begin with"

how about disproving to me why BAB and THAC0 are NOT the same formula, since you think they are not, and there has been hundreds of pages on the internet in the past decade showing the math of how it IS the exact same formula.

the previous THAC0 thread which should refresh all this stuff without having to go over it AGAIN, IF anybody actually reads the thread and the formulas there, they are the same a here...

fbmf wrote:Now then, the AC 10 to -10 thing was a guideline only. This is not me ragging on your favorite 2E mantra (although it fits). This is my personal experience. It didn't happen often, but I actually played a character in 2E (remember, I'm old too) with an AC of -13.

In 2E the borders are easily broken. In 1E it was harder. Nothing could be worse than AC10 (except through cursed items ... see page 73 DMG). AC beyond -10 was exceptionally difficult. Armor and shield is AC 2 - highest magic bonus in 1E is +5 (adamantine aloyed steel) which gives you a total bonus f +10 and that only gets you to AC -8. Max dex defensive adjustment gives you a +4 to bring you to AC -12. That's a fully maxed out character there.

Shad, if you don't understand that a=bc and b=a/c are not the same, then me talking to you is just wasting my week off from grad school.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:Shad, if you don't understand that a=bc and b=a/c are not the same, then me talking to you is just wasting my week off from grad school.

Game On,
fbmf

they are the same formula, just solving for a different unknown.

you still have a, b, and c, and their relation to each other is the same in both of those equations, so it IS the same formula.

this is the purpose of algebra to allow you to understand how to keep their relationships the same, while being able to adjust the sides to maintain balance and to solve for the unknown.

a=bc and b=a/c and c=a/b all have the SAME relationship for A, B, and C.

it doesnt change the formula itself when you try to look for a specific variable within it, just re-orders it so you CAN look for the variable you need, from the portions given.

all 3 express the same function.

NOTHING in 3.x specifies that there IS a range of AC or a limit that it could reach. Punpun had what AC?

Please stop talking about things you don't know about. PunPun doesn't even work.

Also it is pretty easy to go past the -10 AC from just the DMG alone

Ring of Protection +6
Cloak of protetion +5
Bracers of Defense AC 2
Dusty rose Ioun Stone +1
+4 Defender Sword

That right there can be -14 AC -15 if I have a +5 Defender.

BAB isnt easier to use, because the same equation will always work the same way. it just literally scares people less because the removal of subtracting negative numbers. it really is all about fear of math. it isnt about ease of use or understanding, but alleviating fear of the math.

Actual that is why is easier to use. People don't like messing up problems, subtracting negatives has a higher chance of screwing up the solution so you might as well just have people add positives. Also people see negatives as penalties and additions as bonuses. Tell people half the time when you get a bonus it actually lowers a number is just adding another layer of confusion to game that is not necessary.

This way it is more accessible and there is one less barrier for people to get into the game.

shadzar wrote:MATH doesnt work JUST the way Zeb wrote it out,

Irrelevant. When you're reading the book, the way Zeb wrote it is the only way you get. I don't care how easy it is to change the rules. I really don't, because it doesn't matter. I quoted the book saying you subtract bonuses and add penalties. Telling me you can change the formula to get the same result doesn't matter because it's still NOT the formula given out in the book! If you cannot wrap your head around this I don't know what to tell you. Your capacity for stubborn self delusion is clearly beyond my ability to fix.

shadzar wrote:all 3 express the same function.

No, all three express equivalent functions. This is an important distinction. For example, (a+2)(b+2) is equivalent to ab + 2a + 2b + 4, but one is factored and the other is not. Similarly, 2 x 2 is equivalent to sqrt(16), but one has a computational complexity of O(n^2) while the other has a complexity of M(n).

The point everyone else in this thread is attempting to make is that the process of computing THAC0 is measurably more complex and less intuitive than the process for computing BAB.

echo

Leress wrote:

NOTHING in 3.x specifies that there IS a range of AC or a limit that it could reach. Punpun had what AC?

Please stop talking about things you don't know about. PunPun doesn't even work.

Also it is pretty easy to go past the -10 AC from just the DMG alone

Ring of Protection +6
Cloak of protetion +5
Bracers of Defense AC 2
Dusty rose Ioun Stone +1
+4 Defender Sword

That right there can be -14 AC -15 if I have a +5 Defender.

The magical properties of a ring of protection are cumulative with all other magical items of protection except as follows:
1. The ring does not improve Armor Class if magical armor is worn

Cloak of Protection:

This device can be combined with other items or worn with leather armor. It cannot function in conjunction with any sort of magical armor

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=228861#228861

so first you lose your bracers as they ARE ARMOR, or lose both your cloak and ring....

second the odds of finding as a party and a single party member having ALL the most powerful items possible is silly.

yes you can twink any character you want, such as making Punpun, but they arent intended to play.

your ring +6 has a 2% chance of it being so, 5% chance it is +4, 70% chance of being +1.

so lets adjust your twink back to normal ranges since we arent sucking off the DM for the best possible options.... (or maybe you are....)

RoP +1
CoP +2 (given the same 70% range roughly to get the RoP and using the best within that range)
Ioun stone +1

the odds of getting the defend sword is also rather unlikely. consider the lair types having magical items, and then rolling out the subtables for those items (so it is fair and not favoring any player, nor trying to gimp treasure against the players)...the 2 defender swords are among hundreds of magic items.

magic items arent just given out on a whim save for required ones for monsters that need +X to hit...

extremes do not define the system or disprove it, such that Punpun using its secret combo moves to get to it, doesnt mean a problem exists with its components.

crap.. copied over the rest of your post so will have to edit this IF i want to respond to that part.

either way, the game stated a limited range as all things were considered to fit within it as the design...moving outside that range is your choice, but doesnt mean EVERYONE did it or it was designed to do it.

who the fuck would even have all that stuff you listed anyway? some DM that didnt know bracers are armor so probably screwed up MANY more things, or was not going by the games limit, but making a houserule...and again a houserule does NOT define the game...

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:

shadzar wrote:MATH doesnt work JUST the way Zeb wrote it out,

Irrelevant. When you're reading the book, the way Zeb wrote it is the only way you get.

read your own damn post...it is the same portion of the book that i later highlighted in red and will repeat here so maybe after your own post, and several times from me, you will actually read the damn text!

He has a strength of 18/80 (Which gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll).

a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll
a +2 bonus to his attack roll

do you see this now?

now show me in his wrod math he actually does what he says to do?

he doesnt, because he forgot that the players dont have the ACs, like your later post questions.

I don't know about you guys, so maybe my experience was not normal, but when I played 2e (And yes, I did actually start playing before 3e) I never played under a DM who actually gave out the AC of the enemies we fought.

~LE GASP!~

you note the fucking problem with the configuration the formula is in in that you are solving for something you already have (the die roll) while trying to use something you dont have (the target's AC).

so fix the damn copy/paste error that the section was repeated form the DMG into the PHB, and use the correct form of the formula to solve for the unknown, rather than solving for the known!

Zeb got mixed up in his thoughts, and Steve Winter didnt correct it when he edited 2nd to make it revised.

but in case you missed it the strength gave Rath a +2 bonus to his attack roll

now look at my arrangement of the THAC0 formula and DARE to tell me i am NOT doing what is said by that...giving a bonus to the attack roll:

THAC0 - (die roll + modifiers) = AC hit

HEY LOOK! I did it the way Zeb wrote it by giving a bonus to the attack roll! HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

My mistake about the Bracers.

My other point still stands though since for some reason you don't want to address it.

Leress wrote:My mistake about the Bracers.

My other point still stands though since for some reason you don't want to address it.

eating and having a beer* after going over the "bonus to attack roll" thing again. just havent gone back and addressed it since i pasted over it with that post...

*AND I DONT DRINK ALCOHOL!

I don't know what you're arguing about, Shad. The fact that you get a +2 bonus from Strength was never in debate. Yes you get +2 from Strength. THEN YOU SUBTRACT THAT +2 FROM YOUR THAC0.

I have no idea what the fuck you're going on about. I never said you don't get positive bonuses, because my entire fucking arguement hinges on you getting positive bonuses and then counterintiuitively subtracting them from your THAC0 which is EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK TELLS YOU TO DO

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:I don't know what you're arguing about, Shad. The fact that you get a +2 bonus from Strength was never in debate. Yes you get +2 from Strength. THEN YOU SUBTRACT THAT +2 FROM YOUR THAC0.

I have no idea what the fuck you're going on about. I never said you don't get positive bonuses, because my entire fucking arguement hinges on you getting positive bonuses and then counterintiuitively subtracting them from your THAC0 which is EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK TELLS YOU TO DO

depending on which formula you use....

you are using your THAC0 and subtracting your modified die roll from the THAC0 number to determine the best AC you can hit with the attack.

i am placing the order of operands with the quoted portion "a +2 bonus to the attack roll", while you are jsut removing the parenthesis because the only thing you see in the equation is addition and subtraction which have the same priority in the order of operands, but neglect that there MIGHT just be cases where there is more than addition and subtraction done to the die roll BEFORE you can subtract the modified die roll from your THAC0 to tell you the best AC the attack would hit.

the book tells you to do 2 different things with the +2 bonus Rath got, but only shows you one of them:

1. add bonus to the attack roll
2. subtract bonus from THAC0

#2 is where people get the idea you are changing your THAC0, which is NOT true, and cause so many problems, while #1 states you add your bonuses to the die roll like every damn other thing says to do with them...

2eR PHB wrote:Hit Probability adjustments are added to or subtracted from the attack roll rolled on 1d20 (one 20-sided die) during combat. A bonus (positive number) makes the opponent easier to hit; a penalty (negative number) makes him harder to hit.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

wow not only in the example does Zeb state to add the bonus to the attack roll, but under the description of the type of bonus itself he says the same damn thing!

least we not forget that LW didnt spend excess money on things like hiring a professional editor for the books to make sure contradictory statements werent made, because she frankly didnt give 2 shits about gamers be it with Zeb's 2e or Steve's 2eR....

just because you CAN subtract the modifier from THAC0 in the example of Rath as shown, doesnt mean you always can as there may be other things and you still have to follow the order of operands for math...thus why i enclosed the dice with its modifiers in parenthesis with the flipped form to find the AC hit....


THAC0 - (die roll + modifiers) = AC hit

you want to whine about potential steps we can write out EVERY posible modifier for THAC0 systems and BAB, and you can look at the number of operands used in both and comapre then yourself, but it will require going through EVERY item and noting where things can an cannot stack and will be a VERY lengthy formula....or you can accept reality and the lack of editing produced 2 statements in the book that contradict each other, and continue to do it a way that confuses you, rather than see the other way exists and you ARE told to do it that way, even though there was no example given of it.

shadzar wrote: depending on which formula you use....

I'm using the one given in the 2e Revised PHB. The one we're arguing about. Anything else is a houserule.

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:

shadzar wrote: depending on which formula you use....

I'm using the one given in the 2e Revised PHB. The one we're arguing about. Anything else is a houserule.

you are the weakest link. GOODBYE!

Guys, ignore shadzar, he (deliberately?) derails nearly every thread he posts in. Reading your replies to him isn't even entertaining anymore, ignore the troll and he goes away.

I can't believe people are still arguing over this. BAB isn't a huge improvement over THACO. It's really a formulaic simplification.

THACO is two operations (subtraction and addition) versus 1. To make matters worse it increases the amount of information you must tell your DM, because the player doesn't know the monsters AC. Therefore you have to tell your DM the roll and your THACO. The DM must then end up doing math.

With the 3E/4E system, you give the DM one number and he compares it to the monster's AC directly.

The only advantage to THACO is just that it hides the monsters AC from players who aren't paying much attention. But if you've got people not paying much attention, they probably don't care anyway.

In the 2E Monster Manual, the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon had an AC of -12. I don't think its a typo, but I think it directly contradicted (or was an exception to) a rule elsewhere which stated AC was capped at -10. IIRC.

CCarter wrote:In the 2E Monster Manual, the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon had an AC of -12. I don't think its a typo, but I think it directly contradicted (or was an exception to) a rule elsewhere which stated AC was capped at -10. IIRC.

i said very few things went outside the range...i think also amethyst dragon is AC -12 or AC -13....stupid psionic shit gem dragons!

maybe most Great Wyrms were that, but you really didnt run across them that often because they were 14 HD monsters...BASE, and the age of a Great Wyrm gave it an additional 7 HD?

something like that, so it had over 20 HD making them what would be CR 20 in 3rd or something along those lines if you think of it like that.

(did i remember CR right? challenge rating? or was it ECL, effective character level...?)

(did i remember CR right? challenge rating? or was it ECL, effective character level...?)

Assuming you were being serious and not trolling, you got it right. CR = enemies, ECL = players.