Reconciling THAC0, Target 20, and More!

-

I’m annoyed at people who are uppity about THAC0 and say something like, “It’s just simple subtraction!” However, it’s not for the reason you might think. Like yeah, I don’t use THAC0 because it’s kinda annoying and introduces a wider range of armor class values than I care to use. But the reason it bothers me is because you don’t have to read it as subtraction at all. It’s much easier to read it as an inverted attack roll, where you roll greater than your attack value and use your target’s armor class as a “bonus”.

It’s just algebra. The typical formula below:

  • d20 ≥ THAC0 - AC

Becomes:

  • d20 + AC ≥ THAC0

And that’s all there is to it (or, at least, all there should be to it).

What got me thinking about this was Delta’s Target 20 house rule, where you roll d20 plus your fighter level plus the target’s AC, attempting to roll greater than or equal to 20. This is basically the same thing as THAC0 except with separate attack bonuses, which is to say that both of the typical D&D combat methods— ascending AC and THAC0—can be read as abstractions of Target 20 (so long as you ignore the specificity that Target 20 uses fighter levels).

  • Target 20: d20 + AB + AC ≥ 20
  • Classic: d20  ≥ AS, where AS = 20 - AB - AC
  • THAC0: d20 + AC ≥ TH, where TH = 20 - AB
  • Modern: d20 + AB ≥ AAC, where AAC = 20 - AC

This holds true for both Advanced and Original/Basic D&D, so long as for the latter you interpret characters as having a base attack bonus of +1 rather than +0. Not only is this simpler than the typical common wisdom that you subtract from 19 for O/BD&D, but it aligns better with the expectations of that system—especially if you rely on one’s hit dice as an approximation of their attack bonus (as per Necropraxis). Therefore, rather than reading AD&D as having different armor class values than O/BD&D, you can read it as having a different progression for attack bonuses.

To this end, I made charts of attack bonuses for fighters and monsters based on O/BD&D, AD&D, and Necropraxis’ rationalized hit dice.

Fighter Attack Bonuses

Fighter Level O/BD&D AD&D Necropraxis
0 +1 (?) +0 +1 (?)1
1 +1 +1 +2
2 +1 +2 +3
3 +1 +3 +4
4 +3 +4 +5
5 +3 +5 +6
6 +3 +6 +7
7 +6 +7 +8
8 +6 +8 +9
9 +6 +9 +10

Monster Attack Bonuses

Monster HD O/BD&D AD&D Necropraxis
1/2 d +1 +0 +0 (?)
1d–1 +0 (?) +1 +0
1d +1 +2 +1
1d+1 +2 +3 +2
2d +2 +5 +2
3d +3 +5 +3
4d +5 +6 +4
5d +6 +6 +5
6d +6 +8 +6
7d +7 +8 +7
8d +7 +9 +8
9d +9 +9 +9
10d +9 +11 +10

The values for O/BD&D are different from what appear in Fantastic Medieval Campaigns as well as in Old School Essentials, because of my reasoning above—still, I won’t change the FMC values because starting from +0 is more convenient when working from the original rules as written. After all, I would refactor a lot of math in FMC if I gave myself the freedom to do so, but it’s not my place—the best I can do is offer breadcrumbs in the optional rules section.

  1. Assuming that a “zeroth level fighter” is, really, a non-fighter and (by extension) regular HD 1d figure. ↩︎

Comments

  1. emarskJune 21, 2023 at 12:58 PM

    Just for some roll-under fun, d20 + AB + AC ≥ 20 is also equivalent to d20 ≤ AB + AC + 1.

    ReplyDelete
  2. widderslainteJune 21, 2023 at 5:17 PM

    But what about the repeating 20s on the AD&D combat matrices?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcia B.June 22, 2023 at 6:01 AM

      they're an abomination before god

      Delete
    2. CanyonJune 27, 2023 at 11:30 PM

      I like them. Trent Foster, who wrote Heroic Legendarium, does "target 21" adding +5 on natural 20s. (You could of course do "target 20" or "target thac0" as presented here, with level 1 thieves and magic-users and 1/2 hd monsters getting -1 on their attacks, though that might feel kind of cruel, even if it's mechanically identical.)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plagiarism in Unconquered (2022)

-
Image
Ultimately [UVG2E], like UVG1E, are books [sic] that long to be cut to pieces, chopped & screwed and re-arranged and re-organized and repurposed into the collected loose-leaf notes of a GM binder, to be pulled out and smoothly interjected into a Something Else. Noora Rose, “ UVG, UVG2E, and Me ” (2023-06-30) I was originally going to put this post (at least, the commentary parts) through an AI Gary Gygax translator and publish it on a friend's burner blog. However, this is too serious to be treated like a joke, so here it is instead. Staking my name on it, lol. A Something Else Unconquered (2022) is an OSR-style science-fantasy adventure game and setting by Noora Rose of Monkey's Paw Games. Originally intended to have been based on Knave , according to the 2020 Kickstarter campaign , Rose refactored it to be based on Into the Odd instead—although with significant influence from Jared Sinclair's The Vanilla Game . I previously threw Unconquered into my big OSR
Read more

OSR Rules Families

-
Image
So, here’s the thing: originally I wrote this like a fucking research article with a hypothesis, a methodology, and all that stuff. I’m not even a scientific research person. That’s my partner’s job. Not mine. So, instead of walking you through every single step I took, I’m going to take the journalistic approach and start with the big picture before I zoom into it and tell you about the little details. I read, reviewed, and statistically organized 38 different rulebooks considered to be OSR or OSR-adjacent. These include four rulebooks from TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons , as well as ten rulebooks from the 2000s and 2010s. The remaining 24 rulebooks postdate the closure of G+ in early 2019. Please refer to the bibliography at the bottom of this post for more information. After having collected and organized a dataset with ~90 variables, I found the statistical similarity between each pair of rulebooks based on that data. Finally, I ran an algorithm to determine clusters of these bo
Read more

Bite-Sized Dungeons

-
Image
Workbook Now Available On Itch! Bite-Sized Dungeons by Traverse Fantasy Edit: This whole time, I said that a first level dungeon hoard had 100 times d6 gold pieces when it actually has just 10 times d6. This means the average hoard has an XP value of 70 without gems, or ~110 with gems. By extension, the eighteen-room dungeon only has 350 XP without gems, or ~550 XP with gems. That is downright dismal and I don’t think works out with modern play sessions and party counts, so let’s pretend it said 100 times d6 anyway. I just read an article by Yora of Spriggan’s Den about extrapolating a scheme for an eighteen-room dungeon from the procedural generation rules in B/X (1981) [1]. As Yora points out, eighteen rooms is a great size for a mid-to-large dungeon or for a floor of a multi-level dungeon, and the checklist of rooms makes it easy to make sure that the final product has a variety of interesting play interactions. But, being as large as it is, it can still be a tall order on the
Read more