Instead of of beginning at 1 and going up, you begin at 10 and go down. Plusses "Improve" your AC, so it takes it down. Not sure how it can be more simple than that. LOL
Here's how: Have positive modifiers increase things in a positive way. That is, empirically and objectively, more simple than having positives decrease your number.
No, THAC0 isn't terribly complex - but it's
deliberately poorly designed and more counter-intuitive than it needs to be specifically in order to nerd-gate, like much of the early D&D systems were.
It went away, it didn't come back, it never will, and there is a very good reason for that.
Edit: Just for those curious, in case anyone is wondering about why there's such a pile-on about this topic to the point of some folks suspecting that Spyder is trolling:
THAC0 system:
- Your THAC0 determines how hard it is for you to hit your opponents.
- Your AC is actually the modifier that enemies use with their roll when trying to hit you.
- You use a spreadsheet that is modified by class, level and race of player character; this sheet has a column accounting for rolling 0 on your 20-sided die, by the way.
- It also has values telling you that you need to roll anywhere up to 26 on your 20-sided die, to hit various opponents.
- The table is not 1-1 number scaling; it has bands and brackets - you will have to consult it or memorise it in full, there is no simple math.
- Your THAC0 tells you how high you need to roll on your d20 to hit an opponent with a theoretical AC of zero - but your opponent will actually have an Armour Class value on a range, and might be -10 (hard to hit) or +10 (easier to hit), so you have to modify your rolled number by their AC
Modern system:
- You have an AC, determined by adding together the values that contribute to it. Enemies do too.
- You have an attack bonus, determined by your ability modifier and level.
- A hit lands if the d20 roll plus the attack modifier meets or exceeds the target's AC.
Spyder may like the THAC0 system, and they may be comfortable and familiar with it, but there's not really room to claim that it is simpler or more intuitive than the system that replaced it. Objectively, it is not.
