Originally Posted by Sozz
I don't have fond memories of THAC0 but I'm not sure it constitutes illogical or poor design … snip … I’'m pretty biased towards 3e, I liked how everything was accounted for in it. Then again, every way of doing it leaves me dissatisfied in one way or another.


Oh, I didn’t mean THAC0 was illogical, just my fondness for it given I actually value simplicity and accessibility to new players in game rules. Plus I’m not sure emotional attachment to game rules can ever be rational smile. As to 3e, I don’t know much about it but am currently playing Pathfinder WotR which I think is based on it and have recently found myself struggling to hit certain enemies but also to understand why and what is impacting their armour class. I’m totally willing to accept that this is to do with my ignorance and inappropriate tactics and/or weapons, and that I’ll become as attached to its approach as to THAC0 once I work it out, but definitely find 5e easier to understand. And given that there’s so much to learn about the D&D ruleset for a newcomer, I do think there’s a significant accessibility benefit in making individual elements simpler. I think I prefer just having a single* AC, plus potentially vulnerabilities or resistances to specific damage types as per 5e.

* A single AC at any one time, that is, given I’m aware that 5e still has different ways of calculating AC that can apply in different situations, such as when using Barkskin.


"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"