Blade
3 stars proficiency in dual-wield
1 star proficiency in katana

When I started this character, I noticed that her thac0 while wielding any +0 bow was one point better (lower) than when she was wielding a +0 katana. She has no proficiency slots in bows, and one slot in katana.

Is this correct, or am I overlooking something basic about weapon proficiencies? If it's a bug I'll SK it. If not, I'm wondering what the rationale is behind this.

Since you don't give the character's race and stats it is impossible to be sure.

Are you factoring into account the DEX bonus for missile weapon THAC0?

How about the elven racial +1 with some bows?

Ah - my apologies...

human Blade
18 STR
18 DEX
18 CON
18 INT
3 WIS
15 CHA

Ahh, yes, Weimer is correct. Your STR is giving you +1 to hit with any melee weapons. Your DEX is giving you +3 to hit with any missile weapons. Since you've not invested a proficiency point into long/short bows, you recieve a -1 THAC0 penalty, therefore giving you a total of +1 (rather than +2) better THAC0 when using them.

Elves aren't bards anyway.

It is a DEX bonus (+2 THAC0), while STR bonus for katana is only +1.
But you have -1 on bow because you aren't proficient.
Is it perhaps a long bow? Those bring +1 THAC0.

No it was a short bow, +0. And wielding this short bow gave me one point better thac0 than the katana. Wielding a long bow indeed bettered my thac0 a further point.

oop - looks like this info is on p 255 of the manual [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

ok... STR gives me +1 to hit with melee - fine.
DEX gives me +2 to hit w/ missiles, but -1 because not proficient = +1 too?
Wait, doesn't that mean the net thac0 should be the same?

It does. I guessed it was a longbow, but now I am puzzled...

My mistake, 18 DEX grants +2 to hit, not +3 (was thinking of 19). You are correct in that the THAC0 should be the same. Perhaps you are using enchanted ammo? Probably arrows +1, since these also grant a +1 THAC0 bonus.

According to SixofSpades website, Rogues get a +3 THAC0 penalty for using weapons they're not proficient in.

[ 02-18-2003, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

Now it is even worse! You just had to say that, ain't you... :(

[ 02-18-2003, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Vedran ]