Yes, Second Edition monsters have THAC0. The Second Edition monster books were first the Monstrous Compendiums (looseleaf binders) and then later the Monstrous Manuals (hardbound).

AD&D Second Edition came out in 1989. You appear to be looking at First Edition AD&D monster books (Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, Fiend Folio). These do not have THAC0. It is reasonably easy to give these THAC0s, of course - you take what they need to hit armor class 0 off the 1e DMG table on p.75 and that's the base THAC0. 1-1=20, 1=19 1+=18,2-3+=16,4-5+=15,6-7+=13, etc. Modify by strength.

# The DM controls treasure…

The *Dungeon Master's Guide* (1979) on Placement of Monetary Treasure says

All monsters would not and should not possess treasure! The treasure types given in the *Monster Manual* are the optimums and ore meant to consider the maximum number of creatures guarding them. Many of the monsters shown as possessing some form of wealth are quite unlikely to have any at all. This is not a contradiction in the rules, but an admonition to the DM not to give away too much! Any treasure possessed by weak, low-level monsters will be trifling compared to what numbers of stronger monsters might guard. So in distributing wealth amongst the creatures which inhabit the upper levels of dungeons/dungeon-like areas, as well as for petty monsters dwelling in small numbers in the wilderness, assign it accordingly. The bulk of such treasure will be copper pieces and silver. Perhaps there will be a bit of ivory or a cunningly-crafted item worth a few gold pieces. (91-2)

The section then details how the DM places monetary treasure. This is followed by a section describing the placement of magic items (92-3). Neither section encourages slavish adherence to random treasure table rolls and, on the contrary, recommends the DM *place* (not roll) monetary and magical treasure based on the creatures encountered and the player characters themselves.

So the DM decides what treasure exists not the dice, and if the DM doesn't like a rolled result, the DM rejects that result and *either* rolls again *or* just picks something. Even in *AD&D*, a DM shouldn't feel as though he's, like, *cheating* by rerolling or even picking what's best for that campaign instead of inserting something the DM *knows* is bad for campaign.

Thus, while the *dice* might've dictated that a *ring of three wishes* is somewhere in the dungeon, that doesn't mean the DM then *must* put it there or else the DM's *doing it wrong*. In fact, I suspect that Gygax would likely put forth that DM is doing his players a *favor* by excluding from the 2nd-level dungeon a *ring of three wishes*: a treasure like that at low levels skews players' expectations, giving them less to look forward to at higher levels when such treasures can be rightfully earned instead of accidentally rolled.

The *Monster Manual* (1978) in its description of treasure type further explains that the monster's treasure type entry means that such

treasures are only found in the lairs of monsters[, and] it must be stated that treasure types are based upon the occurrence of a mean number of monsters as indicated by the number appearing and adjustments detailed in the explanatory material particular to the monster in question. Adjustment downwards should always be made for instances where a few monsters are encountered. Similarly, a minor adjustment upwards might be called for if the actual number of monsters encountered is greatly in excess of the mean. The use of treasure type to determine the treasure guarded by a creature in a dungeon is not generally recommended. (5)

So this means the level 1 PCs upon defeating the 1–4 giant ants (see the *DMG*'s Dungeon Random Monster Tables for Monster Level 1 on 175) should *not* get *all* or even the bulk of the giant ants' Q×3 and S treasure types but, instead, only a tiny portion—if any!—of that treasure, the *Number Appearing* entry of giant ants being 1–100, and even that tiny portion of giant anty treasure assuming the PCs defeat the giant ants in their (probably less than expansive) lair.

(If the DM doesn't mind mixing his dnd-bx material with his *AD&D* material, this DM recommends the *Monster & Treasure Assortment: Sets One–Three: Levels One–Nine* (1980) for a multitude of examples of reasonable lower-level treasures suitable for a party that's defeated, for example, some not-in-their-lair, less-than-the-listed-mean wandering monsters. The tables, if so desired, can also be used pretty much as-is, needing hardly any conversion.)

## …But I understand wanting to roll dice and stick with the results

So you rolled a *ring of three wishes* and feel like, because it was rolled, it *should* be in the dungeon, darn it! That's cool. Make the *ring* almost inaccessible, *nearly* impossible to find except through great ingenuity, skill, or luck (maybe the *ring*'s surrounded by puzzles and traps as the dungeon's centerpiece or made of glass and at the bottom of an underground lake). Or, perhaps even better, somewhere in the dungeon there's a clue that leads to *another* dungeon where the *ring* can be found. Or you can just give the PCs such a *ring* and see what happens; remember, these **are** *AD&D* wishes, after all.

## Best Answer

Yes, that's all there is to it. Modifiers are never applied to THAC0, so when figuring THAC0 based on 1st edition to-hit tables, all you have to do is look up the number you need to hit a target with AC 0.If you're using 2nd edition THAC0 numbers it's even easier: just write down the number for your class and level from table 53 (PHB p. 91) and you're done.

"But certainly," I hear someone saying, "it's more complicated than that, isn't it?" Well, yes and no, but not for the reasons you expect. If you just need to derive a THAC0 number because your DM is streamlining* combat, then that's all you need to go forth and bash.

THAC0 is a fixed number for a given level. It never changes except when your level changes. It never needs to be recalculated when you pick up a magic sword, because to-hit bonuses are applied to the d20 roll when you roll, not to the THAC0 on your sheet. An 11th-level fighter will always have a THAC0 of 10, no matter what other gear they've got. Similarly a 4th-level thief will always have a THAC0 of 19.

So write down your THAC0 at 1st level (tip: it's going to be exactly 20), and every level check to see if you've moved over a column on the to-hit tables (or on the THAC0 table if using 2e's native THAC0 progressions, or just memorise the improvement rate) and earned an improved To Hit AC 0 number.

Of course, there's more to the story for the curious.

Yes, it's more complicated than that, but only because you're using THAC0 in a game of AD&D 1st edition, not because of how to modify THAC0. The interesting thing about THAC0 is that it's a strict mathematical progression. With a THAC0 of 20, you will always need to roll (after modifiers are applied to the dice) a 20 to hit AC 0 and a 24 to hit AC -4.

This is not true using 1st edition to-hit tables.There's a funny thing about 1st edition to-hit tables. The Attack Matrices on page 74 of the DMG give the number a character of a certain class and level needs to roll (after modifiers) in order to hit any given AC, but the numbers in these tables are not laid out in mathematical progressions. A 1st edition Druid needs a 20 to hit AC 0, just like in 2nd edition, using THAC0.

However, a while a 2e Druid needs a roll of 24 to hit AC -4, a 1st edition Druid using the Attack Matricesonly needs a 20 to hit AC -4. In fact, that level-one Druid can hit any target AC from 0 through -5 with just a 20, while her poor 2nd-edition counterpart needs a 20 to hit AC 0, a 21 to hit AC -1, a 22 to hit AC -2…(What? Yeah, really.)

Similarly, you might have checked my numbers up there when I said that a 4th-level thief will always have an THAC0 of 19, and you might have said I was wrong. Well,

2nd editionthieves always have a THAC0 of 19 at 4th level because they have a 1 point per 2 levels progression rate, but a 4th-level thief in 1st edition needs a 20 to hit AC 0—they don't get the bump in their to-hit score until they get to use the "level 5-8" column for thieves.What? Yes, I know. 1st edition is just like that.

So, when you ask if calculating THAC0 for a 1st edition character is as simple as looking up the number they need to hit AC 0 in the Attack Matrices, the answer is

yes. But, when you consider that by using THAC0 instead of the matrices you're fundamentally altering the combat probabilities of your character, I need to add an appendix to my answer that kind of suggests it's not so simple. It's complicated, yes, but it's not the calculation that's complicated, it's the implications of using THAC0 derived from the Attack Matrices.Really, it'd be so much simpler to just use the THAC0 table from 2nd edition wholesale instead of deriving it from the Attack Matrices, if your DM is going to insist on using THAC0. Either way though, once you've looked up the number and written it down, you're done!

*It's arguable whether THAC0 streamlines or unnecessarily complicates combat. For some people the table look-up is faster and simpler, requiring no math after you've modified the roll, while working out a hit result using THAC0 requires doing two arithmetic operations, one of which likely includes subtraction (which it has been shown people do slower and with more errors than addition, even for small numbers). For others, they can work the formula in their head effortlessly, and looking up the table result requires too much time to crack open the book and find the right row and column. Which one you are will determine whether you love or hate THAC0. Myself, I've made peace with both and stick to THAC0 when playing 2e and Attack Matrices when playing 1e.