D&D 1E 1e Play Report

[Toric_Arthendain]

Alright we are going in circles now, and I'm tired of chasing you around. Somehow you've managed to count 9 extra lines in a stat block that is only 4lines long.

Okay, stretch that 3e stat block out and it doesn't have as many lines. That is irrelevant though. Count the characters in the stat block instead. I'm not going to do that but just at a glance I see that there are many more characters in the 3e stat block, thus the 3e stat blocks are significantly longer. I have no idea why you are being so stubborn on that count. Pull out a 1e module and a 3e module. Compare. They are longer in every case in the 3e module. YOUR OWN stat blocks that YOU write might be shorter. Every DM likely has his own shorthand. But the published stat blocks are significantly different, both monster and NPC stat blocks. And if you are trimming those, you are doing a lot of extra work to prepare the module.

I'm 25+ 4 sessions into my 3e game stretching over about a year of play and the PC's are 4th level. Depending on whether a DM provides 'adventure path' level treasure in a 1e game, you'll level up every 2-3 sessions. There plenty of threads on EnWorld documenting that module play in 1e levels up as fast or faster than 3e (and you'll find me arguing in them that most people didn't rely on module play and leveled much more slowly), if you want to puruse the math or get in on the argument.

And I've run plenty of 1e modules and other than at the first couple of levels, no one is leveling every 2-3 sessions. That is not happening in the Temple of Elemental Evil game I am running now. Heck, that module is supposed to take you from level 1 to about level 8. The module is huge with tons of areas to deal with. There is no way you are finishing that module in 14-21 sessions, which by your assertion here is how long it would take to go from level 1 to 8 in 1e. Maybe if your sessions were 10 or 12 hour sessions every week but not otherwise. From level 1 to level 4? You might level up every two or three sessions. After that, no way. I'm seeing that right now in play. The thing is, there is plenty of wealth the PCs can haul out of the Temple. But oftentimes the biggest and best hauls are located in areas spread out from one another. The PCs might spend four or five sessions or longer slogging through other areas before hitting one of the bigger hauls. Thus over those four or five sessions, they have only gained the small experience point awards from defeating monsters and their smaller treasures before they hit an area that gives them a bigger chunk. As for your 3e game being at 25+ sessions and the PCs only at level 4, that is obviously related to how you run your game and the rate at which you want the PCs to advance. 3e was designed to level more quickly than the editions that came before it. It was a design concern. A party of four level 1 PCs taking out 8 orcs would each receive 400 xp. That is already nearly halfway to level 2 in 3e after one encounter. And xp for defeating monsters isn't all that is handed out in 3e.

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

As for the damage assertions, they are in this thread:

I looked over what you posted in that thread. As was argued back and forth there, using Unearthed Arcana would indeed take the game to another level. Specialization can be a game breaker and I know plenty of people who hate it and wouldn't let UA into their game at all. If you do allow UA specialization as a DM, you pretty much HAVE to allow it for some of the bad guys to turn them into an appropriate challenge for the PCs, particularly NPCs that are Fighters or Rangers. I wouldn't have any problem giving weapon specialization to an orc lieutenant or leader if members of the PC party had specialization. Bottom line is you have to be very careful about what parts, if any, you allow from UA. It totally depends on what type of game you want and whether you plan to go on much beyond 12th level.

I also noticed in that thread that you did acknowledge that by around 12th level in 1e the game is often rapidly coming to a close. I think that was and is true of many 1e games depending on player preference, what sort of the game the DM has been running and how tight of a lid he has kept on it.

 

[Celebrim]

And I've run plenty of 1e modules and other than at the first couple of levels, no one is leveling every 2-3 sessions. That is not happening in the Temple of Elemental Evil game I am running now.

I didn't say that it was. I'm sure you are a fair reporter of what's going on in your own game. I'm just asserting that there exists some game that contridicts your description of what is possible.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/167628-treasure-leveling-comparisons-ad-d1-b-ed-d-d-d3-updated-11-17-08-q1.html

There is no way you are finishing that module in 14-21 sessions, which by your assertion here is how long it would take to go from level 1 to 8 in 1e. Maybe if your sessions were 10 or 12 hour sessions every week but not otherwise. From level 1 to level 4? You might level up every two or three sessions. After that, no way.

So you are asserting that 1e combat, exploration, etc. always takes longer than 3e in the same scenario?

3e was designed to level more quickly than the editions that came before it.

No, it wasn't. It levels more quickly after name level, which is where 1e typically slows down. Although, even that isn't necessarily the case if the DM doesn't want it to slow down.

As documented in multiple threads, the exact same module converted to 3e yields very nearly the same levelling rate. And if we are to believe that 1e actually plays faster and has faster combats and doesn't bog down with skill checks and all the other assertions you make about your experience, then it follows that 3e probably levels up more slowly than 1e.

And xp for defeating monsters isn't all that is handed out in 3e.

It isn't in 1e either. In fact, the 1e levelling rate depends entirely on the ratio of XP from monsters to XP from treasure. The higher the ratio of earned XP from treasure relative to monsters, the faster the 1e game levels. This ratio typically varies from ~1:1 (Monster Manual ratio) to ~2:1 (typical module) or even higher (certain adventure path type modules).

 

[Celebrim]

I wouldn't have any problem giving weapon specialization to an orc lieutenant or leader if members of the PC party had specialization.

By the time I gave up on 1st edition, orcs, goblins, kobolds leaders and the like had PC class levels and ability scores just as they do now in 3e. Indeed, mosters had ability scores just as in 3rd edition. As I've said many times before, the reason 3e drew me back to the game is that it was a much cleaner, better thought out, easier to use version of my own 1e house rules to the extent that it was barely like changing systems only I lost many of the annoyances I'd had before.

Also, my time in the larger gaming world had made me appreciate a lot of the basic D&D mechanics - linearity, hit points, classes, etc. - better, to the extent that through most of the past 10 years I've spent a lot of time at EnWorld defending 1e as a system.

Bottom line is you have to be very careful about what parts, if any, you allow from UA. It totally depends on what type of game you want and whether you plan to go on much beyond 12th level.

One of the reasons I've found this thread really annoying, is that I keep getting preached at as if I was a neophyte in need of instruction, even though the bottom line is that the above statements are a summation of the thesis I outlined to the OP in the thread I just linked you to. I mean you are literally just parroting back to me something I've not only known for years, but on the basis of the fact that you were just now asserting that more than 100 damage per round was imposible in 1e and something you needed to see the math on to believe, I've probably know better than you do and from more first hand experience.

I also noticed in that thread that you did acknowledge that by around 12th level in 1e the game is often rapidly coming to a close.

Acknowledge? I acknowledged this??? From that, you'd think that somehow you were the one taking that position and that I'm the one whose been forced to admit it. You sure told me.

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

So you are asserting that 1e combat, exploration, etc. always takes longer than 3e in the same scenario?

No, I'm asserting that each PC requires more experience points to level up in 1e than is required in 3e and that the experience awarded is significantly more in 3e. An orc in 1e is worth maybe 10 xp divided amongst all the PCs that participated in defeating it. An orc in 3e is worth 300 xp to a party of 1st level PCs, divided amongst all of them that participated in defeating it. Those PCs in 3e only need 1,000 xp to hit level 2. In 1e, the thief needs 1,250 and every other class needs more than that. Four 3e PCs defeat an orc and each receives 75 xp. In the same situation in 1e, they each receive 2.5 xp. It takes more xp to level in 1e and the awards for defeating monsters, one of the iconic ways to earn xp, are significantly smaller.

No, it wasn't. It levels more quickly after name level, which is where 1e typically slows down. Although, even that isn't necessarily the case if the DM doesn't want it to slow down.

I'll agree to disagree then. I remember when 3rd edition came out reading about how leveling would be faster so that the players wouldn't have to spend so much time at each level. Seemed like a design consideration to me. I guess only Monte Cook and the others that worked on it could confirm that. Four PCs of level 1 in an encounter with four orcs in 3e nets the PCs 300 xp each for defeating them. Then an encounter with four skeletons nets them another 300 xp. At that point, they are nearly two thirds of the way to level 2 and after only 2 encounters. Throw in one more encounter and they just about have it.

As documented in multiple threads, the exact same module converted to 3e yields very nearly the same levelling rate. And if we are to believe that 1e actually plays faster and has faster combats and doesn't bog down with skill checks and all the other assertions you make about your experience, then it follows that 3e probably levels up more slowly than 1e.

I really don't see how you are reaching this conclusion. Skill checks have nothing to do with leveling. And combat better run faster in 1e than it does in 3e because you would need MANY more creatures defeated to come close to the xp that gets awarded in 3e for defeating monsters. The PCs in 1e have to defeat roughly 30 orcs to net themselves the same xp that the 3e PCs get for defeating one orc. And yes, I am aware that in 1e the PCs get xp for treasure by the book. But each orc isn't going to be walking around with 290 gp worth of treasure to make up the difference in xp as awarded in 1e vs. 3e. He might have a handful of coins at best.

It isn't in 1e either. In fact, the 1e levelling rate depends entirely on the ratio of XP from monsters to XP from treasure. The higher the ratio of earned XP from treasure relative to monsters, the faster the 1e game levels. This ratio typically varies from ~1:1 (Monster Manual ratio) to ~2:1 (typical module) or even higher (certain adventure path type modules).

I know that monster xp isn't all the xp that is received in 1e. I stated that in a previous post. But as mentioned above, a single CR1 creature in 3e nets four PCs of 1st level 300 xp to divide up. A single orc in 1e nets the PCs roughly 10-20 xp to divide up. Add in the coins that the orc in 1e is carrying and you might have 30 xp to divide up. And the 1e PCs require more xp than their 3e counterparts.

I understand what you are saying about the treasure ratios in modules. They are placing more treasure on average than an individual DM might give out in his own adventure creations. However, many of the potential treasure rewards end up not discovered, at least in games I have played in or run. They are often hidden in such a way that the players need to be super explicit or they won't find them. I ran across one such situation this past week in our game. In an encounter, the only way to find the monster's treasure is to dig up the ground in their lair. I would not allow the PCs to find that unless the players specifically stated that they were doing that. In another case, treasure was hidden underneath the cool coals in a brazier. Again, if they didn't specifically state that they were dumping the coals out of the brazier or moving them around, I wouldn't have them discover that. There are countless situations like this in the published 1e modules. Not everything that was stocked in these modules was going to be found. This goes back to forgetting about the search check and looking to the players to be very specific as to what they are searching and how they are going about it. In addition, as I stated earlier in the thread, there are stretches of the Temple of Elemental Evil dungeons that don't give the PCs much in the way of treasure. It might take a session or three before they come across some really good, significant stuff. But by level five, most classes need tons of xp to get to level six. 20,000 for a magic-user to a whopping 50,000 for a ranger. Everyone levels at different times because of the way the experience totals by class are set up. We went three sessions with no one leveling and the fighter finally leveled to 5 last session. A few others are close. So in my estimation there is some element of luck and player skill involved in 1e as the PCs need to find some of the bigger and better treasure in the modules. It isn't always in plain sight or on the monsters that they just defeated. The same can be true in 3e but there is no xp award for treasure there.

With significantly bigger xp awards for monsters in 3e and lower xp totals required for leveling, combined with awards for defeating traps and modules that offer story awards, I see 3e as a faster leveling system. With luck in 1e, you might level quickly especially over the first few levels but it depends on the module and the players ability to find hidden treasure and the DMs style of running the game. I am fully aware that an individual DM could make leveling in either 1e or 3e faster or slower based on a huge variety of factors but by the book, 3e seems to favor faster leveling.

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

By the time I gave up on 1st edition, orcs, goblins, kobolds leaders and the like had PC class levels and ability scores just as they do now in 3e. Indeed, mosters had ability scores just as in 3rd edition. As I've said many times before, the reason 3e drew me back to the game is that it was a much cleaner, better thought out, easier to use version of my own 1e house rules to the extent that it was barely like changing systems only I lost many of the annoyances I'd had before.

I'm sure many people were doing this with monsters in 1e and 2e, adding class levels and ability scores and the like. And I know that this is one of the reasons many really liked 3e because it advocated doing so. But this works just as well in 1e. You can also modify monsters by adding hit dice which makes them tougher to kill and makes it easier for them to hit with their own attacks. You can add powers, magic items, spells, whatever. Some people might find that too "hand wavy" though.

One of the reasons I've found this thread really annoying, is that I keep getting preached at as if I was a neophyte in need of instruction, even though the bottom line is that the above statements are a summation of the thesis I outlined to the OP in the thread I just linked you to. I mean you are literally just parroting back to me something I've not only known for years, but on the basis of the fact that you were just now asserting that more than 100 damage per round was imposible in 1e and something you needed to see the math on to believe, I've probably know better than you do and from more first hand experience.

And here you go getting all touchy again. I have not accused you of being a beginner or "preached" at you. I have not said you are a bad DM. I have not said that how you run a game is stupid. I have said several times that "to each his own". I have not said that I think "3e sucks". I have only stated what I believe to be true about 1e and 3e from MY perspective and experience with each system. I believe I have been polite in my arguments. I have read all that you have posted before making my own responses. You on the other hand have been snarky at times and have attacked MY arguments as personal deficiencies or me lacking experience.

As for the 100 damage per round, I couldn't care less. Because I wanted to see your math on that doesn't make me have less experience than you with 1e and I don't believe I said it was "impossible". I just asked to see how you saw a character doing 100+ points of damage in a round. I am aware that a large variety of things can make you be able to do very large amounts of damage, from spells, to magic items, to broken rules in UA and all things in between. You keep trumpeting your own experience level as if that means those of us with differing opinions are somehow lesser. Just because you can come up with a ranger doing 148 points of damage in a round doesn't mean that is the norm in my game or anyone else's for that matter. You used the extreme to come to that conclusion. UA and all its warts. Character of 13th level or more with near artifact level magic items of +5. Whatever.

Acknowledge? I acknowledged this??? From that, you'd think that somehow you were the one taking that position and that I'm the one whose been forced to admit it. You sure told me.

Wow. I simply read in the thread you linked to that you mentioned that the game was often rapidly coming to a close by 12th level, something I said earlier in this thread prior to you linking to that older thread. I guess I shouldn't have said "acknowledged". Stated would have been better because you DID state that in that thread. I meant no disrespect when I said acknowledged.

I guess this is about where I bow out of this thread. I have been participating and discussing this with you here without getting all bent out of shape even though your opinions don't match mine. You on the other hand seem to be taking this more personally as evidenced by your comment about being annoyed by this thread. I was frankly interested in hearing your points in the argument as it illustrates what I have said all along, everyone has different styles, different likes and dislikes and it is interesting to see varying viewpoints even if those points don't change my mind. That is the whole point of posting on a message board in my opinion. If everyone agreed all the time, what fun would that be?

 

[Chalice]

3e has been much maligned for a number of years now, by those who either have not read the 3e books, or have read them, but have (for whatever reason) forgotten or ignored those parts not fitting their pet theories.

You are advised in many places in the PHB and DMG that the game is your own and that the rules in the books are merely guidelines.

So too, in the 3e core books (all three of them).

Often no dice rolling is even needed because what the player wants to do is something that their PC could easily accomplish or can be handled by roleplaying. I find this makes games run quickly and allows you to get to the good stuff without having to pause frequently to look up what a specific rule is or how a specific skill pertains to the situation at hand.

About that...

D&D 3.5 PHB, pg. 62


When you create your character, you will probably only be able to purchase ranks in a handful of skills. It may not seem as though you have as many skills as real people do—but the skills on your character sheet don’t actually define everything your character can do.


Your character may have solid familiarity with many skills, without having the actual training that grants skill ranks. Knowing how to strum a few chords on a lute or clamber over a low fence doesn’t really mean you have ranks in Perform or Climb. Ranks in those skills represent training beyond everyday use—the ability to impress an audience with a wide repertoire of songs on the lute, or to successfully scale a 100-foot-high cliff face.


So how do normal people get through life without ranks in a lot of skills? For starters, remember that not every use a skill requires a skill check. Performing routine tasks in normal situations is generally so easy that no check is required. And when a check might be called for, the DC of most mundane tasks rarely exceeds 10, let alone 15. In day-to-day life, when you don’t have enemies breathing down your neck and your life depending on success, you can take your time and do things right—making it easy, even without any ranks in the requisite skill, to succeeed (see Checks without Rolls, page 65).


You’re always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with—even good at, as far as everyday tasks go—many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. The skills you buy ranks in, however, are those with which you have truly heroic potential.

Just one of many examples (the first I came across, in fact, that seemed particularly pertinent).


Please note that I am not attempting (or hoping) to war with you, or anyone else. Merely responding to a long-standing pet peeve.

 

[Celebrim]

No, I'm asserting that each PC requires more experience points to level up in 1e than is required in 3e and that the experience awarded is significantly more in 3e.

Once again we are back in to comparing apples to oranges and coming to conclusions based on raw numbers taken out of context. Two hundred is more than fifty, so two hundred pennies is worth more than fifty dimes right?

Third edition was designed to allow you to level after roughly 13 encounters. So first of all, you are either doing your math wrong or you don't understand the system. I think you are basing XP off of CR rather than EL, except maybe you are confused about the CR of the foes you are selecting. I also think you are using static values for the XP, not normalizing for difficulty. If you killed 4 skeletons as a first level party, you'd each earn ~100 XP - not 300. If you killed 4 orcs, you'd earn about 150 XP. Yes, this is more than the about 20 XP you you'd earn for fighting an orc armed with javelins (missile attacks earn it an XP bonus, plus XP for the hit points) and scimitars, but also very very critically, in 3e you earn ZERO xp for the treasure you recover. Whereas, in 1e, every gold coin you haul out of the dungeon is worth XP and on average monsters in 1e AD&D - especially when encountered 'in their lair' - but even when encountered as wandering monsters carry treasure worth slightly more than their XP value. In short, even in the most stingy campaign based on strict adherence to the random tables in the back of the monster manual, you are going to earn about as much XP from treasure as you would from killing monsters. If you use the tables in the back of the 1e DMG, then you'll earn more XP from treasure than monsters. And if you play 1e modules, you'll earn more than twice the XP from treasures as from monsters. And at that point, the gap between the two is closed.

I linked you to a thread which proved the assertion that if you stuck to published modules 3e leveled up no faster than 1e.

I remember when 3rd edition came out reading about how leveling would be faster so that the players wouldn't have to spend so much time at each level.

I'd love to read that. As I said, this topic of which one plays faster is one that has been discussed at great length at EnWorld. The short answer is that it really depends on how you play each edition.

PCs of level 1 in an encounter with four orcs in 3e nets the PCs 300 xp each for defeating them. Then an encounter with four skeletons nets them another 300 xp. At that point, they are nearly two thirds of the way to level 2 and after only 2 encounters. Throw in one more encounter and they just about have it.

It's very well documented that by design it takes roughly 13 encounters to go from each level if you stick to the 3e rules. The only way to speed that up, assuming a balanced build, is to risk frequent character death. You certainly don't level up in 3e after three encounters with things like 4 1/3 CR monsters or 4 1st level warriors. I don't know where you get those ideas, but if you played 3e that way, yeah, it would go fast. However, I refer you back to the thread for the actual math.

I really don't see how you are reaching this conclusion. Skill checks have nothing to do with leveling.

You earlier in this thread asserted skill checks slowed play. The slower that you play, the fewer combats you can do in a session, and therefore the less XP you will earn per session.

And combat better run faster in 1e than it does in 3e because you would need MANY more creatures defeated to come close to the xp that gets awarded in 3e for defeating monsters.

Once again, this is simply not true and more patient people than myself have compiled the numbers to prove it in the case of modules. I can also show you numbers for average treasure per monster that demonstrates the gap is not as big as you make it as well. Now granted, if the DM is stingier with treasure than any of the 1e guidelines in the MM, DMG, or published adventures, then because treasure is such a big part of 1e experience levelling will be significantly slower. But then, you are no more playing a normal game of 1e than a guy who uses optional rules to reduce or increase XP awards in 3e is playing the normal game of 3e.

But each orc isn't going to be walking around with 290 gp worth of treasure to make up the difference in xp as awarded in 1e vs. 3e. He might have a handful of coins at best.

Once again, either read the thread I linked to, or I can get you the numbers for the average treasure per monster slain to show you that you are vastly exagerrating the difference between the two systems in normal play.

I understand what you are saying about the treasure ratios in modules. They are placing more treasure on average than an individual DM might give out in his own adventure creations.

On this I'm fully willing to agree.

However, many of the potential treasure rewards end up not discovered, at least in games I have played in or run. They are often hidden in such a way that the players need to be super explicit or they won't find them.

Now you are sounding like me in that other thread. Nevertheless, while I agree with myself, the point remains and is well established that if you are playing modules - and by your own admission you are - the leveling rates are comparable between the two editions. The modules don't work if a significant portion of the treasure is unfound because by design enough treasure is available to level the PC's up to be able to face the next encounter or next module in the series.

I am fully aware that an individual DM could make leveling in either 1e or 3e faster or slower based on a huge variety of factors but by the book, 3e seems to favor faster leveling.

This is a perception bias. Whether it is based on experience with particular DMs, or on misunderstanding the system, or on what, I don't know, but the facts don't support this conjecture. If you had presented yourself as the sort of DM that doesn't use published modules and which stuck to the MM tables and randomly placed treasures, then it would be easy for me to explain the origin of your perception bias. However, I just linked you to a thread that proves numerically that the 3e conversion of Temple of Elemental Evil and the 1e module level at almost exactly the same rate. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Celebrim]

You keep trumpeting your own experience level as if that means those of us with differing opinions are somehow lesser.

No, I'm not.

From my perspective, I'm offering proof by exception to universal assertions. People in this thread are making broad assertions about things that are supposedly universally true. They are not saying, "In the games I played, 1e is grittier than 3e and I liked that.", but rather, "1e is grittier than 3e". To the assertion, "1e is gritter than 3e", it is fair to respond, "I've experienced the opposite." Because I've experienced the opposite, I would never assert "1e is grittier than 3e", because I recognize from my experience that that isn't universally true.

When I say, "The least gritty games I ever played were in 1e.", and you say, "I totally disagree with that.", then quite frankly whatever you think you are doing you've left the bounds of polite discourse. How can you disagree with my experience? You can only say, "That wasn't my experience." That's not disagreement or agreement. That's accepting that we have different experience. "1e is grittier in my opinion...", is mistaking again your experience for your opinion. It's fine to assert, "First edition is very fun to play." That's an opinion. When you say, "1e is grittier in my opinion", in response my experience, what are you trying to say? And when you go on to, "..and IS an attribute of the rules and has little to do with culture at the table.", you are asserting your experience and opinion not as either but as fact. What am I so supposed to answer that with?

All I can say is what I've been saying all along; I recognize your experience. I sympathize with it. I have had something very much like your experience. But what you are describing is not the limit of what is possible with either 1e or 3e, and I know that from experience.

Just because you can come up with a ranger doing 148 points of damage in a round doesn't mean that is the norm in my game or anyone else's for that matter.

I have little idea what 'the norm' is. Some how I suspect thats another euphamism for, "games the way I've experienced them", because I haven't seen a lot of statistics for what is normal. Perhaps 'the norm' here means, "games as they ought to be in my opinion". I don't know. An extreme is a valid exception case to a universal statement. I don't really know what departs from 'the norm'. I have some feelings about what has become normal among people who have stayed with 1e on the basis of what they might have in common that still attracts them to the system, but that's not anything I can prove either. My guess is that its certainly not normal now in ongoing games of 1e to have characters doing 80 or 100 points of damage in a round even in high level games, because the system doesn't really reward that even though it provides it. Or to the extent that it does, a tweaked system might reward it better. However, that doesn't mean it was unheard of or that unusual 20 years ago. If anything, I knew that there were some more 'Monte Haul' games out there than our least gritty game (because any game that is less gritty than your own is 'Monte Haul', am I right). Heck, this same group rejected Dark Sun (fairly or unfairly) as being too over powered and too much power creep.

You used the extreme to come to that conclusion.

It's not a conclusion. I'm not concluding that 1e is less gritty than 3e. I'm only noting that grittiness is not an inherent attribute of either. It's a style that a DM brings to a table, either by design or by accident. The same is true about how fast a system levels you up, or by what degree of abstraction is rewarded in a player proposition. Sure, a system can by its presentation or culture push a DM towards a default play style, but that's not the same thing.

I was frankly interested in hearing your points in the argument as it illustrates what I have said all along, everyone has different styles, different likes and dislikes and it is interesting to see varying viewpoints even if those points don't change my mind. That is the whole point of posting on a message board in my opinion. If everyone agreed all the time, what fun would that be?

Full agreement.

 

[Water Bob]

@Herobizkit who asked about the weapon AC modifier chart in 1E and a DEX modifier of -1 AC....

Doesn't matter. The chart is confusing upon first glance. All the AC pertains to is the armor types that make up those ACs. That's why the chart is only AC 2 through AC 10.

For example, AC 2 on the chart means that weapon vs. platemail and shield. It doesn't matter if the plate or shield is magical, or if the character has a DEX bonus.




Take two characters. One has DEX 14 (no bonus) and is wearing platemail and a shield. He's a true AC 2. The longsword uses a -2 attack modifier against this character.

Then take a second character. This guy is DEX 16 (-1 AC modifier) and is wearing +2 platemail with a +3 shield. The true AC of this character is AC -4. But, that doesn't matter with regards to the chart. Forget the DEX and armor bonuses. Platemail + Shield is AC 2. That's all you care about. Thus, the longsword is -2 against this character also.





See the club? It's -2 attack vs. AC 5. That means that the club has a -2 modifier when attacking any foes wearing chainmail only (no shield) or scale mail and shield.

If the foe wearing chainmail (and it doesn't matter if it's magical chain with an AC bonus--disregard that stuff when considering the weapon vs. armor chart), and that foe picks up a shield, all of a sudden he's AC 4, which means the club is now -3 vs the foe wearing chain + shield.


Think of the AC in the chart as the "absolute value" of the armor type, disregarding any magical bonus or DEX bonus.