How close to the RAW did/do you play AD&D1?

[Celebrim]

This would not be correct strictly speaking. Spells such as bless also adjusted the armor class of the target rather than the die roll. If Joe had the benefit of a bless spell in this scenario then he would need an 11 to hit AC 5 instead.

No, no, you have to be very careful in your language here. A spell typically grants a +1 bonus to AC. That +1 bonus does not improve your AC from 4 to 3 (remember, lower is better) because you haven't changed your base armor (it's still owed to whatever source), it literally gives you an AC of 4 with a +1 bonus. Now, that is the same as AC 3 for every case but weapon vs. AC modifiers. With weapon vs. ac modifiers, going from AC 4 to AC 3 might represent anything from a big improvement (needing two or more better on the die to hit) to no change (needing the same number to hit on the die!). However, a +1 bonus to AC always represents needing 1 higher on the die to be hit.

So if Joe gets a +1 bonus to hit, he hits things with 1 lower result on the die, and if Joe gets a +1 bonus to AC, things hit him only with 1 higher result on the die, but his AC doesn't actually change unless the spell says something like, "This grants the user a 4 AC." or "This grants the user protection equivalent to plate mail."

These sound like house rules, but based on my reading of the admittedly confused text, I honestly think that this was the intention of the rules. My only innovation was clarity.

 

[The Shaman]

If the rule was a blanket vs the AC it would be simple to apply the modifier. Note that this rule was a weapon vs armor type modifier and had nothing to do with actual AC. Monsters wearing armor were subject to the adjustments for the type of armor worn, while those with natural hide/skin became a DM judgement call as to the type of armor to be used for an adjustment if any.

Check page 28 of the DMG. Its on the same page as the helmet rule.

I'm quite familiar with how it works, EW.

 

[ExploderWizard]

These sound like house rules, but based on my reading of the admittedly confused text, I honestly think that this was the intention of the rules. My only innovation was clarity.

Not house rules. How do you interpret the important note regarding "to hit" adjustments on page 70 of the DMG then?

 

[Ariosto]

Thats a lot of work and still doesn't get the job done.

It sure gets the job done at least as much as WotC's scheme of "add bonuses and penalties to each and every freaking roll"!

 

[Greg K]

Same as 2e and 3e. Half or Mostly. Not quite sure which as we did have a lot of house rules, but I am not sure what percentage it deviated from RAW

 

[Ariosto]

How do you interpret the important note regarding "to hit" adjustments on page 70 of the DMG then?

As using the term "armor class" so loosely it ought to fall off! Clearly, what is meant is literally "row on the attack matrix". The significance lies in the presence of repeating 20s, a feature lost with the simplistic "THAC0" formula made standard in 2nd Edition.

 

[Lanefan]

I wonder if the question isn't how close did you play to the RAW, but what rules did you change? If time permits I'll put a poll up for that...

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

On balance, the "descending for back-compatibility" AC system in AD&D turned out to be pretty easy to take in stride. The revelation, in the Player's Handbook material, that a ninth AC had been shoved into the middle -- so that old ACs 9 through 6 became new ACs 10 through 7 -- caused a bit of consternation in some quarters.

The reason it was at that point a surprise, though, was because the Monster Manual had thoroughly ignored it (as well as revised spell-casting tables and other "Advanced" features).

The fundamental reason for the changed AC scale appears to have been the addition of "studded leather" and "ring mail". See, though, the MM entry for gnomes!

What really messed up "weapon vs. armor" was that the Armor Classes were no longer literally that. AC 7, for instance could be:
leather armor and shield, or
padded armor and shield, or
studded leather, or
ring mail

Scale mail overlaps both studded leather and chain mail; splint and banded armors are not only lumped together but mixed with chain and plate.

 

[Bullgrit]

The significance lies in the presence of repeating 20s, a feature lost with the simplistic "THAC0" formula made standard in 2nd Edition.

THAC0 was used in AD&D1. It's even in the AD&D1 DMG.

Bullgrit

 

[Doug McCrae]

We played a very cut down, B/X-like version of 1e. However that was due to ignorance rather than design. We were 12 years old and probably hadn't read most of the rules. And had misunderstood those we had read.