Not at all - I wasn't referring to AC while casting, I was referring to AC in general. While casting they lose Dex and one could argue they should also lose the benefits of bracers as well given as using them requires moving one's arms not in accordance with the somatic components of the spell being cast.
One could certainly invent more restrictions, sure. There is of course (as far as I'm aware; open to a text reference if I'm missing some ruling in Dragon or UA) no rule saying that you have to move your arms around to gain the defensive protection of magical bracers, just as there is no such rule with rings, cloaks, or worn armor. Every table I have played at has seen all such magical protective devices as giving a passive defensive bonus akin to a minor force field. The enchantment makes it a bit harder to hit the target, deflecting some (but not all) blows. Much like defensive spells which grant an AC bonus, such as Protection from Evil.
I DMed a Dex-based single-class Fighter once who went the ring-bracers route and eventually got her AC down to (I think) -9. It's very do-able, and IMO not "cruddy" at all.
You misunderstand, I assume unintentionally. With the AD&D DMG including items such as Bracers of Defence AC 2, Cloaks of Protection up to +5, and Rings of Protection up to +6, it's obviously
possible for a character not wearing armor to get quite a good AC. What's cruddy IMO is making a character's core functions dependent on finding particular magic items (AND getting them in the treasure division).
A Fighter or Cleric or Thief or M-U gets to do their shtick regardless of what items they find. Obviously they get better when they find items. An F-MU gets to do their shtick (fight wearing armor and cast spells) right from the start as well, under the OE and 1E rules, without being dependent on magic items. In 2E that changed. And obviously in your table's house rules.
This assumes a F-MU multiclass; there's a bunch of other options as well.
Yes, obviously. I'm talking about the topic we're discussing. Other multiclass combos aren't subject to the same issue. The issue we're discussing is casting MU spells in armor and whether it's a game balance problem. This issue only applies to MU multiclass combos (and Gnome multi-classed Illusionists as an edge case, sure), because the other spellcasting classes (Cleric and Druid) can cast in armor in the first place.
The biggest benefit of a multiclass is that due to their flexibility they can get involved in a greater percentage of encounters overall, thus meaning they'll tend to get more xp over the long run than will a single-class; and this somewhat mitigates their slower advancement.
This sounds again like you're inadvertently applying table/house rules.
Per 1E AD&D xp from treasure is divided however the players choose to divide the treasure, and xp from monsters (usually much smaller than treasure xp) is divided evenly between "all surviving characters who took part (no matter how insignificantly) in slaying the monsters" (DMG p85). "No matter how insignificantly" meant you just had to be present, because if you're there for the encounter you share in the risk.
Maybe your table ruled differently back in the day. I know some tables had house rules requiring characters to deal damage to get XP for a monster (or even to deal the killing blow!, leading to "kill-stealing"), but by the 80s these were widely considered to be bad rules because they screw over support characters.
Per 2E AD&D all xp is divided evenly between all surviving characters, and optionally including ones raised from the dead (DMG p47). With the exception of Individual Experience Awards (an optional rule, see p48).
Agreed. We toned Elves down ages ago; as written, they're close to broken. Never mind that their by-RAW inability to be revived from death - which I think was seen as the corollary drawback to all their powers - tends to get ignored.
Putting everyone on the same multiclassing system is fine in principle, and makes a lot of sense. The argument then becomes one of how that multiclassing system should work (I don't like the WotC-era "additive" system at all), but that's a different discussion.
Giving Humans racial benefits is not fine, in that they are supposed to be the zero baseline against which everything else is compared.
Where WotC messed it up (I'd use much stronger words there if I could) is in taking away penalties from species who are worse at things than are Humans, e.g. Wisdom penalty for Elves or Strength penalty for Hobbits. This left Humans in the cold, so they had to get some benefits in order to keep up, which just moves the zero line to a different place and power-creeps the game.
Of course giving humans racial benefits is fine. Your preference to keep them "a zero baseline against which everything is compared" is purely a subjective preference, and it's one which led to human characters being rare at most tables unless humans were given other goodies (like the incredibly generous ability generation Method V from Unearthed Arcana, designed to let humans reliably qualify for the more powerful classes like Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Cavalier).
In OE and 1E as designed humans WERE given racial benefits. They were allowed unlimited level advancement, access to all character classes, and the least costly/restrictive means of being raised from the dead. Of course the problem with this was that most of these racial bonuses weren't actually very useful or were negated by house rules, because they didn't apply at low and mid levels where everyone played, only at higher levels which not all campaigns would reach. And by the time a game DID reach high levels, as you know, DMs would be reluctant to impose level limits and resurrection restrictions on demihuman characters players had been playing usually for years by that point. It was just bad design.
It usually resulted in those higher-level downsides to demihumans being ignored or reduced, and thus the human racial benefits never materialized. Except for class access, which was restricted by high ability score requirements for the really badass classes, hence Gary giving us Method V in UA to make humans more powerful and make sure they could qualify for their desired class. While of course a lot of tables ignored Method V, finding it over the top powerful, every table I ever played AD&D with DID use more generous ability rolling methods than the ones in the DMG.
In the WotC editions the various groups I've been in have had A LOT more human characters. Folks like playing them, and they feel better playing them when they don't have to handicap themselves to do so.
Even with a mix of ability score bonuses AND penalties, separate race & class is always one of the most basic game elements enabling and encouraging min-maxing.
My mileage varies here, in that I've never been a fan of race-as-class for PC-playable species. The min-maxing issue can (and probably has to) be dealt with in other ways.
Sure, it can be. But just taking away one of the two MAIN things in the rules that can be min-maxed is certainly effective.
If you do race as class and remove "arrange to taste" in ability score generation, that get rid of 90%+ of all AD&D min-maxing.
So my thoughts on this is that of course a F/MU is going to want to go with bracers of defense or elven chain, etc to boost their AC and being dependent upon that is by design.
I reiterate, this is NOT the rule in 1E. A multiclassed F/MU in OE and 1E is able to wear normal armor and cast. It is designed to do both, just as is the simplified Elf class in B/X and BECMI. The restriction on a multiclassed character casting MU spells in armor did not exist for the first 15 years of the game, until 2nd ed imposed it. The multiclassed MU (F/MU, MU/T, F/MU/T, F/MU/C) is not dependent on finding the right magic items to be able to fight and cast.
So my thoughts on this is that of course a F/MU is going to want to go with bracers of defense or elven chain, etc to boost their AC and being dependent upon that is by design. The way that a 1e or 2e character really differentiates itself from others is by acquiring magic items rather than class abilities like in later editions. The downside is that you are weaker to start and you have to earn your abilities through items. The upside is that the magic is different for each character, and the DM can tailor things to be even more dynamic than class abilities as a result if they want to.
You might be a fighter with Strength 15, but then you find the gauntlets of ogre power, and you're hot sauce. You're a crummy little wizard conserving your spell slots... until you get that wand of magic missile, and two scrolls of fireball. You're a cleric, and healing people is your jam, and then you get a mace +1, +3 against lycanthropes.
Sure, and this is all well and good and fun. But it normally doesn't apply to core functions of the class. The two exceptions per the rules are multiclassed thieves (who are restricted to Thief armor options "while operating as thieves"), and dual-classed humans of any class combination.
