1st Edition AC [Archive] - Wizards Community

1st Edition AC [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sy_Mirrar
11-18-06, 06:50 PM I am confused as to how it works. A negative number is good? How do I convert it to 3.5 Edition AC?
Dalthbar
11-18-06, 06:58 PM I never played 1st edition, but I know 2nd edition had 10 to -10 ACs where -10 was the best.

There was a whole conversion packet that came with the release of 3.0 to convert your 2nd ed characters.

If you're really talking about 1st ed., then you'll have to convert 1st ed to 2nd ed then 2nd ed to 3rd ed and 3.0 should be pretty much the same as 3.5 in terms of AC.

I would think some digging around the wizards D&D pages will net the 2nd ed to 3.0 conversion guidelines.
SillyRobot
11-18-06, 07:00 PM The worst AC was 10 -- much like the current system.

To convert old-style AC into the current AC, add (10 - AC) to 10.

Old style plate and shield had an AC value of 2.

In the new system that converts to 10 + (10 - 2 ) = 18.
Salla
11-18-06, 07:44 PM Rather than converting with a mathematical formula, just work with the 3.X system, figure out what armor the character is wearing, and do the addition. :)
Sy_Mirrar
11-18-06, 08:55 PM Okay. Thanks a lot!:D
Jaxgaret
11-18-06, 09:42 PM The worst AC was 10 -- much like the current system.

Technically, 10 is not the worst AC in 3.x. It is the base AC number.

A medium or larger sized character with a negative dex modifier, wearing no armor and having no other bonuses to AC, will have an AC lower than 10.
starfire311
11-19-06, 02:12 AM Technically, 10 is not the worst AC in 3.x. It is the base AC number.

A medium or larger sized character with a negative dex modifier, wearing no armor and having no other bonuses to AC, will have an AC lower than 10.

correct an technically 10 was not the worst AC in 1st ed either, if I am not mistaken, been a long time, but 10 is the base AC in both.
Archangel62
11-19-06, 02:24 AM I just remember what happened in converting a tiefling wizard from planescape to 3.5, due to rolls on the ability table my tiefling had the equivalence of +8 Natural armor.
Mitchell
11-19-06, 02:33 AM correct an technically 10 was not the worst AC in 1st ed either, if I am not mistaken, been a long time, but 10 is the base AC in both.

While 10 is the base AC in both systems, it was also the worst in earlier editions. Anything that helped your AC only subtracted from 10, and if you had penalties, they would only apply if you got your AC below 10, just as AC capped at -10. You could have actually had stats and equipment that should have made it lower (or higher), but once you hit 10 or -10, you stopped counting. :cool:
StevenO
11-19-06, 11:11 AM New AC = | (Old AC) - 20 |

Take your 1st or 2nd edition AC, subtract 20 (which should give you a negative number,) and then drop the (-) sign.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sy_Mirrar 11-18-06, 06:50 PM	I am confused as to how it works. A negative number is good? How do I convert it to 3.5 Edition AC?
Dalthbar 11-18-06, 06:58 PM	I never played 1st edition, but I know 2nd edition had 10 to -10 ACs where -10 was the best. There was a whole conversion packet that came with the release of 3.0 to convert your 2nd ed characters. If you're really talking about 1st ed., then you'll have to convert 1st ed to 2nd ed then 2nd ed to 3rd ed and 3.0 should be pretty much the same as 3.5 in terms of AC. I would think some digging around the wizards D&D pages will net the 2nd ed to 3.0 conversion guidelines.
SillyRobot 11-18-06, 07:00 PM	The worst AC was 10 -- much like the current system. To convert old-style AC into the current AC, add (10 - AC) to 10. Old style plate and shield had an AC value of 2. In the new system that converts to 10 + (10 - 2 ) = 18.
Salla 11-18-06, 07:44 PM	Rather than converting with a mathematical formula, just work with the 3.X system, figure out what armor the character is wearing, and do the addition. :)
Sy_Mirrar 11-18-06, 08:55 PM	Okay. Thanks a lot!:D
Jaxgaret 11-18-06, 09:42 PM	The worst AC was 10 -- much like the current system. Technically, 10 is not the worst AC in 3.x. It is the base AC number. A medium or larger sized character with a negative dex modifier, wearing no armor and having no other bonuses to AC, will have an AC lower than 10.
starfire311 11-19-06, 02:12 AM	Technically, 10 is not the worst AC in 3.x. It is the base AC number. A medium or larger sized character with a negative dex modifier, wearing no armor and having no other bonuses to AC, will have an AC lower than 10. correct an technically 10 was not the worst AC in 1st ed either, if I am not mistaken, been a long time, but 10 is the base AC in both.
Archangel62 11-19-06, 02:24 AM	I just remember what happened in converting a tiefling wizard from planescape to 3.5, due to rolls on the ability table my tiefling had the equivalence of +8 Natural armor.
Mitchell 11-19-06, 02:33 AM	correct an technically 10 was not the worst AC in 1st ed either, if I am not mistaken, been a long time, but 10 is the base AC in both. While 10 is the base AC in both systems, it was also the worst in earlier editions. Anything that helped your AC only subtracted from 10, and if you had penalties, they would only apply if you got your AC below 10, just as AC capped at -10. You could have actually had stats and equipment that should have made it lower (or higher), but once you hit 10 or -10, you stopped counting. :cool:
StevenO 11-19-06, 11:11 AM	New AC = \| (Old AC) - 20 \| Take your 1st or 2nd edition AC, subtract 20 (which should give you a negative number,) and then drop the (-) sign.