OD&D AC in AD&D Monster Manual

[Finarvyn]

Maybe this is a question for the Acaeum, but there were some “what did you do while AD&D was being put out” kinds of threads that I decided to start out here.

Another thread, comparing to-hit numbers across the editions had a couple of interesting quotes:

Aug 11, 2009 14:39:24 GMT -6 Bard said:

The unarmored man's AC changed to 10 from 9 in AD&D, but the plate mail + shield is the same AC 2. And the monsters AC too remained the same. The Monster Manual was written before the PHB, and the DMG... In the OD&D era... So I think this doesn't make much difference. I cannot speak about the second and third editions tho.

Aug 11, 2009 15:00:23 GMT -6 Morandir said:

Well, as Bard said the 1e MM used the OD&D base AC of 9 rather than 10. Which leads to an interesting question: have any of you 1e users ever adjusted MM ACs to reflect this?

These got me thinking. I have a AD&D Monster Manual, and it would be an early printing since I think I bought it the year it came out, and we used our MM in our OD&D games pretty much unaltered since we were using it even before the Player’s Handbook came out. (My friend was the big buyer of stuff in “the day” and sometimes I can’t remember the difference between the books we used and what I might have bought later.)

Since I’m lazy I tend to not bother to convert AD&D armor classes to OD&D, and I honestly never even considered the fact that the AC values in the AD&D book might have been wrong.

I’m sure they corrected AC in the Monster Manual by 2E, but does anyone know if they corrected it in later printings of the 1E books? (i.e. are there special "collectable" printings of MM?)

[Morandir]

Interesting question indeed! I got curious, so I checked my 1e MM (according to info at the Acaeum, it's a 5th printing, 1980-ish). The ACs mentioned in the other thread - Ogres and Orcs at AC 5 and 6, respectively - match what I have. Interestingly enough, my 2e Monstrous Manual (dunno what printing, the date on the back cover is 1993) has Ogres and Orcs at the same AC.

And, just for fun, I checked the 3e entries (courtesy of d20srd.com); the Ogre is 2 points higher (AC 16, which would be AC 3 in OD&D/1e MM), while the Orc is at AC 13 (AC 6).

Mor

[waysoftheearth]

I have a few (*cough*) copies of the AD&D MM of various prints, and the AC of Orcs and Ogres look unchanged since OD&D to me.

[snorri]

An Holmesism in Monster Manual. It probably has been allready discussed, but : all monsters in MM fits the Holmes 5-alignement scheme. Most of them are LE, N or CE, while a few are LG or CG. None of them is LN or CN. A few neutral monsters are specificied as being rather good (like the nymph) or evil (the lich!), but it's always a precision bewteen parenthesis [Neutral (evil)] rather as being a full alignement.

[Haldo Bramwise]

Oct 6, 2009 8:35:29 GMT -6 snorri said:

An Holmesism in Monster Manual. It probably has been allready discussed, but : all monsters in MM fits the Holmes 5-alignement scheme. Most of them are LE, N or CE, while a few are LG or CG. None of them is LN or CN. A few neutral monsters are specificied as being rather good (like the nymph) or evil (the lich!), but it's always a precision bewteen parenthesis [Neutral (evil)] rather as being a full alignement.

I agree.

Incidentally, I've been comparing Holmes' monsters to the Castles & Crusades monsters and in almost every case, the C&C monsters still have the same hit dice and damage as Holmes.

[coffee]

Oct 6, 2009 18:43:29 GMT -6 Haldo Bramwise said:

Incidentally, I've been comparing Holmes' monsters to the Castles & Crusades monsters and in almost every case, the C&C monsters still have the same hit dice and damage as Holmes.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Finarvyn]

I'm sure that's just coincidence. I mean, who would make a new game by taking information from an old one.....