Bringing Back the Fighting Man

[Theory of Games]

Well met.

With OD&D there's a rule:

"A fighting man can get 1 attack per HD/level on creatures of 1 HD or less. All those attacks are as if he himself is 1st level."

Now I never played OD&D (I started with Basic), but this rule should be IMO standard for Fighters. Every other class has special abilities and scaling damage - what's the Fighter got? Jelly beans. And it's not like this makes them OP:

A 6th LVL Fighter runs into 4 goblins. So she gets 6 (her level) total attacks as if she were still 1st LVL against the goblins.

It's not like the Fighter is getting multiple attacks against every foe. It's just the little guys. I mean the Magic-User can cast Sleep and do the same thing against lower level foes. So why not puts some pants back on the Fighter? I was thinking of reintroducing this old rule to my upcoming ('25) BECMI campaign. And I know somebody might start with "Ah! But what if the Fighter's using two weapons simultaneously?" That's just one more attack per round, as usual.

Thoughts?

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Thoughts:
The 3.0/3.5e Cleave feat was an attempt to reincarnate this in spirit.

There's a common school of DM though that PCs should never ever encounter 1 hit die creatures after about 4th level, 'cause such encounters are "no challenge." Since they're no challenge, they're no fun - and if players do seem to find such encounters fun, then it must be false consciousness, or munchkinism, or some other morbid player dysfunction.

Fighters could use some love in terms of cool special abilities, but it's hard to come up with special fighting abilities that shouldn't also apply to other martial types - or worse, that really ought to apply only to other martial types.

 

[GMMichael]

Thoughts?

Yup: not every combat needs all the combat rules. One roll can lead to slaughtering the 4 goblins if DM and PC agree.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well met.

With OD&D there's a rule:

"A fighting man can get 1 attack per HD/level on creatures of 1 HD or less. All those attacks are as if he himself is 1st level."

Not a bad idea... with modern editions you might want the ability to scale a bit differently, maybe not that fast but at the same time becoming progressively usable with higher HD monsters. Should be fine in BECMI though.

There's a common school of DM though that PCs should never ever encounter 1 hit die creatures after about 4th level, 'cause such encounters are "no challenge." Since they're no challenge, they're no fun -

I wouldn't be so sure about being common.

Pushover encounters are not fun but:

• narratively there is no reason why they should not happen, weak creatures don't stop existing in the world only because PCs are too strong for them
• if an encounter with weak opponents does happen, high level characters don't have to always engage it with combat
• if they do choose combat, or combat chooses them, the number of weak opponents can make it challenging in fact (depends on the edition)

What is typically not fun is using the standard combat rules to deal with a pushover encounter or an encounter with lots of weak opponents. It's not fun to go through all the rules for an encounters that ends in less than a round, and even worse to run rounds of tens of creatures by the book. But the problem is with using inappropriate rules, not with the encounter itself. Mob rules can help a lot for example, and pushover encounters could be solved with a skill check.

 

[Theory of Games]

Not a bad idea... with modern editions you might want the ability to scale a bit differently, maybe not that fast but at the same time becoming progressively usable with higher HD monsters. Should be fine in BECMI though.


I wouldn't be so sure about being common.

Pushover encounters are not fun but:

• narratively there is no reason why they should not happen, weak creatures don't stop existing in the world only because PCs are too strong for them
• if an encounter with weak opponents does happen, high level characters don't have to always engage it with combat
• if they do choose combat, or combat chooses them, the number of weak opponents can make it challenging in fact (depends on the edition)

What is typically not fun is using the standard combat rules to deal with a pushover encounter or an encounter with lots of weak opponents. It's not fun to go through all the rules for an encounters that ends in less than a round, and even worse to run rounds of tens of creatures by the book. But the problem is with using inappropriate rules, not with the encounter itself. Mob rules can help a lot for example, and pushover encounters could be solved with a skill check.

I agree that being forced to use RAW for what should be an easy combat encounter isn't fun. It's tedious IMO. I say, let the Fighters, the true 'martials' of the party, have their spotlight against weaker foes who don't belong on the stage with them. The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies really showcased what skilled Fighters can do and I think that needs to be emulated at the table.

I like your points

Thoughts:
The 3.0/3.5e Cleave feat was an attempt to reincarnate this in spirit.

There's a common school of DM though that PCs should never ever encounter 1 hit die creatures after about 4th level, 'cause such encounters are "no challenge." Since they're no challenge, they're no fun - and if players do seem to find such encounters fun, then it must be false consciousness, or munchkinism, or some other morbid player dysfunction.

Fighters could use some love in terms of cool special abilities, but it's hard to come up with special fighting abilities that shouldn't also apply to other martial types - or worse, that really ought to apply only to other martial types.

I'd counter that facing lower HD foes with a "high-level" Fighter can be fun, in the same way casting powerful spells is fun for the players of spellcasters, and cracking complicated traps is fun for players of Thieves. The other classes have their "cool" stuff.

The Fighter had this cool ability, but lost it. It's like, imagine if 5.5 dropped Backstab from Thieves or Cantrips from Wizards. Players would be livid! Especially if there was no new ability that replaced what was lost. BECMI brought Weapon Mastery, which is cool, but all classes got a piece of it. Fighter just got the lion's share.

If Fighters don't get spells or backstabbing, why should the other classes get multiple attacks?

 

[Alzrius]

I'll go ahead and link to this excellent blog post on the history of fighters getting extra attacks versus "mook"-type enemies in D&D.

A History of the Fighter’s Extra Attacks versus Low-Level Monsters

In page 25 of the AD&D 1e Players Handbook, beneath the “FIGHTERS’, PALADINS’, & RANGERS’ ATTACKS PER MELEE ROUND TABLE”, you have this special note for a Fighter: The origin of…

songoftheblade.wordpress.com

 

[Gus L]

These sorts of rules - generally "Cleave Rules" were very common in the OSR period, frequently used in G+ games, or referenced on blogs. There were lots of ways of dealing with them. It's quite a situational advantage, but it's situational, hardly a defining class feature. Plus, if one is aiming for any sort of tactical considerations around ranks and flanks it's not likely that one will be able to attack more then 3-4 enemies so expanding it by level is a bit meh for me.

As such I find the OD&D style rule a bit clunky (though far more advantageous if using Chainmail style combat) and use "overpowering " as a category of weapon (a useful way to distinguish weapons without variable damage) instead. An overpowering weapon, like an axe or cleaver allows another attack if the wielder manages to kill the target on a 1st attack. It's not fighter specific for me, but axe specific, as in OD&D classes aren't generally as distinct and fighters gain HP and Attack rating at a higher rate anyway.

For B/X and hence variable damage or if I was using more special abilities for classes I would simply export this rule - if a fighter kills a target on a hit they can attack another target in melee range - and even chain these attacks. Again I prefer to ditch variable weapon damage though, because it's less fun if everyone has a sword.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think basing a Fighter ''extra attack table'' on the cleric's turn undead table could be a good idea.

Once per round you gain a free attack against creature of an ever-increasing CR within your weapon range (or in a X ft zone if ranged?). At higher level, very low CR creatures hit by one such attack must save against death or fall to 0 hp.

 

[payn]

PF2 does this by allowing a higher level opponent to just critical more often with the <10> system. I think it does what you are after better.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I wouldn't be so sure about being common.

Pushover encounters are not fun but:

The "pushover encounters are not fun" school of thought is common enough that you share it.

It's also contradicted by my own experience, both with my players and as a player that pushover encounters very often are fun. Less so for the GM, but for the players? Fun!

When they are less fun for players, it's usually (IME) because they're too short and/or because not all the PCs get a chance to participate.