D&D 2E Did The Complete Fighter's Handbook kill "Zero to Hero"?

[James Gasik]

In a lot of discussions, players of older editions will profess the concept that 1st-level PC's are basically just starting out, raw, inexperienced (literally!) and basically only a smidge more powerful than the average farmhand. And I've heard a lot of people claim that WotC basically destroyed this concept, making 1st-level characters far sturdier, more capable, etc..

But I got to thinking about this. Kits, first introduced in the Complete Fighter's Handbook include some concepts that work, like the Peasant Hero or the Wilderness Warrior, but then you have things like the Myrmidon.

This isn't the only example, but it's one of the best, as it posits your 1st-level Fighter is actually a veteran soldier with extensive military experience, a far cry from "a kid fresh off the farm who decided to go adventuring"!

So is this the moment where the definition of what a low-level character is changed?

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't particularly agree with the premise. 1st level characters have always been quite stronger than "zero-level types" in AD&D.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think a flaw in your argument is using the Complete Fighter's Handbook, which came out in Dec 1989, to dismiss the idea of zero to hero when that concept has been around for 15 years prior to that book. Secondly, even if the flavor text says that, it didn't really make 1st level fighters superheroes or anything, especially when compared to later editions which is what most people making the zero to hero argument are doing.

 

[Tonguez]

No the concept died as soon as the introduced variable damage and variable HP instead of everyone getting 1d6 hp and all weapons do 1d6 damage

 

[GreyLord]

So, in 0 AD&D a 1st level Fighting-Man is a Veteran.

Veteran does not indicate that this is a zero. It does not indicate it's a hero, but it's definately someone who has been trained and is somewhat better than a zero. It's normally someone who has some experience and wiser in their career than those newly coming in.

The idea that someone is an experienced Warrior, Cleric, or Magic-user (who also started above that of an apprentice or journeyman, starting at 1st level as a medium) has been around since practically the beginning.

 

[deganawida]

I always thought the "zero" in TSR-era D&D/AD&D was the "0 level Fighter". I mean, once you gain a level and become 1st level, you're already more skilled and experienced than the wide majority of warriors in the world.

 

[Gus L]

First, I'm not sure "0 to Hero" was really much of an intended part of early play, in OD&D while PCs appear very weak by modern standards, the entire system has a flatter power level and characters rapidly gain potency, especially using the chainmail rules. The concept seems much more something tied to the BECMI approach where the system literally charts a (seemingly impossible) path from starting adventurer to god. Even then it seems more a concept borrowed from CRPGs - much like killing rats in the tavern cellar as a first adventure. The 1st level fighter is called a "Veteran" in OD&D.

Second, the Complete series of books are one of the tipping points from older style D&D towards the character build focus the started to dominate in 3.5E and 4E, but were also a part of a general increase in the power level (or at least the complexity and number of HP) of the game as a whole. Using them they certainly allowed for more powerful PCs at earlier levels, but this was coupled with a more dangerous set of monsters in the Compendiums. I don't know (and I used the Complete books for a bit in 1989 - 1991) how much they actually changed the power curve, but I do remember them complicating character creation and adding to the general feeling of system bloat - though that was usually considered cool in the late 80's and 90's. The 2e era also had a lot of elements that pushed the "zero" aspect of new characters -- when the balance of the ever expanding rules fell the other way, such as the infamous deadly 2E housecat stat-line. A 2E tabby has a decent chance of killing most level one PCs (especially non-fighters) and can certainly take on a couple of 0 level townsfolk.

Like a lot of maxims of RPG play, I don't think "zero to hero" has quite the history and strength some might suggest, or much of a stable meaning. Rather I'd bet that it helps set player expectations and define an intention for a specific style of play or specific kind of campaign content. The inclusions of Beast Masters and Myrmidons might not be right for that game, but then D&D has always aspired to be the system for every kind of game... Which, since it doesn't often mention this, is one of it's failings.

 

[Willie the Duck]

In a lot of discussions, players of older editions will profess the concept that 1st-level PC's are basically just starting out, raw, inexperienced (literally!) and basically only a smidge more powerful than the average farmhand.

I always thought the "zero" in TSR-era D&D/AD&D was...

Preemptive disclaimer: As always, unless otherwise stated, all of this is 'In my opinion'/'It is my position that...'
Like most things about the olden days, exactly what the zero-to-hero concept really means is not entirely consistent. I think the overall premise, at its core, stems from PCs starting out as fragile entities that can drop from 1-2 successful hits from the creatures they will be facing -- and gradually become wildly more powerful in terms of staying power, action options available, and opponents regularly taken-on. All the rest is negotiable/people had wildly different takes on.
*which the monster manual telegraphs to be 'generic enemy soldier'.

Some people always envisioned their characters as (say) farm kids tying to escape a life of monotony to make it rich or die trying. That conception might have the first dungeon being the first time the fighter character strapped on their armor. Others thought of their characters as semi-seasoned soldiers, thieves, etc. who just decided to adventure instead. There's certainly enough evidence in the pre-2E books to support either position -- be that level title of veteran or an oD&D fighting man being effectively a base soldier unit to AD&D's 0th level fighters being potentially most (even seasoned/non-green) soldiers to the starting age roll to whatever else considered important. Everyone envisioned their characters differently, and could find something in the text to support it.

So is this the moment where the definition of what a low-level character is changed?

I would say no. What The Complete Fighter's Handbook* did was to give the PCs background. It codified that what your character did before becoming a PC mattered, if even just a little bit. Mind you, this was a style of play that existed effectively since the beginning. However, as far as book support, it was near the first.
*and I would posit that the 2E PHB did before it, with the secondary skills section. Possibly before that with 1E non-weapon proficiencies in Oriental Adventures and the Wilderness/Dungioneer's Guides.

I don't know (and I used the Complete books for a bit in 1989 - 1991) how much they actually changed the power curve, but I do remember them complicating character creation and adding to the general feeling of system bloat - though that was usually considered cool in the late 80's and 90's.

I don't feel like the changes in the Complete series* stepped up the power curve by an amount unheard of in the system already. I feel like which attribute-determination methods the DM allowed had a bigger impact. Even the much-discussed Bladesinger kit from Complete Book of Elves was ballyhooed mostly because it was strictly-better than regular fighter-mages**, not because it was overall OP. A few later ones like Warriors and Priests of the Realms had some selections which gave specialty priests weapon specialization or fighter Str/Con benefits without negatives, but even those mostly help alongside good stats.
*Players Option series, on the other hand...
**not actually that powerful, given 2E's armor-casting restrictions

Complete fighter gives (of note):

• The katana (and longspear) -- nice if DM changes magic item charts.
• Weapon proficiency groups (highly beneficial for flavor, but for optimization everyone would still pick bow, lance and long- or 2H sword).
• An alternate route to penalty-free two-weapon-fighting (the real power boost of the edition)
• Shield-bashing: 2wf with a shield -- useful if you have magic shields to make shields worthwhile (but still need DM house-rule to have shields be able to hit monster needing +X weapons)
• First printing had weapon specialization for paladins and rangers (changed back in next printing)
• Various kits that give an odd bonus proficiency or two.

Now, moving the power curve downward, the Complete series did that plenty of times. Be it specialty priests from Complete Priest, savage characters using bone or stone weapons, historic campaigns where magic was absent or limited, or swashbucklers/pirates that specialized in little or no armor and mechanically inferior rapiers/sabres/cutlasses. All of these down-powered characters to enhance flavor.

 

[Mannahnin]

I would say no. What The Complete Fighter's Handbook* did was to give the PCs background. It codified that what your character did before becoming a PC mattered, if even just a little bit. Mind you, this was a style of play that existed effectively since the beginning. However, as far as book support, it was near the first.
*and I would posit that the 2E PHB did before it, with the secondary skills section. Possibly before that with 1E non-weapon proficiencies in Oriental Adventures and the Wilderness/Dungeoneer's Guides.

I agree with virtually all of that, but minor pickpick- Secondary Skills date back to the 1E DMG. Though they do say that this is relatively minor knowledge, not a whole prior career.

PLAYER CHARACTER NON-PROFESSIONAL SKILLS

When a player character selects a class, this profession is assumed to be that which the character has been following previously, virtually to the exclusion of all other activities. Thus the particular individual is at 1st level of ability. However, some minor knowledge of certain mundane skills might belong to the player character - information and training from early years or incidentally picked up while the individual was in apprenticeship learning his or her primary professional skills of clericism, fighting, etc. If your particular campaign is aimed at a level of play where secondary skills can be taken into account, then use the table below to assign them to player characters, or even to henchmen if you so desire.

Assign a skill randomly, or select according to the background of your campaign. To determine if a second skill is known, roll on the table, and if the dice indicate a result of TWO SKILLS, then assign a second, appropriate one.

SECONDARY SKILLS TABLE
Dice Score Result
01-02 Armorer
03-04 Bowyer/fletcher
05-10 Farmer/gardener
11-14 Fisher (netting)
15-20 Forester
21-23 Gambler
24-27 Hunter/fisher (hook and line)
28-32 Husbandman (animal husbandry)
33-34 Jeweler/lapidary
35-37 Leather worker/tanner
38-39 Limner/painter
40-42 Mason/carpenter
43-44 Miner
45-46 Navigator (fresh or salt water)
47-49 Sailor (fresh or salt)
50-51 Shipwright (boats or ships)
52-54 Tailor/weaver
55-57 Teamster/freighter
58-60 Trader/barterer
61 -64 Trapper/furrier
65-67 Woodworker/cabinetmaker
68-85 NO SKILL OF MEASURABLE WORTH
86-00 ROLL TWICE IGNORING THIS RESULT HEREAFTER

When secondary skills are used, it is up to the DM to create and/or adjudicate situations in which these skills are used or useful to the player character. As a general rule, having a skill will give the character the ability to determine the general worth and soundness of an item, the ability to find food, make small repairs, or actually construct (crude) items. For example, an individual with armorer skill could tell the quality of normal armor, repair chain links, or perhaps fashion certain weapons. To determine the extent of knowledge in question, simply assume the role of one of these skills, one that you know a little something about, and determine what could be done with this knowledge. Use this as a scale to weigh the relative ability of characters with secondary skills.

 

[Gus L]

I don't feel like the changes in the Complete series* stepped up the power curve by an amount unheard of in the system already. [...] Now, moving the power curve downward, the Complete series did that plenty of times. Be it specialty priests from Complete Priest, savage characters using bone or stone weapons, historic campaigns where magic was absent or limited, or swashbucklers/pirates that specialized in little or no armor and mechanically inferior rapiers/sabres/cutlasses. All of these down-powered characters to enhance flavor.

Thanks for the details Willie. I trust you're correct - we we slapping them onto a basically 1E chassis because we didn't have all the books. Well that one guy did, but no one really wanted to play with him for other (stupid kid) reasons... The main thing I think of when I look at the 2e stuff is how it fits into the overall transformation of D&D over time. From the LBBs with their three classes onto today. My impression is that 5E is in a better place then something like AD&D even, at least once Unearthed Arcana gets into the mix, and certainly a mechanical improvement over the 3E era. As you point out it's all over the place, which is especially interesting at a time when adventure design is firmly set into the Hickman mold of using open table mechanics for constrained scene based design. In retrospect it strikes me as a rough time for D&D all around.