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

[PHATsakk43]

We weren't talking about martial arts, though. We were talking about martial characters, as opposed to spell casters. And expanded rules for Fighter skills and combat abilities which allow them to scale better and "continue to contribute in combat" well at higher levels.

And I was trying to clarify what PHATsakk was talking about, because he referenced "mastery" rules in the Complete Fighter's Handbook, but it doesn't have a set of rules by that name.

Maybe PHATsakk was thinking of the combat skill system from S&P: Combat and Tactics?

Yup, misremembered that the 5 levels of weapon proficiencies were in both the Fighters' handbook and PO:C&T. A lot of stuff is in both, specifically fighting styles and broad and narrow weapon groups, but nothing really added to weapon specialization beyond the PHB rules.

Interestingly, the Fighters' handbook does give information for stacking unlimited slots into unarmed fighting styles.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that I was wrong. I typically use the PO:C&T rules for weapon specialization though.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yup, misremembered that the 5 levels of weapon proficiencies were in both the Fighters' handbook and PO:C&T. A lot of stuff is in both, specifically fighting styles and broad and narrow weapon groups, but nothing really added to weapon specialization beyond the PHB rules.

Interestingly, the Fighters' handbook does give information for stacking unlimited slots into unarmed fighting styles.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that I was wrong. I typically use the PO:C&T rules for weapon specialization though.

Yeah, I was a bit mystified by your reference, because my groups used the Complete books extensively, but rejected the Players Option books and never used them.

I was only acquainted with Mastery rules from set 4 of BECMI.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Yeah, I was a bit mystified by your reference, because my groups used the Complete books extensively, but rejected the Players Option books and never used them.

There is a lot of junk in them, but there are also some real gems.

Spells & Magic is by far the best of the three Players’ Option books. Combat & Tactics has more good than bad, fixing crossbows if nothing else, but also the weapon proficiency and unarmed combat systems are clean and concise. Skills & Powers is probably the one I use the least, although when it was released it really excited my 15 year old power gaming group. I also liked the modified NWP and psionics version which introduced DCs and such, but have soured on that (for reasons I mentioned in a reply on another post.)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Kits were in general, not always greatly balanced. Some gave a significant power jump at 1st level, others not so much.

I will point out that the Myrmidon kit isn't that great. The bonus nonweapon proficiencies aren't super applicable in play compared to others, and the main benefit is just a free weapon specialization.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, I was a bit mystified by your reference, because my groups used the Complete books extensively, but rejected the Players Option books and never used them.

I was only acquainted with Mastery rules from set 4 of BECMI.

We got the books (used them for the reference above), but by then had shifted back to our BX/BECMI hybrid (when we played A/D&D at all in the mid-late 90s). I think of them sort of like 3.5E's Book of Nine Swords -- they actually addressed things (martial weakness with Bo9S, character customization and varied gameplay for the PO series), but came out late enough in the edition's cycle that most groups had already rucked together some house solution by that point.

The Mastery rules in BECMI were a little like that for my group (playing as the set was coming out '83-86). They came out in the Master Set, purportedly for levels 25-36. I think we picked it up with characters in the 16-20 range, and found out it had rules for characters going back to level 1. By then, we'd already figured out a method to keep fighter's useful past the point where they got major benefits for levelling (mostly hordes of retainers, pet blink dogs, subjugated dragons, and what-have-you; plus whatever magic items were the real class features at that point). We looked at the rules (and the special symbols on the chart), retroactive picked them for our characters based on their level, and promptly mostly forgot about them.

Anyways, going back to the actual point:

The other thing that the Complete Fighter’s Handbook did, if nothing else, was make the most scalable martial class in any edition of the game. Single-class fighters using the mastery rules can seriously scale with level and continue to contribute to combat unlike any other edition.

I feel like base AD&D 2nd edition did that pretty well. Fighters suffered in earlier D&Ds when they only had one attack per round, all the ways that got fixed were pretty effective. Complete Fighter (or PO:C&T) handed out bonuses here and there, but not so much that I feel it outpaced the basic bonuses that loot gave*.
*and here I have to state that (IMO) the treasure table was part of the fighter class features in all TSR A/D&Ds.

With just PHB AD&D 2e you could get regular specialization with a melee weapon*. That got you 3 attacks/round at levels 13+. Combine that with (ex.) a +3 weapon and gauntlets of ogre power and you were throwing 3x 3d6+11 or 4x 1d12+11 damage against that dragon you are fighting (and enemy AC did not seem to scale with level+bonus, so you hit quite a bit). That's pretty effective damage output considering AD&D hp.
*+1 hit, +2 dmg, +1/2 attack per round
**4 if you dual wield, more with haste or speed weapons, etc.
***although the dragons I used in my example did get a huge boost from 1E

Moreso when one remembers the alternative classes also contributed less. Obviously Mages took off at those levels (given that the 'suck at low levels, be great at higher levels' model for them was deliberate at that point). However, given they were still fully Vancian*, were pretty fragile, and perhaps most importantly people actually used 2e initiative (subjecting them to spell disruption), they often spent a round contributing by 'staying alive and searching through their loot for a magic item which might be helpful (because none of their spells prepared were pertinent and/or they couldn't find a safe spot to cast).
*and unlike 3e or BX, the rules for buying/making scrolls to fill out the spells available were a lot more hit-or-miss

 

[billd91]

Honestly, I can't remember anyone even using that term until 3e. Therefore, I'm pretty sure it was a term only used to show the contrast between early D&D and 3rd edition going forward. Not that in AD&D players really wanted to start out as zeroes, but instead, fans of old school preferred PCs to not be heroes right of the gate like 3x+ does (after all, you don't get to be a hero until 4th level in AD&D

Was that even a phrase in use before Hercules in 1997? The Cambridge English Dictionary (online) refers to it in a sentence about Christopher Reeve going from zero to hero in 1978's Superman, but that was quoted from a 2004 article after his death - which, of course, also puts it after Hercules and his defining song.

 

[Mannahnin]

Was that even a phrase in use before Hercules in 1997? The Cambridge English Dictionary (online) refers to it in a sentence about Christopher Reeve going from zero to hero in 1978's Superman, but that was quoted from a 2004 article after his death - which, of course, also puts it after Hercules and his defining song.

Three years earlier "From Zero to Hero" was the tagline for the Jim Carrey movie The Mask. I remember the phrase being an old one, but memory can be tricky, and both movies were decades ago.

A Stack Exchange discussion on this same question finds a reference in Google Books from 1893, on page 5 of an "Address Before the Second Biennial Convention of the World's Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Twentieth Annual Convention of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union" by the WCTU president and women's suffragist Frances E. Willard:

The history of the reformer, whether man or woman, on any line of action is but this: when he sees it all alone he is a fanatic ; when a good many see it with him they are enthusiasts ; when all see it is he is a hero. The gradations are as clearly marked by which he ascends from zero to hero, as the lines of latitude from the North Pole to the Equator.

 

[James Gasik]

We got the books (used them for the reference above), but by then had shifted back to our BX/BECMI hybrid (when we played A/D&D at all in the mid-late 90s). I think of them sort of like 3.5E's Book of Nine Swords -- they actually addressed things (martial weakness with Bo9S, character customization and varied gameplay for the PO series), but came out late enough in the edition's cycle that most groups had already rucked together some house solution by that point.

The Mastery rules in BECMI were a little like that for my group (playing as the set was coming out '83-86). They came out in the Master Set, purportedly for levels 25-36. I think we picked it up with characters in the 16-20 range, and found out it had rules for characters going back to level 1. By then, we'd already figured out a method to keep fighter's useful past the point where they got major benefits for levelling (mostly hordes of retainers, pet blink dogs, subjugated dragons, and what-have-you; plus whatever magic items were the real class features at that point). We looked at the rules (and the special symbols on the chart), retroactive picked them for our characters based on their level, and promptly mostly forgot about them.

Anyways, going back to the actual point:

I feel like base AD&D 2nd edition did that pretty well. Fighters suffered in earlier D&Ds when they only had one attack per round, all the ways that got fixed were pretty effective. Complete Fighter (or PO:C&T) handed out bonuses here and there, but not so much that I feel it outpaced the basic bonuses that loot gave*.
*and here I have to state that (IMO) the treasure table was part of the fighter class features in all TSR A/D&Ds.

With just PHB AD&D 2e you could get regular specialization with a melee weapon*. That got you 3 attacks/round at levels 13+.

Slight correction, it was 5/2 or 7/2 with two weapon fighting (sans haste or the scimitar of speed). Specialization wasn't really as big a deal, with +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 50% of an attack (compare 1e's double specialization that got you +3/+3).

Some ranged weapons (like darts) got impressive rate of fire, but only melee weapons got the bonuses (with the exception of bow specialization's "point blank range" which nets you a +2 to hit.

I'm not saying it's not a welcome boost, but it's only better than Exceptional Strength because you don't need an 18 stat first.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Slight correction, it was 5/2 or 7/2 with two weapon fighting (sans haste or the scimitar of speed). Specialization wasn't really as big a deal, with +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 50% of an attack (compare 1e's double specialization that got you +3/+3).

Thanks. I think I double-added the +1/2.
I don't know that the extra +2/+1 for double specialization really sells me on it being much more benefit. It seems like the minor nickel and dime bonuses most of the Complete Fighter fighting styles granted.

Extra attacks (however they are acquired) seem to have more benefit, as they each compound the benefit the pluses from +1-5 weapons and 18/## or greater strength (natural, or through magic items) gave.

In oD&D and BX, when Clerics and Magic users were still getting new (more powerful) spell levels, fighters were still rocking around with a single attack per round*. AD&D changed that, and then UA and 2E slowly incremented it up (with specialization and easier 2wf). To note: BX suggested extra attacks at 15, 20 and 25 in the section covering levels outside it's fully-covered range. BECMI added the smash ability (1 attack a round at -4, but add level to damage) or extra attacks at 12, 24 and 36, but only on foes you only missed on a roll of 1.
*thieves as well, but let's be honest that's too big a problem to address as a sub-topic in this thread.

Some ranged weapons (like darts) got impressive rate of fire, but only melee weapons got the bonuses (with the exception of bow specialization's "point blank range" which nets you a +2 to hit.

I'm not saying it's not a welcome boost, but it's only better than Exceptional Strength because you don't need an 18 stat first.

Again, I don't really thing the +1s and 2s are the big thing. It is the extra attacks. Magic bows could do quite well. Darts suffered once you started needing a bandoleer of +X darts to hit the opponents you were facing.

Yes, exceptional strength (natural, or magic item granted) was the real key to fighter excellence, but the benefits of that are compounded by extra attacks.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Thrown missile weapons technically were nerfed in errata by having the max damage bonus limited to the highest value of the damage die, so for darts +3/+2 S-M/L

That said, 2E (and possibly 1E) allowed stacking THAC0 bonuses for both Strength and Dexterity for thrown weapons.

So, technically a buff’d thief or wizard could put out some pretty high theoretical damage with a reasonable chance to hit given that ROF in AD&D was weapon based and not limited to class.