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

[Theory of Games]

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?

No. 1st-Level PCs were always experienced in their fields, making them a step above the typical warrior, cut-purse, scholar or priest.

But 1st-Level PCs have and will always be trash. Like "I was born to fail" TRASH. They only survive due to sheer luck and the tender mercies of GMs. The most casual combat encounter and they get blown out like a birthday candle.

Total ZEROES especially compared to a 5th-Level PC. 5th-Level is the beginning of Heroism. It's when your PC has real capability. That's in pretty much any ttrpg that has levels.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

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.

It's also worth noting that Bow specialization was complete garbage in the PHB. It cost two additional slots and afforded no bonus attacks- only the aforementioned "point blank range".

I guess it could be forgiven since Bows were pretty good weapons, with 2 attacks out of the gate, the potential of adding Strength bonuses, and d8 sheaf arrows for the longbows, but it still felt weird to say "look, I'm a bow specialist, and my advantage is a +2 to hit by sacrificing all of my range!", lol.

 

[GreyLord]

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.

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.

To a Point.

In B/X there were very short rules on what to do after they reached the maximum level listed in the books. One of those items dealt with Fighters. I don't have it in front of me this instant, but I believe it stated that after level 15, fighters got one additional attack every 5 levels up to a maximum of 4 attacks.

In BECMI I think they also had a girdle of Giant Strength, but instead of what AD&D did, it simply doubled all damage from any attack you made.

Combined with a Sword of Haste, or Ring of Haste/Speed you could do some pretty decent damage with that combo at higher levels.

 

[GreyLord]

It's also worth noting that Bow specialization was complete garbage in the PHB. It cost two additional slots and afforded no bonus attacks- only the aforementioned "point blank range".

I guess it could be forgiven since Bows were pretty good weapons, with 2 attacks out of the gate, the potential of adding Strength bonuses, and d8 sheaf arrows for the longbows, but it still felt weird to say "look, I'm a bow specialist, and my advantage is a +2 to hit by sacrificing all of my range!", lol.

I'd have to go back and look, (and maybe it's only 1e), but I could have sworn they got 2 attacks at levels 1-6, 3 attacks at levels 7-12, and 4 attacks at levels 13+ in AD&D for bow specialization.

(2 attacks was the default, but the increase at level 6 was only for those who specialized in the bow).

 

[PHATsakk43]

It's also worth noting that Bow specialization was complete garbage in the PHB. It cost two additional slots and afforded no bonus attacks- only the aforementioned "point blank range".

I guess it could be forgiven since Bows were pretty good weapons, with 2 attacks out of the gate, the potential of adding Strength bonuses, and d8 sheaf arrows for the longbows, but it still felt weird to say "look, I'm a bow specialist, and my advantage is a +2 to hit by sacrificing all of my range!", lol.

First, range was pretty good, especially for indoors since 2E also eliminated that aspect of range where outdoors it was yards and indoors it was in feet. Range was always in yards in 2E. The specialist bonus was good to 30’, which was pretty good in dungeon settings. You also could stack strength bonuses with bows, so a specialist fighter could have some serious advantage with a bow. The other thing is the ability to fire first, before anyone in the first round of battle if an arrow is knocked.

Basically, unless surprised, the specialist bow armed fighter likely will alpha strike any mage off the field.

Granted, it’s was probably better to take the specialist benefit in a melee weapon and just become proficient in a bow as the +2 isn’t really worth it compared with potential damage with a melee weapon. That said, being able to fire first regardless of initiative is a huge advantage.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd have to go back and look, (and maybe it's only 1e), but I could have sworn they got 2 attacks at levels 1-6, 3 attacks at levels 7-12, and 4 attacks at levels 13+ in AD&D for bow specialization.

(2 attacks was the default, but the increase at level 6 was only for those who specialized in the bow).

Unfortunately, no.

 

[James Gasik]

First, range was pretty good, especially for indoors since 2E also eliminated that aspect of range where outdoors it was yards and indoors it was in feet. Range was always in yards in 2E. The specialist bonus was good to 30’, which was pretty good in dungeon settings. You also could stack strength bonuses with bows, so a specialist fighter could have some serious advantage with a bow. The other thing is the ability to fire first, before anyone in the first round of battle if an arrow is knocked.

Basically, unless surprised, the specialist bow armed fighter likely will alpha strike any mage off the field.

Granted, it’s was probably better to take the specialist benefit in a melee weapon and just become proficient in a bow as the +2 isn’t really worth it compared with potential damage with a melee weapon. That said, being able to fire first regardless of initiative is a huge advantage.

Well, you have to have a bow knocked and ready to get that benefit. Now, maybe this is something you're just intended to be doing, but I remember a lot of situations where characters would have to hold up torches/lanterns, climb up things, and the like so it wasn't always guaranteed. Maybe it's better than I think it was. Maybe my DM's didn't put enough magic arrows into the game to make them viable. Or maybe most of the encounters I was in had enemies who could quickly get into melee range, forcing you to switch weapons. The only character I ever had who was specialized in a bow was a Samurai, who gets it for free, but the Daikyu is kind of rough to use in a dungeon, lol. Plus I was a weeb who wanted to dual wield katanas in those days (hangs my head in shame).

I'd love to hear the justification for why it costs three weapon proficiency slots though.

 

[GreyLord]

Unfortunately, no.
View attachment 385313

Ah, yes, you are right. I had two things that messed me up on that call.

In 1e, specialists get more attacks at higher levels for using a Bow.

They also get this in 2e, but it didn't come about in the PHB. (I can't find it in the Complete Fighter, either, so I'm unsure of exactly when it came into be again with 2e except for those of us who use the grandfather clause).

It is noted once again in Player's Options: Combat and Tactics that Bow Specialists get the attacks as I noted though.

When we play 2e now we either use grandfathered items from 1e in it (which is why I probably got confused over the issue with this) or we use Combat and Tactics (as I feel Rangers should at least get mastery, as well as a few other options from Combat and Tactics that I prefer, though most can also be found in other books such as combat styles (two handed, one handed, two weapon, etc).

 

[PHATsakk43]

Ah, yes, you are right. I had two things that messed me up on that call.

In 1e, specialists get more attacks at higher levels for using a Bow.

They also get this in 2e, but it didn't come about in the PHB. (I can't find it in the Complete Fighter, either, so I'm unsure of exactly when it came into be again with 2e except for those of us who use the grandfather clause).

It is noted once again in Player's Options: Combat and Tactics that Bow Specialists get the attacks as I noted though.

When we play 2e now we either use grandfathered items from 1e in it (which is why I probably got confused over the issue with this) or we use Combat and Tactics (as I feel Rangers should at least get mastery, as well as a few other options from Combat and Tactics that I prefer, though most can also be found in other books such as combat styles (two handed, one handed, two weapon, etc).

I thought the addition of expertise in PO:C&T for non-single class fighters was sufficient.

As for rangers, I simply let them choose at creation to take the ambidextrous ability or bow specialization. I never had one that didn’t take the latter option among players who had played the RAW one and saw how it didn’t really work as intended.

The bow specialization benefit of firing before any possible initiative value is pretty strong, although, crossbow specialists get it as well. The one thing that the bow brings that the crossbow doesn’t is it’s ability to add all strength and dexterity bonuses to the attack.

So, a theoretical fighter with long bow specialization with 18/00 strength and 18 dexterity would have +7 to hit (+3 STR, +2 DEX, +2 point blank bonus) and +6 damage. This attack would also be made prior to the start of normal combat, regardless of initiative, albeit only once per combat.

Granted, those ability scores are a bit preposterous, but not completely unrealistic at mid-to-high level play.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The other thing is the ability to fire first, before anyone in the first round of battle if an arrow is knocked.
Basically, unless surprised, the specialist bow armed fighter likely will alpha strike any mage off the field.

Depends on the mage. You shoot first (before they can take cover or get into a melee scrum where you roll to see who you hit), but you only get one shot. See DMG:
"Whatever the ROF, multiple missile shots are handled the same way as other multiple attacks for the purposes of determining initiative."
"When the attacks are true multiples--using the same weapon more than once--as in the case of a highly skilled fighter, the attacks are staggered. Everyone involved in the combat completes one action before the second (or subsequent) attack roll is made."

Well, you have to have a bow knocked and ready to get that benefit. Now, maybe this is something you're just intended to be doing, but I remember a lot of situations where characters would have to hold up torches/lanterns, climb up things, and the like so it wasn't always guaranteed. Maybe it's better than I think it was. Maybe my DM's didn't put enough magic arrows into the game to make them viable. Or maybe most of the encounters I was in had enemies who could quickly get into melee range, forcing you to switch weapons. The only character I ever had who was specialized in a bow was a Samurai, who gets it for free, but the Daikyu is kind of rough to use in a dungeon, lol. Plus I was a weeb who wanted to dual wield katanas in those days (hangs my head in shame).

Probably half and half. It was pretty good, but it also had some serious limitations. Most all fighter-types I remember had bows, but specializing in one was another level of commitment. Notably it was a heck of an investment for intermittent benefit.

• I suspect more people tracked encumbrance bitd (and the guidance on bulk as well as weight might have made more DMs nix carrying 150 arrows around even if it was in the weight limit). So you probably had an ammo limit you could realistically burn through in a dungeon (to say nothing of wilderness travel and random encounters).
• There was not an equivalent to 5e's Crossbow Expert feat. The rulebook didn't specifically say you couldn't shoot a bow if the enemy was right up next to you, but it implied it (with bow specialization point blank range being 6-30'), and Sage advice in Dragon #s 149&253 saying that missile weapons do not work in melee (the later even delineating it a 'missing rule' -- that era's closest thing to errata).
• The shooting first thing, as you mention, only worked if you did not have reason to have other things at hand. It also had intermittent utility -- if you took out one orc in a group of 4 or disrupted the enemy mage's casting, it was highly beneficial; if it was just an arrow into the ogre's hide before anyone else, well then maybe it would mean the rest of the party could whittle its hp down before it could act and save the party from a round of aggro.
• Investing in bows means gambling on getting magic bows and arrows. If the DM uses the DMG charts, only 5.3% of magic weapons are bows or arrows. Even if they pick and choose but limit themselves to what's in the book, you still only get bows up to +1. Assuming that being the guy who calls dibs on the magic archery kit puts you in back of the line in your party for cool magic sword (which by the time you got a +1 bow might be +3 or flaming or able to beet you at chess), that again is quite an investment.

Overall, I think the magic item bit (and how your DM populated treasure piles) would be the lynchpin. Same as your katana wielder. If X% of your enemies are going to be completely immune to your oh-so-cool or otherwise-rule-benefiting weapon choice -- and there's no (or statistically no) way you are going to treasure-drop your way out of it -- there's a practical limit in how much you will build around that weapon choice. You might get proficiency to support it, but specialization (and supporting fighting styles)? Probably not.

I'd love to hear the justification for why it costs three weapon proficiency slots though.

It was that way in 1E Unearthed Arcana, where bows got the point blank shot and shoot-first abilities of 2E bow specialization, plus extra attacks per round as you level. Perhaps it was thought that was three benefits to a melee weapon's two (if you count +1 hit, +2 damage as a single bonus) or the like.
Or possibly because of how long it takes to become an expert archer IRL -- one of those randomly interspersed nods to realism that A/D&D haphazardly did.

So, a theoretical fighter with long bow specialization with 18/00 strength and 18 dexterity would have +7 to hit (+3 STR, +2 DEX, +2 point blank bonus) and +6 damage. This attack would also be made prior to the start of normal combat, regardless of initiative, albeit only once per combat.

Granted, those ability scores are a bit preposterous, but not completely unrealistic at mid-to-high level play.

I recall a lot of what we now call whiteroom theorizing on the matter. When Complete Fighter came out and there were no competing kits that looked more optimal, a lot of my circle advocated taking a Myrmidon Fighter, taking bow specialization, and putting their highest stats in Dex and then Con.

1. Myrmidon gives you a free specialization, regardless of bow or otherwise, so it's just plain efficient.
2. You can specialize in other weapons with your native weapon proficiency slots (or now your extra languages if you have a moderately good Int).
3. Since you "weren't going to" get an 18/00 if you rolled on 18 Str (and if you did, how often would people assume you had cheated/gotten DM collusion/etc.?), you may as well bank on coming across Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Girdle of Giant Strength (apparently 0.2% of magic item rolls, but man did they seem to be more common, I think they got specifically placed a lot).

Again, how well this worked out probably depended a lot on DMs cultivating loot to the party makeup. Probably also how well (ex.) a Dex 18&Str 15 fighter survives to second level compared to a Str 18/62&Dex 15 fighter does.