D&D General I'm a Fighter, not a Lover: Why the 1e Fighter was so Awesome

[Maxperson]

I would argue that since abilities came before class back then, that any individual who rolled a 17 or 18 in constitution or rolled an 18 in strength and did not choose a Fighter* was making a very curious decision. The massive gain from that special class ability was huge.

In fact, I would argue that your question is kind of strange, simply because you wouldn't see a cleric with a strength of 18. If you had an 18 in strength, it would be really .... odd ... to not choose a fighter. I can't say it never happened, but ... I never saw it happen.


*Before you respond, read the disclaimer. This includes subclasses.

I totally agree with you about the 18 strength. If I rolled an 18 strength, fighter was the only class choice as far as I am concerned. With an 18 con, though, it would have depended. If I rolled a 12 strength and 16 intelligence to go with it, I was going to be a healthy wizard. +2 con to survive the low levels was better in my mind that a few extra hit points on a fighter with no bonus to hit and damage from strength.

 

[billd91]

Strict application of the training rules would also act as a disincentive to exploration. It would be hard to go hex-crawling over the hills and far away, or sailing off into the wild blue yonder, if you know that you cannot level up until returning to a home base of some sort. Explorers would have to hope they can stumble across friendly high level NPCs willing and able to train, or else get stuck at current level for who knows how long.

The training rules really make the most sense in a context where the PCs are exploring a mega-dungeon relatively near a home base West Marches-style where the adventuring company could vary based on who shows up to the table and which PC they bring (in this case, a substitute because their other PC is tied up for a week in training).
Outside of that... whether going on wilderness excursions, exploration where a time-limit is implied, or ones with moving plots in the background... not so much. It's a rule structure that evolved for fit a certain type of campaign and designed to keep adventurers needing to adventure for more and more loot.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In retrospect it is kind of amazing how EGG’s writing could be so verbose while also being so thoroughly opaque, leaving important game design goals in near obscurity. Ironic that Gygax’s favorite class, the fighter, may have suffered the most from having so many of its class features (e.g. magic swords, disrupting mage spells, etc) left unstated.

Contrast with the Draw Steel rulebook which apparently says something like, “Here is what you can do with this game. We drew inspiration from games A, B, and C. If you would rather do X, Y, or Z, you might want to just play those games instead.”

Intentionality in RPG design is always a good thing IMO, even if I don't personally care for the results.

 

[Micah Sweet]

well i'd say there's two main points to that attitude, the first being wanting VS needing, 'well how much of the awesome i'm doing is actually my character?' AKA 'if you're nothing without the suit then you shouldn't be a hero in the first place', being reliant on a sack of magic trinkets kind of undermines how capable your character feels by themself, especially if you could give those trinkets to the rest of your already-independently-capable party members to raise them up even higher, the job of magic items is not to make mediocre adventurers good, but to make great adventurers excellent.

the other aspect is oversaturation diminishes their perceived value, if you've got more magic rings than fingers and enough weapons to start your own armoury then they stop feeling important and meaningful.

My previous comment addresses both those concerns to my satisfaction, but again to each their own. I guess I understand now but still disagree.

 

[mixmastashizz]

I am experiencing some Mandela Effect here regarding missile weapons. I could have sworn that clerics, druids, mages, and illusionists could all use slings, and that thieves could use slings, short bows, and light crossbows. Was this a change from PHB to UA, or just a house rule I thought was official? I remember making sure that my 1E characters all had some kind of missile weapon if at all practical, just in case.

The equipment lists were expanded in UA.

Base PHB the clerics only ranged weapon is throwing hammers, and thieves only had slings.

 

[Lord Shark]

I like putting the magic back into magic items by giving more of them names, histories, notable former owners, and extra powers that are themed in some way. Maybe the powers need to be unlocked gradually, as the new PC proves that they are worthy to wield this ancient weapon or eldritch staff. Those articles about famous spellbooks that Ed Greenwood wrote for Dragon were quite good.

Sure, but that's easier to do if you don't hand out magic items as lavishly as the 1E treasure tables do, and if you don't expect the fighter to go through multiple magic weapons and suits of armor over the course of their career.

 

[Maxperson]

I presumed the 15 dexterity requirement in the PHB appendix superseded the dual classing 17 score requirement. The class is already hard enough to qualify for as is.

The dex would be 17. You specifically had to dual class before reaching bard, so you had to qualify to do that.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's give the full arcane spellcasters a d4 hit die again!

Let my 20th level spellcaster have 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4 plus more slots for high primary stat and I'd be good with that.

 

[Nikosandros]

The dex would be 17. You specifically had to dual class before reaching bard, so you had to qualify to do that.

That is one long debate. My interpretation has always been that the rules for bards entirely supersede those for dual classing.

 

[Maxperson]

That is one long debate. My interpretation has always been that the rules for bards entirely supersede those for dual classing.

There are no rules for bards that are being used until after you have finished dual classing. There's no difference between your dual class fighter/thief who wants to EVENTUALLY be a bard, and my dual class fighter/thief who has no intention of being a bard.

You have to be a dual class fighter/thief to be a bard, but that doesn't reach back in time to alter the dual class rules. It just means that the player is planning ahead to become a Brad, er Bard. At the point where the player wants to become a bard, he needs to check to see if he has qualified to do so, which means thief of the proper level range and fighter of the proper level range, among the other requirements.