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

[Lanefan]

Most retroclones (mine included) mirror the tables and core rules while omitting the more complicated stuff (like initiative, spell interruptions, weapon profs, speed factors, and other stuff that favored the fighter). Basically, in many retroclones, we kinda neutered the fighter's effectiveness compared to 1e RAW.

So, thinking out loud here, if I were to do another retroclone, as a way to make up for those complex rules that helped the fighter (because who wants to go back to weird complex rules), I'd do the following. Changes while keeping true to the core mechanics of AD&D

• fighters roll 2 HD at every level for HP gain, taking the highest value.
• martials at a certain level roll two damage dice, taking the highest value.
• at a certain level, fighters can increase weapon reach
• thieves can choose two skills to be experts in. Those two skills gain a 35% bonus. So you're at least pretty good at something reliably at level one instead of sucking at everything until higher levels. And you have a pool of points you can distribute like 2e does.

Also bring back spell interruption. It's not a complex rule unless you want to use RAW initative, and it really does help tone down the casters.

It's not at all complex in play but takes a bit of authorial work up front: bring back the idea of specific weapons allowable by (non-warrior) class, weapon proficiencies, and non-prof penalties. These also raise the Fighter a bit above everyone else.

I like your idea re Thieves; I'd exclude climbing, though, as even a 1st-level Thief starts in the 80+% range there.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

House rule, I think.

We also gave crossbow to almost everyone as an allowable weapon, but not sling as that's a bit more complex than simple point-and-shoot.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

18 Con? My first thought is Ranger provided I can meet the other pre-req's.

 

[Maxperson]

That is what Changing their class to thief is.

I'm not so sure now. I looked at the DMG and saw this on page 79.

"Multi-class characters, characters with two classes, and bards check the matrix for each class possessed, and use the most favorable result for the type of attack being defended against."

It differentiates bards from multi-class and characters with two classes. Now, that could mean after the bard begins as a Bard 1, but it could also refer to a third way to have multiple classes. Go go gadget 1e confusion!

 

[Maxperson]

But the other point still stands. RAW, you don't just zip from level 1 bard to level 6. Anything past the initial level gain is wasted XP.

That's true, but in all the different 1e games I played in, I saw RAW XP and leveling used exactly 0 times. Some groups didn't do training at all. Some didn't do training, but required a safe spot(such as an inn) before you could gain the level. Others required training, but didn't cap it immediately, allowing you to progress to 1 xp shy of the 2nd level up. So a 1st level PC who hit enough for level 2 wouldn't stop gaining until 1 xp shy of level 3. None of the groups I played with ever allowed gold as XP.

 

[Maxperson]

18 Con? My first thought is Ranger provided I can meet the other pre-req's.

Yeah. I'm assuming no special classes like ranger or paladin were qualified for.

 

[mixmastashizz]

That's true, but in all the different 1e games I played in, I saw RAW XP and leveling used exactly 0 times. Some groups didn't do training at all. Some didn't do training, but required a safe spot(such as an inn) before you could gain the level. Others required training, but didn't cap it immediately, allowing you to progress to 1 xp shy of the 2nd level up. So a 1st level PC who hit enough for level 2 wouldn't stop gaining until 1 xp shy of level 3.

This feels like the result of the original, basic, and advanced game all doing nearly the same thing but differently. The XP lost vs 1 minus the next level highlights this. However,

None of the groups I played with ever allowed gold as XP.

As a person running a 1e game and have previously run a B/X game who is reading the rules as an adult for the first time, this is WILD.

I keep seeing this sentiment, it's clear as day in the rules in each edition! 1e even has an entire section talking about using gold for xp and why!

 

[Maxperson]

This feels like the result of the original, basic, and advanced game all doing nearly the same thing but differently. The XP lost vs 1 minus the next level highlights this. However,



As a person running a 1e game and have previously run a B/X game who is reading the rules as an adult for the first time, this is WILD.

I keep seeing this sentiment, it's clear as day in the rules in each edition! 1e even has an entire section talking about using gold for xp even though it may be unintuitive and why!

We were kids at the time. Understanding the balance intent behind gold for xp was a bit beyond us junior high kids. All we saw was "Easy XP! No way!" Never mind that all the level draining and so on that the game threw at you required that you gain more than just the XP from fighting and magic items.