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

[Maxperson]

My final thoughts are that there were two fundamental changes that created the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem (at least for 5e, cant speak for 3/3.5):

1. Making all classes generally at parity for chance to hit and for damage (removing the fighter niche)
2. Removing spell interruption in the combat system (vastly strengthening magic users)

Removing the slower leveling of magic users also contributed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Removing the slower leveling of magic users also contributed.

The fighter nerf originates in the 2E to 3.0 transition.

Universal xp tables, no nerfs to spells some got buffed.

No engine used. Big disparities in saving throws, BAB.

Poor saves scaling. Fighters saves were fast in AD&D.

Spell DCs based on intelligence scores and level of spell. DCs scaled way faster than saves.

Penalizing fighters for multiple attacks.

Feats required for basic abilities.

Etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My final thoughts are that there were two fundamental changes that created the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem (at least for 5e, cant speak for 3/3.5):

1. Making all classes generally at parity for chance to hit and for damage (removing the fighter niche)
2. Removing spell interruption in the combat system (vastly strengthening magic users)

I firmly believe changing both those things was a mistake.

 

[Lanefan]

I was never in a game where someone was able to level twice at one time, even when I played a human dual class character and was going from first level in my second class and was adventuring with higher level characters. For my experiences this was a theoretical limit on gaining xp but not an actual one that ever came up.

If it was right after gaining enough to go up a level that would happen everytime people levelled, it would be extremely rare to get exactly the specific number of xp that you needed and not one more.

We've softened it such that on reaching the required xp for a new level you can keep gaining xp while adventuring as "untrained" in your new level; the main benefit of this is that if you meet a level-drainer the untrained level is lost first.

If you keep going too far into the new level, though, xp gain slows down and eventually almost stops; it's theoretically possible to plow right through an untrained level (and I've seen it done, but only once or twice) but it takes a boatload of extra xp to do so.

 

[Lanefan]

My final thoughts are that there were two fundamental changes that created the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem (at least for 5e, cant speak for 3/3.5):

1. Making all classes generally at parity for chance to hit and for damage (removing the fighter niche)
2. Removing spell interruption in the combat system (vastly strengthening magic users)

In 3.x the key factor was removal of interruption. There was still a pretty big difference in to-hit and damage between Fighters and Wizards once you got past the very low levels.

Another factor is that combat spells no longer take in-game time to cast, making them faster within the round on average than they'd be were casting time still a thing.

 

[Voadam]

Removing the slower leveling of magic users also contributed.

Magic Users xp charts started slow but accelerated once they got going, noticeably around 6th level when they got multiple fireballs things became easier. It then slowed down again at really high levels. From 7th to 12 MU levels though they are often higher level than the fighters who are just getting their extra attack every other round.

Here is a comparison chart of MUs versus fighter levels at the same xp when the MU levels.

Magic User level X - xp amount - Fighter level Y
1 - 0 - 1
2 - 2,501 - 2
3 - 5,001 - 3
4 - 10,001 - 4
5 - 22,501 - 5
6 - 40,001 - 6
7 - 60,001 - 6
8 - 90,001 -7
9 - 135,001 - 8
10 - 250,001 - 9
11 - 375,001 - 9
12 - 750,001 - 11
13 -1,125001 - 13
14 - 1,500,001 - 14
15 - 1,825,001 - 15
16 - 2,250,001 - 17
17 - 2,625,001 - 18
18 - 3,000,001 - 20

MUs need 2,501 to go to 2nd level while fighters only need 2,000. Fighters roughly double until they hit 250,001 at 9th level then need 250K per level after that. MUs start doubling then get weird at 6th level needing around only 50% of their existing xp to level for three levels instead of doubling, then it is a bit erratic.

 

[Nikosandros]

Another factor is that combat spells no longer take in-game time to cast, making them faster within the round on average than they'd be were casting time still a thing.

There is more. In 1e, recovering spells takes a long time. At high levels, you can't unload all your spells and recover them next day. Also, a lot of spells had complications/restrictions that were removed or mitigated. Then everyone started to complain about broken casters...

 

[Neonchameleon]

A. Fighters were the toughest class, and that mattered.

Hit points ... I mean, they matter in 5e, but not that much. In 1e, they really mattered. And fighters got all the hit points. To start with, fighters got d10 hit points. They were the only class to get d10. Clerics? d8. Thieves? d6. Magic users and monks? d4.

Except when the rubber met the road that didn't matter much. Clerics had almost as many hit points, had as much armour, and could heal. Unless it was a one shot situation or L1 the Cleric was tougher.

See, 1e also provided for constitution bonuses to hit points. All classes could get +1 or +2 to hit points/level (for scores of 15 or 16 in Constitution). But only a fighter could take advantage of a 17 or 18 in constitution to increase that bonus to +3 or +4, respectively.

Or slightly less than 2% of fighters could close the gap on clerics a bit

B. Fighters were the strongest class, and that mattered.

For characters who did not roll three sixes no they didn't. For half of all the remaining characters that were rolled fairly they barely did (+0 to hit, +1 damage for 18/49 Vs just 18)

With honest rolls this almost never mattered.

C. Fighters were the only class that could use any armor, shield, and weapon.

Fighters only real advantage over clerics was, when push came to shove, the fact the rules (with bonus damage Vs large creatures) and especially the magic items tables were weighted towards swords.

Interesting how the third worst 1e class shared that with the second worst class - the thief. (The worst was of course the 1e monk).

D. Fighters were the only class with multiple attacks.
...
First, fighters get 3 melee attacks per two rounds (one attack in the first round, two attacks the second round, repeat) starting at level 7, and then two attacks a round starting at level 13. Which is good!

So that's an actual lead at level 7. And a bigger one way after the level soft cap

Gygax himself came to realise that 1e fighters were just plain bad and Rob Kuntz being able to run rings round him with Robilar screwed up his playtesting. As he was explicit about on these boards that was why he added weapon specialisation - for game balance. And if Gygax said it was for balance I trust his judgement more than yours on this.

The long and the short of it is the best a 1e fighter could hope for was to become a bard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The long and the short of it is the best a 1e fighter could hope for was to become a bard.

This is certainly a surprising comment to make after the discussion we just had re: bards.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is certainly a surprising comment to make after the discussion we just had re: bards.

Possibly - but it's also true. The bard, if they get there, has all the advantages listed for the fighter except some armour. They get full use of stats. They get multi attack. And they have actively more hp than a fighter as bardic hit dice stack with fighter hit dice. And they have thief skills and backstab. And they have spells.