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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Edited

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Despite all that I preferred playing M-Us and Illusionists.

As I've mentioned in the past, I had an unhealthy love of the illusionist class. Probably because of the illustration in The Rogue's Gallery.

I'd argue that because of niche protection and an emphasis on playstyles that rewarded player knowledge outside of the character sheet, there was not nearly the concern for constant balance that we see today. That's neither good, nor bad, but it was.

There's more to it, but I don't feel like continuing. Anyway, I loved the 1e illusionist, and still do, despite its flaws.

 

[kermit4karate]

Something that's being lost here, and I played and DM'd AD&D from the very beginning, is that people back then used house rules and homebrews just as often as people nowadays do -- in fact, more often than they do now. It was customary to create and try your own new rules, borrow ideas from every issue of Dragon, from tournaments, movies, friends and other tables, play D&D using firearms, superheroes characters, Thundercats, Predators or xenomorphs -- people were doing that right out the gate with D&D.

The rigidity with which many view and deconstruct the different D&D editions is relatively recent. When we talk about balance of a particular edition and the "feel" or how well a particular mechanic did/didn't work, keep in mind that most tables, back when these editions were new, were not playing those editions in a vacuum. People were already playing hybridized versions of AD&D with different house rules at every table.

But in this thread, as is so often the case here when discussing D&D (or AD&D), the different versions are being discussed as self-contained things that are completely distinct from each other. D&D has never in my firsthand experience ever actually been played that way.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Something that's being lost here, and I played and DM'd AD&D from the very beginning, is that people back then used house rules and homebrews just as often as people nowadays do -- in fact, more often than they do now. It was customary to create and try your own new rules, borrow ideas from every issue of Dragon, from tournaments, movies, friends and other tables, play D&D using firearms, superheroes characters, Thundercats, Predators or xenomorphs -- people were doing that right out the gate with D&D.

The rigidity with which many view and deconstruct the different D&D editions is relatively recent. When we talk about balance of a particular edition and the "feel" or how well a particular mechanic did/didn't work, keep in mind that most tables, back when these editions were new, were not playing those editions in a vacuum. People were already playing hybridized versions of AD&D with different house rules at every table.

But in this thread, as is so often the case here when discussing D&D (or AD&D), the different versions are being discussed as self-contained things that are completely distinct from each other. D&D has never in my firsthand experience ever actually been played that way.

This is true. Which is why I always try to write something about it in the disclaimers. It's in this one-

-As always, if you get five 1e players to tell you how they played the game, you will get seven different versions. I am sure that your table played with different rules, or discarded some of these rules, or maybe you might be thinking of the time you were playing Traveler. It's all good.
The joke aside, this gets to the interoperability of TSR-era D&D.

At a very basic level, the entire line of D&D products from TSR is the same game. I don't mean that some details aren't different. And they can be major; obviously, the Moldvay Basic split (race as class, otherwise referred to as "Basic") has some key differences. And the gradual accretion of rules over time made the play experience of late 2e wildly different from that of 1975 OD&D.

...and yet, all of these games are fundamentally the same. They are all interoperable. Perhaps the best, and easiest, example of this is B2 (Keep on the Borderlands). B2 was originally written for OD&D (Holmes). But the module shipped with Basic (Moldvay). The module was so ubiquitous, that it was commonly run as an introductory adventure for 1e characters; and became so entrenched as a "popular trope" that it continued to be run well into the 2e era.

All of this is to say that while there are numerous small differences over time, the entire structure of all of the D&D systems from 1974 through 2000 is so similar, so based on a common core, that the materials made for them are easily used without any adaptation.

This doesn't mean that things did not change; obviously, a 1e UA character (or a 2e Kit character) would be much more powerful than an OD&D character. But because these systems didn't use "CR" or other balancing material, this wasn't really seen as a problem (just add or subtract an ogre).

I'd also point out that not only were there house rules (often compiled in binders by DMs) ... there were plentiful "official materials" (supplements), "semi-official materials" (Strategic Review, Dragon Magazine), and 3PPs (everything from Grimtooth's Traps to the Compleat Adventurer) that people used, as well as borrowings from other sources (e.g., using Talislanta as a campaign world in D&D, or my home campaign that had a bespoke psionics system based on Julian May's books).

It's a fool's errand to parse the TSR rules in the same way that we parse current rules (and that's why it's usually obvious if someone didn't actually play at the time ...). So why do I like to do it?

1. I'm a fool.
2. I think it's always a good exercise to see what the original Gygaxian rules were.
3. Looking at how rules interact and how they should be interpreted in a system that doesn't require pitchforks and torches like we have currently is a useful skill when it comes to interpreting rules in general.

 

[The Soloist]

As I've mentioned in the past, I had an unhealthy love of the illusionist class. Probably because of the illustration in The Rogue's Gallery. ... Anyway, I loved the 1e illusionist, and still do, despite its flaws.

Illusionist was my favorite class. Started with a gnome thief-illusionist. Later I did an Illusionist but the DM wasn't very collaborative. My illusions never worked regardless of context. At level 5 I did 5 levels of M-U, then switched back to Illusionist. After that, I would cast a real fireball and then an Illusionary one. No one had a chance to disbelieve. The DM couldn't so no to that. All the other players were on my side. Mouhahaha!

 

[kermit4karate]

Serious question- did you ever play 1e when it was actually played? And if so, did you come to it from OD&D?

I say that because it almost appears like you are just trying to argue points without having a fulsome understanding both of the rules that were written and of how they worked in practice.

But to be brief-
First, you ignore the weapon issue. The fighter, as I already wrote, was the only class that had access to decent ranged attacks. Clerics ... got nada.
Second, you also ignore the magic item issue- which is tied into the weapon issue. All those magic swords? All the other magic weapons? The fighter got to use them. The other classes? Not so much.
Third, you downplay the fact that fighters were the sole class that was able to take advantage of high strength (especially) and high constitution. So it's also a question of selection bias-no matter what method you used to roll, if you rolled that in those abilities, you would be crazy not to take advantage of having a fighter, because only the fighter could unlock it.
Fourth, you completely ignore the fact that fighters were the only class that did get multiple attacks (either 1/level, or a number depending on the level, as I wrote). Unlike, say, a cleric.
Fifth, and finally, you ignore the whole issue of swords (and the ranged weapons, like long bows) being faster than almost all spells (except power word and magic missile).

But sure, if you want to tell all the people that know the rules and also how gameplay worked that the Cleric was just as good at combat as the Fighter, knock yourself out. I am quite sure you will encounter people telling you that the Cleric was, in fact, the most popular class in 1e, and not the class that people were ... not very happy to play, for the most part. If you played it, you know why.

By the way, I didn't even bother mentioning other factors that are so self-evident that they shouldn't need mentioning- specifically, the saves and "to hit" abilities for the fighters. I would direct you to the relevant tables in the DMG or your DM Screen. Feel free to explain to me, like I'm someone who is unfamiliar with the rules, exactly why a Cleric at a given level is so great at hitting things and making saves compared to the Fighter.

And if the best a 1e Fighter could hope for is to become a bard, you'd probably wonder why there were almost no bards played in 1e. However, we've already discussed that.

Fair enough. I enjoy a good discussion as well. I do think the impact of that disclaimer has been lost on most participants in the thread, though. Based on many of the comments, most folks are still taking this analysis too literally, as something almost scientific, as opposed to a mostly hypothetical exercise.

The things being said as to how 1E would work with that set of mechanics may be true...except that almost no one actually played it that way because they'd already determined that it would not have worked well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fair enough. I enjoy a good discussion as well. I do think the impact of that disclaimer has been lost on most participants in the thread, though. Based on many of the comments, most folks are still taking this analysis too literally, as something almost scientific, as opposed to a mostly hypothetical exercise.

The things being said as to how 1E would work with that set of mechanics may be true...except that almost no one actually played it that way because they'd already determined that it would not have worked well.

What, you didn't use all the initiative rules exactly as written in AD&D? The weapon v. AC tables? The specialized rules in the DMG for pummeling, grappling, and overbearing???

Next thing you know, you'll say that you weren't rolling the chance that every hit might be a blow to the head if you weren't wearing a helmet!

 

[kermit4karate]

This is true. Which is why I always try to write something about it in the disclaimers. It's in this one-

-As always, if you get five 1e players to tell you how they played the game, you will get seven different versions. I am sure that your table played with different rules, or discarded some of these rules, or maybe you might be thinking of the time you were playing Traveler. It's all good.
The joke aside, this gets to the interoperability of TSR-era D&D.

At a very basic level, the entire line of D&D products from TSR is the same game. I don't mean that some details aren't different. And they can be major; obviously, the Moldvay Basic split (race as class, otherwise referred to as "Basic") has some key differences. And the gradual accretion of rules over time made the play experience of late 2e wildly different from that of 1975 OD&D.

...and yet, all of these games are fundamentally the same. They are all interoperable. Perhaps the best, and easiest, example of this is B2 (Keep on the Borderlands). B2 was originally written for OD&D (Holmes). But the module shipped with Basic (Moldvay). The module was so ubiquitous, that it was commonly run as an introductory adventure for 1e characters; and became so entrenched as a "popular trope" that it continued to be run well into the 2e era.

All of this is to say that while there are numerous small differences over time, the entire structure of all of the D&D systems from 1974 through 2000 is so similar, so based on a common core, that the materials made for them are easily used without any adaptation.

This doesn't mean that things did not change; obviously, a 1e UA character (or a 2e Kit character) would be much more powerful than an OD&D character. But because these systems didn't use "CR" or other balancing material, this wasn't really seen as a problem (just add or subtract an ogre).

I'd also point out that not only were there house rules (often compiled in binders by DMs) ... there were plentiful "official materials" (supplements), "semi-official materials" (Strategic Review, Dragon Magazine), and 3PPs (everything from Grimtooth's Traps to the Compleat Adventurer) that people used, as well as borrowings from other sources (e.g., using Talislanta as a campaign world in D&D, or my home campaign that had a bespoke psionics system based on Julian May's books).

It's a fool's errand to parse the TSR rules in the same way that we parse current rules (and that's why it's usually obvious if someone didn't actually play at the time ...). So why do I like to do it?

1. I'm a fool.
2. I think it's always a good exercise to see what the original Gygaxian rules were.
3. Looking at how rules interact and how they should be interpreted in a system that doesn't require pitchforks and torches like we have currently is a useful skill when it comes to interpreting rules in general.

Few examples of 1E rules that I never saw anyone actually using. These were widely considered poor ideas from the start:

• Combat rounds divided into 10 "segments." Everyone tried to make that work.... Shortly thereafter, they gave up. Dumb idea.
• Weapon modifiers based on the opponent’s armor type. Too complex. Most people dropped it.
• Elf, dwarf, halflings, etc. level caps for some classes. Widely loathed. Most people ignored it.
• Weapon speed factors. Way too complex. You would have been hard-pressed to find anyone who used that when it came out.
• Psionics. Almost no one -- and I mean no one -- used the rules for psionics as they were intended and written. Maybe they added a thing or two, but no one was following the psionics rules straight from the book.
• Grappling. Same as psionics. They were widely considered too complex and unnecessary from the start.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

• Psionics. Almost no one -- and I mean no one -- used the rules for psionics as they were intended and written. Maybe they added a thing or two, but no one was following the psionics rules straight from the book.

Oh, psionics! Here's the thing. Almost everyone I knew tried at some point to use them. Because ... psionics are cool. And the terms used? Oh, SO COOL!
Ego whip? Id insinuation? Psychic crush?

YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEAT ME? I HAVE INTELLECT FORTRESS!!!!!

Heck, Molecular Agitation?

Olaf the Slightly Dumb: Hey, what are you doing?

Bester: I'm using molecular agitation.

Olaf: Huh. Cool. So you're making something angry. But ... what are molecules?

Bester: ....I don't know. I think they have something to do with the bodily humors?


The idea was so awesome! Except, OMG, psionics did not work. They didn't work because they were ridiculous to get (the whole Gygaxian "you have to be this awesome to be even more awesome" chance to get them). They were ridiculous because they were nearly impossible to use correctly in "psionic combat." And they were ridiculous because they weren't integrated into the rest of the game- nothing else, really, referred to psionics in the game with very few exceptions, so they weren't integrated at all.

So every table I knew tried 'em once, and then got rid of them. Or (like I did) designed an entirely different system.

 

[kermit4karate]

Oh, psionics! Here's the thing. Almost everyone I knew tried at some point to use them. Because ... psionics are cool. And the terms used? Oh, SO COOL!
Ego whip? Id insinuation? Psychic crush?

YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEAT ME? I HAVE INTELLECT FORTRESS!!!!!

Heck, Molecular Agitation?

Olaf the Slightly Dumb: Hey, what are you doing?

Bester: I'm using molecular agitation.

Olaf: Huh. Cool. So you're making something angry. But ... what are molecules?

Bester: ....I don't know. I think they have something to do with the bodily humors?


The idea was so awesome! Except, OMG, psionics did not work. They didn't work because they were ridiculous to get (the whole Gygaxian "you have to be this awesome to be even more awesome" chance to get them). They were ridiculous because they were nearly impossible to use correctly in "psionic combat." And they were ridiculous because they weren't integrated into the rest of the game- nothing else, really, referred to psionics in the game with very few exceptions, so they weren't integrated at all.

So every table I knew tried 'em once, and then got rid of them. Or (like I did) designed an entirely different system.

YAASSS!!! Probably the best example of all. You said it too. The idea was so awesome! Everyone wanted to play with psionics, and just about everyone did try.

But yeah, following the official rules for psionics?? Not a chance. They were simply not well designed, and I'm well aware that statements that bold are frequently taken as blasphemous, but too bad. It's the truth. No, not one person's truth. The. Truth. The 1E version of the rules for Psionics were trash. Ask around if you don't believe me.

I swear, a lot of TTRPG (used to be just "RPG") fans today are predisposed to treat the different editions of games and specific game mechanics far more literally than OG RPG'ers had. The OG gamers who were seeing and playtesting some of these mechanics for the first time were quickly able to tell that, yeah, that rule just doesn't work! As cool as it may sound, the rule just doesn't work well.

So like you said, no big deal. They just changed it! It's OK to not take the rulebooks so seriously.