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

[Lanefan]

Couldn't Rangers specialize as well?

Maybe, but the thread is specifically about Fighters I think.

 

[mixmastashizz]

Couldn't Rangers specialize as well?

Yes, Rangers and Paladins are both fighters, therefore gain all benefits of fighters (extra attacks, mook-slaying)

I think UA retains this for Paladins once they turned them into Cavaliers, and Barbarians too since they are also fighters.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In my current 1e game, I'm playing a 16 STR and 16 CON fighter. we are level 4 now. I am by far and away one of the most effective classes. A lot of folks forget that most of your spells as a MU are random, and you couldn't prepare but what your chart said so you better be lucky if you didn't know what you would face. Our wizard had spider climb as their spell at level 1. We joked that we didn't even know if he was a real magic user because he never cast a spell until the 4th session lol. And if you're playing RAW initiative, spells are slow. Like, can carry over into the next round slow. That makes a world of difference. You also had to declare what you were doing at the start of the round. So if it got to your turn and the spell you said you were going to cast wasn't the best for that moment when it got to your turn? Too bad.

And I have about twice the HP of other classes, which for a game like 1e where HP are much lower than any other modern edition, it matters a lot.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Can confirm. My group did it one of two way. The first was the roll 4d6 and take the best three for each attribute. The second was to roll the dice and pick which attribute to assign the roll to. Either way you had your attributes settled before deciding on Class. I got lucky once and rolled an 18 and a 17 and ended up with a Wizard with an 18 Strength just for the lulz.

It only dawned on me just how much D&D has eroded niche protection over the years. I realize it'd been eroded of course, I just didn't realize the extent.

 

[NotAYakk]

To me, this seems to ignore the important part of how OD&D and AD&D 1st made fighter types work.

Accuracy/THAC0.

Against a foe with an AC of 2, your accuracy goes from 15% to 55% from level 1 to level 10 as a fighter; you get about +1 to hit per level, in effect.

Assuming a 17 strength (+1 to hit, +2 to damage IIRC), your attack does an average of 6.5*.2 or 1.3 DPR at level 1. By level 10 with a +2 sword your accuracy is 65% and you deal 8.5 per swing, 3/2, for 8.3 DPR; a 6.4x increase in damage rate.

By level 20 you are hitting 100% of the time, dealing 1d8+7 (11.5) on a hit with your +5 sword, and swinging 2x per round for 23 damage per round, another 2.8x the damage output.

With 16 (+2) HP you have 7.5 HP at level 1, 75 HP at level 10 and 105 HP at level 20; your DPR*HP is 10 at level 1, 623 at level 10, and 2.5k at level 20; taking the 1.5th root we get a level 10 fighter is "worth" 16 level 1 fighters and a level 20 fighter is "worth" 40 level 1 fighters in the same armor.

This was a solid alternative to later games that boosted raw damage output (swings etc); low level characters in AD&D missed a lot, and your accuracy went crazy good at high levels. A 1/4 hit rate going up to a 100% hit rate the same as a static hit rate and swinging 4x as often.

 

[dave2008]

Conclusion:

All of Snarf’s 1e Fighters just happened to have 18 Str and 18 Con.

I’m sure he totally rolled it.

I've never seen a 1e fighter without 18 in both (though we didn't use % strength back then)

 

[Thagdal]

I think first edition bard could end up with more HP than fighters, if we talking exceptions, but only if the campaign goes on long enough.

We used rolling 3d6 twelve times. It was fairly common to start with an 18.

 

[Kurotowa]

As a mere babe who started with the dawn of 2e, I can't say how much of this was true in the 1e days. But when I started, one of the important advantages for Fighters was Saves.

As a reminder, for those who have forgotten or were never there, before 3e save DCs were set by the target, not the caster. And Fighters had some of the best save numbers. At everything. None of this business where a standard issue Fighter can't dodge a dragon's breath weapon and can't shrug off a vampire's charm. They were friggin' Conan, impervious to all manger of magical tomfoolery.

I've long held that Fighters being incapable of reliably making their saves against anything important is one of the major stealth nerfs to the class since the early days.

 

[Moorcrys]

Saving Throws against spells and magic items improved in a much more substantial way than in later editions as characters gained levels. Higher level fighters with some protective magic items had a much better chance of shrugging off the effects of spells, wands, staves, etc. than post-2e characters. If you were a dwarf or gnome even better.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think first edition bard could end up with more HP than fighters, if we talking exceptions, but only if the campaign goes on long enough.

How do you figure? A 1e bard had to take levels in thief, with their piddly hit die, so how would you end up with more HP compared to an equal level fighter?

We used rolling 3d6 twelve times. It was fairly common to start with an 18.

There is a 5.42% chance of getting one 18 by rolling 3d16 twelve times. So not very common.