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

[Sacrosanct]

By themselves, bracers (which cap out at AC 2) and ring of protection (which caps out at +5) can only get you to AC -3.

To get to AC -7 requires some additional help, most likely Dex 18+. I've seen it done once, by an Illusionist in an old campaign of mine using just this setup, and she still died at every oppportunity mostly because her overall luck was awful.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that there were a ton of magical items, I'm saying that having an AC around -7 is a dubious claim unless you were playing Monty Haul or your DM was just handing out powerful items like candy. The actual items in the actual published adventures doesn't support ACs like that.

And again, that all assumes that your PC would get all of that instead of another PC, that you found all those items already, and you'd be very high level by the time you got them (which is a tier of play hardly anyone played at).

I also find it interesting that PCs loaded with the most powerful magic items also always had 18s in their stats. Funny that...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Must have been a cloak because I don't think shields and bracers work together.

Bracers work, but cloaks and shields don't.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I also find it interesting that PCs loaded with the most powerful magic items also always had 18s in their stats. Funny that...

It's those magic pools. You either reach mortal perfection (an 18) or become horribly mutated.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's those magic pools. You either reach mortal perfection (an 18) or become horribly mutated.

And just so happens that every PC happened to be in that adventure, and every one found the pools, and every one got the max benefit....

It's like how the player with the fighter always showed up with 18/75% or better STR

 

[Voadam]

I think they could use it RAW as part of the SP granted powers.

It is the other way around. In 1e it specifies that holy avengers are LG. In 2e it does not have the same alignment specification that 1e does it just specifies "in the hands of a paladin" for its special powers so a CG paladin is good to go.

2e DMG:
"Sword, +5 Holy Avenger: In the hands of any character other than a paladin, this holy sword will perform only as a sword +2. In
the hands of a paladin, however, it creates a magic resistance of 50% in a 5-foot radius, dispels magic in a 5-foot radius at the level
of the paladin, and inflicts +10 points of bonus damage upon chaotic evil opponents."

If it is intelligent in 2e though it has unspecified alignment restrictions that are implied to be paladin compatible.

"Any weapon with intelligence has an alignment. Note that holy avenger swords have alignment restrictions"

In 1e holy avengers were always LG.

"All +5 Holy Avenger swords are lawful good. All Swords of Sharpness are of chaotic alignment. All Vorpal Weapons are lawfully aligned."

"Sword, +5, Holy Avenger, is a holy sword. In the hands of any character other than a paladin, it will perform only as a +2 sword. In the hands of a paladin, however, it creates a magic resistance of 50% in a 5’ radius, dispels magic in a 5’ radius at the level of magic use equal to the experience level of the paladin, and inflicts +10 hit points of bonus damage upon chaotic evil opponents. (Cf. also ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, PLAYERS HANDBOOK, CHARACTER CLASSES, The Paladin.)"

 

[Maxperson]

Are they though? I know they are in modules, but probably not as much as you think. You also can’t assume every one will be found, and every one will go to the same PC out of the party. I am very dubious that enough of the ultra rare rings and bracers were available in modules to achieve an AC of -7. Certainly not before super high levels. The only times I ever saw anything close to that was in Monty haul games where DMs handed out magic items like candy.

Yeah. My experience was that rings, bracers, etc. were commonly found in modules and because the DMs put them out there. However, they were bracers AC 7 to 4, or rings of protection +1 and +2, maaaaaybe +3. I never saw -7 unless it was a fighter who got lucky with magic plate and shield, and then got one of those +1 or +2 rings, and even that was really rare. A magic user was lucky if he got down to 0.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Me too on the 2E changes. It is one of few 2E rules we incorporated into our 1E games after 4E came out and we decided to go back.

The problem with Dwarves and Halflings is they tended to be weak in combat, even when multiclassed with fighter. In the end most thieves in our games were Elves, Half-Elves or Gnome magic-users/Illusionists multiclassed with Thief. We had a fair number of Human Fighters who dual classed to Thief after Fighter level 9 too. Because of the way xp worked they would hit level 10 in Thief before others in the party hit level 10 in one class and were pretty quickly into a regime where they were "good" at thieving.

Half-Orc Fighter-Thieves (mostly assassins) were pretty good as well, not as good as Dwarves or Halflings in terms of thief abilities, but much better in combat.

Once Unearthed Arcana came out we had some Wild Elf Fighter-Thieves. Like Half-Orcs, they worked because they got a great strength bonus.

Multi-class demi-human fighter/thieves would get some of the benefits of the fighter class, but not all. They would of course be limited to leather armor whenever they wanted to use thief skills. By strict interpretations a F/T trying to backstab had to use the THAC0 for their thief level and could only use the official backstab weapons (swords, dagger, & club IIRC). Hit points were one of the more convoluted aspects of multi-classing (which is really saying something... ). Some F/Ts might get the special fighter bonuses for 17-18 CON, but they would be halved so the advantage would be partially wasted. If UA rules were in use, multi-class fighters were usually not allowed to use weapon specialization and thieves were allowed to use more missile weapons than in PHB RAW, so the advantages of multi-classing in fighter would diminish even more.

All of the short races had AC advantages against certain large foes like giants and trolls, but I think gnomes and halflings had STR restrictions that would prevent them from hitting the 18/XX% jackpot. Dwarves had +1 to hit against kobolds and goblins, dwarf F/Ts could have percentile STR, and dwarves could use larger weapons like battle axes (this was one area where we were never quite clear on the actual rules, if any). So dwarf F/Ts were at least not worse in combat than other thieves (admittedly a low bar to clear).

F/T seemed like a great multi-class combo and it was the only one available to all non-humans, but the actual benefits were situational. Mage/thieves and illusionist/thieves had bad HP and no armor, but they were not actually missing out on any spellcaster abilities in the same way that multi-class F/Ts were missing armor and other advantages.

Our group was unusual in that no one ever played dual class characters, halflings, half-orcs, monks, or assassins. I was the only one who ever played a dwarf (fighter) or a gnome (I/T), and I am not really sure why. Maybe teenage insecurities about height meant that nobody else wanted to play a “shorty”? I dunno. IIRC halflings got +3 to hit with all missile weapons (!!!) plus any DEX bonus, so if you were playing with the UA rules that let thieves use bows a halfling thief could be a deadly sharpshooter.

 

[Maxperson]

It is the other way around. In 1e it specifies that holy avengers are LG. In 2e it does not have the same alignment specification that 1e does it just specifies "in the hands of a paladin" for its special powers so a CG paladin is good to go.

2e DMG:
"Sword, +5 Holy Avenger: In the hands of any character other than a paladin, this holy sword will perform only as a sword +2. In
the hands of a paladin, however, it creates a magic resistance of 50% in a 5-foot radius, dispels magic in a 5-foot radius at the level
of the paladin, and inflicts +10 points of bonus damage upon chaotic evil opponents."

If it is intelligent in 2e though it has unspecified alignment restrictions that are implied to be paladin compatible.

"Any weapon with intelligence has an alignment. Note that holy avenger swords have alignment restrictions"

In 1e holy avengers were always LG.

"All +5 Holy Avenger swords are lawful good. All Swords of Sharpness are of chaotic alignment. All Vorpal Weapons are lawfully aligned."

"Sword, +5, Holy Avenger, is a holy sword. In the hands of any character other than a paladin, it will perform only as a +2 sword. In the hands of a paladin, however, it creates a magic resistance of 50% in a 5’ radius, dispels magic in a 5’ radius at the level of magic use equal to the experience level of the paladin, and inflicts +10 hit points of bonus damage upon chaotic evil opponents. (Cf. also ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, PLAYERS HANDBOOK, CHARACTER CLASSES, The Paladin.)"

2e has the same requirement. I looked last night.

You have to go to the aligned weapons portion of the magic item section on page 187.

"Any weapon with intelligence will have an alignment. Note that holy avenger, swords have alignment restrictions. All cursed weapons are absolutely neutral."

Paladins being LG would mean that holy avengers were also LG. The Horus CG exception to paladins wouldn't allow use of LG holy avengers. That said, if the setting had CG paladins of Horus in it, then it stands to reason that those paladins would have had CG holy avengers made at some point and those would be out there to find.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah. My experience was that rings, bracers, etc. were commonly found in modules and because the DMs put them out there. However, they were bracers AC 7 to 4, or rings of protection +1 and +2, maaaaaybe +3. I never saw -7 unless it was a fighter who got lucky with magic plate and shield, and then got one of those +1 or +2 rings, and even that was really rare. A magic user was lucky if he got down to 0.

I'd like to clarify that I have no issues with people who like to play with powerful magic items. It's a perfectly fine playstyle and if people are having fun, that's the point, right? I myself have had a few DMs over the past 45 years that liked to do that.

I'm only saying that the actual modules themselves, while rife with magic items, didn't really have those uber powerful items until you were well into your teens. Also, it should be noted that it costs 1,500gp per level that you had to pay to level up. That was the point of treasure, and why there was so much of it. 1e economics are...weird.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd like to clarify that I have no issues with people who like to play with powerful magic items. It's a perfectly fine playstyle and if people are having fun, that's the point, right? I myself have had a few DMs over the past 45 years that liked to do that.

I'm only saying that the actual modules themselves, while rife with magic items, didn't really have those uber powerful items until you were well into your teens. Also, it should be noted that it costs 1,500gp per level that you had to pay to level up. That was the point of treasure, and why there was so much of it. 1e economics are...weird.

Agreed. And I had one DM who was like that as well, though he tended more towards uber weapons. With him I saw -1 to -5 fairly often. -6 to -10 were still fairly rare. His weapons, though, were off the charts. He had a special chart that included all the god weapons from the Deities and Demigods. One of my characters briefly(died to a death trap) had a +6 spear that did 6-60 damage. Fun times!