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

[Zardnaar]

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?

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

Bards kept rolling HD above level 9 or 10 iirc. So did druids.
. So you noght get 1d8+2 hp while fighters were capped at +3 higher levels

 

[Sacrosanct]

Bards kept rolling HD above level 9 or 10 iirc. So did druids.
. So you noght get 1d8+2 hp while fighters were capped at +3 higher levels

No, bards stop at level 10.

I haven't done the math, so does a 10th level bard (5d10 + 5 to 9d6 + 10d6) have more HP than 9d10 + 33, not counting potential better CON bonuses?

But really, personally I think that's pretty moot, because you're talking about a 20th-24th level AD&D character, which was something that hardly ever happened unless you were playing Monty Haul or started that high.

 

[ECMO3]

What about a fighter with Strength 17 and Constitution 16? Are they stronger than a cleric with Strength 18? Is a special class ability really a special ability if only a small portion of members of that class actually have it, subject to a random roll

Agree. Most of them were not stronger (until you found potions or a gauntlets of Ogre Power that I believe the Cleric could not use), but they did have better weapons and that mattered a lot.

To start with the missile weapons as noted above, but aside from the fact that only the fighter could use bows, they also got 2 attacks a round when using bows .... right at level 1. Someone throwing darts (Magic-Users, Thieves or Druids) could get 3 attacks a round if enemies were close, but not too close. But 3 darts (1d3) are less damage than 2 arrows (1d6) and with much less range.

Even just talking using melee weapons, you might think a Mace doing 2-7 and a Longsword doing 1-8 are equivalent, but they are not.
The longsword had a longer reach so when two opponents closed the Longsword attacked first
The Longsword had a lower speed factor so after melee was joined the Longsword user went first
If the enemy was Large the Mace damage was reduced to 1-6 while the Longsword was increased to 1-12

Now what did the Mace have going for it? It did have a better hit bonus (+1) against enemies in plate mail armor .... but the fighter could switch to a Pick against those enemies, getting a +2 while doing the same damage as the Mace with a better reach and the same speed factor, or if they are mounted the Fighter could switch to a Lance that got a +3 and got even more reach with a better speed factor.

Fighters were truely the king of battle in 1E, even at high level.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Agree. Most of them were not stronger (until you found potions or a gauntlets of Ogre Power that I believe the Cleric could not use), but they did have better weapons and that mattered a lot.

To start with the missile weapons as noted above, but aside from the fact that only the fighter could use bows, they also got 2 attacks a round when using bows .... right at level 1. Someone throwing darts (Magic-Users, Thieves or Druids) could get 3 attacks a round if enemies were close, but not too close. But 3 darts (1d3) are less damage than 2 arrows (1d6) and with much less range.

Even just talking using melee weapons, you might think a Mace doing 2-7 and a Longsword doing 1-8 are equivalent, but they are not.
The longsword had a longer reach so when two opponents closed the Longsword attacked first
The Longsword had a lower speed factor so after melee was joined the Longsword user went first
If the enemy was Large the Mace damage was reduced to 1-6 while the Longsword was increased to 1-12

Now what did the Mace have going for it? It did have a better hit bonus (+1) against enemies in plate mail armor .... but the fighter could switch to a Pick against those enemies, getting a +2 while doing the same damage as the Mace with a better reach and the same speed factor, or if they are mounted the Fighter could switch to a Lance that got a +3 and got even more reach with a better speed factor.

Fighters were truely the king of battle in 1E, even at high level.

Along these lines, this part is super important as well:

Especially since treasure was random. Often times, you'd find a magic weapon and the fighter was the only one who could use it, or use it with minimal penalty.

 

[James Gasik]

While they will fall short of a Fighting-Man (or Paladin), there is also the Monk, who gets 18 d4 Hit Dice. With a 16 Con, that's 81 hit points on average by level 18, comparable to a Fighter 11 with 17 Con.

Rangers get 11 d8 Hit Dice and are a sub-class of Fighter, so I believe they get the same additional bonus hit points for Con above 16. With a 17 Con they'd have roughly the same hit points as a Fighter at level 11, only falling off by 9 hit points by level 20. If you could push Con higher, they can catch up, but that's probably easier for a Fighter since I don't think there's a +Con race in 1e that can take the Ranger class and you can't really count on magic items to push you farther- they exist, and I actually have a long-running character who achieved a 20 Con, but it's pretty campaign (or RNG)-dependent.

 

[ECMO3]

No, bards stop at level 10.

View attachment 416070

I haven't done the math, so does a 10th level bard (5d10 + 5 to 9d6 + 10d6) have more HP than 9d10 + 33, not counting potential better CON bonuses?

Yes a lot more. Leveling worked differently so a F7/T9/B11 is not a 27th level character. They would have around 400,000xp which would be around an 10th level single classed character (9th level Fighter, 9th level Cleric, 11th level Magic-User, 11th level Thief).

A 9th level fighter would have 49.5 hps.

The highest hit dice a 11th level Bard could have are 7d10 (7th level Fighter)+2d6 (9th level Thief) +10d6 (11th level Bard) or 79.5 hps. Hit dice worked differently, when the PC dual classed to Thief he would not get any more hit points until Thief 8, which would come before he would have got to Fighter 8 if he stayed a fighter.

To do this though you would need a 15 Strength, 17 Dexterity, 15 Wisdom, 12 Intelligence, 10 Constitution and 15 Charisma. It is extremely difficult to get those rolls.

 

[mixmastashizz]

Yes a lot more. Leveling worked differently so a F7/T9/B11 is not a 27th level character. They would have around 400,000xp which would be around an 10th level single classed character (9th level Fighter, 9th level Cleric, 11th level Magic-User, 11th level Thief).

A 9th level fighter would have 49.5 hps.

The highest hit dice a 11th level Bard could have are 7d10 (7th level Fighter)+2d6 (9th level Thief) +10d6 (11th level Bard) or 79.5 hps. Hit dice worked differently, when the PC dual classed to Thief he would not get any more hit points until Thief 8, which would come before he would have got to Fighter 8 if he stayed a fighter.

To do this though you would need a 15 Strength, 17 Dexterity, 15 Wisdom, 12 Intelligence, 10 Constitution and 15 Charisma. It is extremely difficult to get those rolls.

I presumed the 15 dexterity requirement in the PHB appendix superseded the dual classing 17 score requirement. The class is already hard enough to qualify for as is.

 

[James Gasik]

I presumed the 15 dexterity requirement in the PHB appendix superseded the dual classing 17 score requirement. The class is already hard enough to qualify for as is.

Let's be honest- nobody really knows how the Bard class is supposed to work. Snarf has probably done the most in-depth examination of it that I've seen, but there's still a lot of questions (like Half-Elf Fighter/Thieves becoming Bards) that I don't think were ever answered.

But there might be a Sage Advice on it that I missed.

 

[mixmastashizz]

Let's be honest- nobody really knows how the Bard class is supposed to work. Snarf has probably done the most in-depth examination of it that I've seen, but there's still a lot of questions (like Half-Elf Fighter/Thieves becoming Bards) that I don't think were ever answered.

But there might be a Sage Advice on it that I missed.

The real beauty of AD&D is that the language is just vague enough that the DM is always right

 

[James Gasik]

The real beauty of AD&D is that the language is just vague enough that the DM is always right

I've encountered quite a few DM's who would insist they were right even when the language is clear as day, lol.