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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Disclaimers: This is the stuff you ignore before getting your blood all angered up and arguing in the comments!
-I am discussing the 1e PHB Fighter.
-I am NOT discussing the OD&D Fighting Man.
-I am NOT discussing the 2e Fighter, optional rules in Dragon Magazine, or weapon specialization introduced in UA. Although weapon specialization did help fighters.

@Snarf Zagyg - your disclaimer list is missing one key point: are you talking about the pre-UA 1e Fighter or the post-UA 1e Fighter?

Weapon specialization in UA made a pretty big difference between the two. Pre-UA the Fighter was great. Post-UA the Fighter was, at low levels, a bit broken.

¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[TiQuinn]

One of the things that Snarf noted but seems slightly under-acknowledged in these responses (understandably for non-1e folks) is the degree to which early editions use magic items to increase PC power rather then stats (which of course can/are often be increased by items as well). Stats matter in 1E, but not as much as they do in later editions (saving throws for example aren't entirely stat based and there aren't usually stat based skills for example).

A second factor here is the degree that items (or their lack) increases the weaknesses of non-fighter classes. By mid level many monsters do quite large amounts of damage and hit normal ACs (7-4 say) rather often - meaning that only a fighter (or maybe a cleric) in magic armor with a lot of HP can really stand against monster attack for more then a round or two. The survivability of MU's likely goes down compared to threats as they level while Fighters may go up or at least stays the same (of course MUs become far more dangerous offensively) ... What this ultimately means is that party cooperation is encouraged in higher level play because PCs become more and more specialized.

Again - magic items emphasize these distinctions and are a core part of AD&D (especially AD&D) advancement. This itself becomes more interesting as items are one of the most frequently and easily added pieces of content for adventure designers and referees...

This, to me, is the reason to go back to 1e and 2e. The magic items are the key to customizing your character, they are the way you improve them, and the only way you’re going to find magic items is by adventuring deeper into that dungeon. What will you get? Who knows? You arguably could have to bargain with another player about who’s going to get the Flame Tongue long sword which could go onto basically define your fighter for the rest of the game!

From 3e on, this particular feel in the game gets lost. The magic items are present, but your class abilities and feats start to chip away or sometimes completely eliminate the need for magic items.

Edit: And when i say go back, I’m not suggesting that’s what should be done in a next edition of the game. I’m saying for a completely different feel of the game, going back and playing those versions is worthwhile, as long as you understand why it’s different from 3e, 4e, 5e, etc

 

[J-H]

I implemented the "HP growth stops at 10" in my Baldur's Gate II game (alongside a LOT of magic item availability). I've been very happy with it. Only the martials and rogue are over 100hp at level 17.

The one fight where an enemy wizard opened with Meteor Swarm did involve the Cleric going down in round 1, but the Cleric was always the one to drop first anyway due to lack of damage mitigation options.

I think it's helpful that a Fireball or Chain Lightning casting are still a real threat at high levels. With the normal unlimited growth, I've had 15th-level parties shrug off a Fireball. I'm running another 20th level game right now where some 20th level characters are just "getting low" after a Fireball, Firestorm, and 2 Chain Lightnings plus some other stuff.

 

[Lord Shark]

I've always thought "Fighters can use ANY weapon and ANY armor" was overrated because, let's be honest, in most 1E games you'd be wearing the heaviest armor you can afford, and if you're proficient in a sword, a bow (not a crossbow, because 1E/2E crossbows were worthless), and a dagger you're probably set for the entire campaign. Yeah, you might be frustrated if you somehow stumble across a guisarme-voulge +3 and can't use it, but how likely is that to ever happen? I certainly don't remember it ever happening during my 1E days.

I'm also happy the game has moved away from fighters being Magic Loot: The Class. I look back at the fighters in 1E adventures, dripping with magic armor, magic shields, multiple magic weapons, magic rings, magic helms, magic cloaks, etc., and it just seems kind of silly now. If you have only one or two magic items, they feel a lot more special than if you're coated with magic down to your underwear.

 

[billd91]

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?

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.

Here's where you're not making the right connection. That 10th level bard isn't really a 20-24th level AD&D character at all. If a prospective bard maxes fighter duration (7th level, 70,0001 XP), then maxes thief duration (8th level, +70,0001 XP), and then to bard (10th level, +110,000 XP), his hit points are 7d10+1d6+9d6 (average 73.5 hp). That would be less than a fighter with 9d10+33. But here's the rub...
The bard hits 10th level at a shade over 250,000 XP with all those hit dice. At that XP total, the fighter is just getting to his 9d10 and average 49.5 hp. Even if the bard has had to waste a lot of XP in leveling up (due to following training rules), he's still LEVELS ahead of the fighter in accumulated hit dice (though, honestly, not really in overall power).

So yeah, a bard absolutely COULD have more hit points than the fighter after equivalent adventuring.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Bard rolls fighter HP up to 7th level, so the same as a fighter until then.
Then the fighter stops rolling hit dice at level 9,and no longer gets con bonus for HP. Meanwhile the bard as thief is rolling 1d6 + con bonus for another 8 levels, when the fighter gets 3HP.
Then they get to roll again as bard, again with con bonus for another 11 levels. Thats about 18 levels of rolling dice with con bonus while the fighter gets just +3/level.
Equal level is not the best metric either, equal XP is a better one. The bard is likely to go up most of those thief levels real fast, it costs 250,000 xp for fighter to level from 8 to 9, which is more than the entire bard progression as a thief is 70,000k.

Doesn't quite work like that. By the time you reach level 9 fighter (250,001 XP), you're already level 10 bard if you went F5/T5, then bard. From F5 to F6 is 17,000 XP, so in that one level up, if you went thief from F5, you'd hit T5 with 17,000 XP. At which point you go right to Bard. Bard 1 is 0 extra hp, with 1d6 thereafter. When you hit 250,001 total XP, you're a F9 and Bard 10.

So yes, the bard can have a lot more HP after level 6 because you've got essentially 19 hit die your rolling compared to 6. But it should be noted that the below does not factor in any Con bonus at all. Because the Bard requires a 15 in STR, DEX, and CHA, you're not going to have a Con bonus, odds wise. The fighter could put their highest or second highest stat in CON when you can't do that with the bard.

So let's look at it again with a Con bonus for a fighter (if you have a 17 Con or higher, the fighter gets +3 or more all the way to level 9, while the bard only gets it to level F5, then it becomes +2 max, so the numbers would be even closer.)

With a +2 CON bonus, the fighter catches back up at higher levels

With an 18 CON:

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Here's where you're not making the right connection. That 10th level bard isn't really a 20-24th level AD&D character at all. If a prospective bard maxes fighter duration (7th level, 70,0001 XP), then maxes thief duration (8th level, +70,0001 XP), and then to bard (10th level, +110,000 XP), his hit points are 7d10+1d6+9d6 (average 73.5 hp). That would be less than a fighter with 9d10+33. But here's the rub...
The bard hits 10th level at a shade over 250,000 XP with all those hit dice. At that XP total, the fighter is just getting to his 9d10 and average 49.5 hp. Even if the bard has had to waste a lot of XP in leveling up (due to following training rules), he's still LEVELS ahead of the fighter in accumulated hit dice (though, honestly, not really in overall power).

So yeah, a bard absolutely COULD have more hit points than the fighter after equivalent adventuring.

There's a big yes, but ... to that.

Levelling in 1e could never be done in media res. By this, I mean that trying to compare exact XP amounts is never accurate ... to the extent you were actually following the rules even a little. And if you weren't following the rules - and doing some sort of "levelling by milestone," for example, then the problem is worse (because everyone advances, amirite?).

Let me explain. As soon as you hit the requisite number of XP for your next level in AD&D, you stopped accumulating more XP. Full stop. You do not gain more, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

You are only eligible to advance a level. You do not gain that level until you spend the time and money to advance the level (which is a decent expenditure of weeks and gp). Bards, of course, have to not just pay their college tuition (heh), but also 50% of all the money they gained while adventuring (yep, even AD&D screws college kids, but since they're Bards, I approve).

Anyway, the point is this- if you're in the middle of an adventure and you hit your level goal, you stopped gaining XP while everyone else continued to gain. This is why the advantages of some classes in having low XP amounts wasn't that great in practice ... but it also prevented mixed-class parties from "levelling up" the lower classed characters among them. That said, it did provide a mechanism to ensure that levelling was capped at a reasonable pace and you didn't just zoom from level 1 to level 6 from finding a dragon hoard.

TLDR; if you were using the level rules for XP, the person trying to be a bard would always be capped out in adventures, and other PCs wouldn't want to take weeks off all the time to level them up in the middle of an adventure.

 

[Scribe]

i think people would cry bloody murder if the 5e fighter was redesigned to have half the innate advantages like 1e fighter did




...let's do it.

This is what I've been saying for so long. Let the Fighter be THE Fighter again, other systems do it, its not impossible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's a big yes, but ... to that.

Levelling in 1e could never be done in media res. By this, I mean that trying to compare exact XP amounts is never accurate ... to the extent you were actually following the rules even a little. And if you weren't following the rules - and doing some sort of "levelling by milestone," for example, then the problem is worse (because everyone advances, amirite?).

Let me explain. As soon as you hit the requisite number of XP for your next level in AD&D, you stopped accumulating more XP. Full stop. You do not gain more, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

You are only eligible to advance a level. You do not gain that level until you spend the time and money to advance the level (which is a decent expenditure of weeks and gp). Bards, of course, have to not just pay their college tuition (heh), but also 50% of all the money they gained while adventuring (yep, even AD&D screws college kids, but since they're Bards, I approve).

Anyway, the point is this- if you're in the middle of an adventure and you hit your level goal, you stopped gaining XP while everyone else continued to gain. This is why the advantages of some classes in having low XP amounts wasn't that great in practice ... but it also prevented mixed-class parties from "levelling up" the lower classed characters among them. That said, it did provide a mechanism to ensure that levelling was capped at a reasonable pace and you didn't just zoom from level 1 to level 6 from finding a dragon hoard.

TLDR; if you were using the level rules for XP, the person trying to be a bard would always be capped out in adventures, and other PCs wouldn't want to take weeks off all the time to level them up in the middle of an adventure.

This is true, but for my post above, I gave the benefit of the doubt that each time the bard had XP to level, they would level. But you're right, RAW, what would happen is:

"Hey, we just got 25,000 XP in that dungeon and I just started as a F5/T1, so I go to T6 right away!"
DM: "No, you go to T2. Because as soon as you get 1,250 XP, you stop getting it until you spend the time and gold to level up."

so to your point, RAW, the PCs would in theory level up at the same pace because the vast majority of XP would be "wasted" on the bard PC. Unless all the other PCs agree to do low level adventures or return back to town for 1-5 weeks after every room is cleared...


Hence my original comment about being 20th-24 level above. Because RAW, that's where you'd end up by the time you hit bard 10 or so.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is true, but for my post above, I gave the benefit of the doubt that each time the bard had XP to level, they would level. But you're right, RAW, what would happen is:

"Hey, we just got 25,000 XP in that dungeon and I just started as a F5/T1, so I go to T6 right away!"
DM: "No, you go to T2. Because as soon as you get 1,250 XP, you stop getting it until you spend the time and gold to level up."

so to your point, RAW, the PCs would in theory level up at the same pace because the vast majority of XP would be "wasted" on the bard PC. Unless all the other PCs agree to do low level adventures or return back to town for 1-5 weeks after every room is cleared...

Yeah. It's almost like that 1e Bard made no sense at all.

If you're one of those people that hates puppies, joy, and the cold side of the pillow and therefore demands to play a Bard in 1e, I would suggest playing one of the variant bards- either the original in Strategic Review #6 by Schwegman or the revised single class bard in Dragon #56 by Goelz.

Or, you know, do the right thing and exterminate the bard with extreme prejudice.