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

[Willie the Duck]

Is there a larger point to draw from this? Maybe ... maybe that the fighter's original versatility ... the fact that it could do all the things that were expressly prohibited to other classes ... was what made it so awesome and was its defining trait ... that this defining trait has been eroded away as express prohibitions have fallen away, making the fighter's core trait (its niche) no longer viable ... maybe that's a point? Maybe. That's for others to decide. All I know is that the 1e Fighter was a fearsome class. If you don't believe me, take it up with Robilar.

I think the larger point or takeaway (at least for me) is that the base qualities of the fighter like more hit points, extra attacks, being able to leverage attributes to their highest potential, and being able to use all the combat equipment (both magical and mundane) were, by themselves, a huge part of what made an AD&D fighter great. Perhaps a side corollary being that it's easy to miss how valuable or effective it really was.

We can go into any number of side tangents about how it incentivizes roll-until-statisfied, the design consequences of putting class features on the equipment/loot table (and what happens when DMs/future developers then change things), or how often people actually used 1e initiative (and how that effected spell disruption). But, at the end of the day, a fighter was special because they were the only ones that could throw down against the big creatures in the book with lots of hp and high damage outputs. And that was because they were the only ones likely to be able to have those big numbers in the HP, AC, saves, and damage/round columns.

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).

I kinda disagree on this. Getting a fighter to 18/76+ strength and/or a high Dex or Con (admittedly often with those magic items) was absolutely huge. True about saves -- a fighter (or most classes, really) could ignore int, wis, and cha a lot more readily, and certainly the difference between a 14 and a 3 in tertiary stats rarely made much difference.

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) ...

Yes, this was part of the design process. There weren't really options for a high defense mage or a high damage cleric. If you wanted to be out there taking attacks and responding in kind, you had to be a fighter (-type). Therefore, being able to do that (with simple AC, HP, attack to-hit/rate/damage) was an actual benefit that felt good to get.

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.

We could quibble about whether they are 'innate,' but I get your point. To make them truly like the 1e model, it might be something like this*:

• add a second weapon chart, with weapons that do more damage. Only fighters (and for some of them, rogues) can use these weapons. 70% of magic weapons found in-game are from this list.
• Do the same for armor, except clerics are the ones that can also use them.
• Have fighters get double-bonus (i.e. a 16 dex gives you a +6) from attributes.
• Fighters are the only type to get the multi-attack ability (no bladesingers, valor bards, bladelocks, etc.).
• Fighters over level 7** get a plus to all saves equal to their tier (or proficiency bonus if we're feeling extra generous).

*I am leaving the discussion about what to do about rangers, paladins, barbarians, and monks out of this discussion, as I don't really care if they get grouped in with fighters for this, but it obviously would have a big effect on the resultant game. Choose one way or the other for your own thought experiment.
**I read recently that that's the usual cutoff for how high people end up playing characters, and it was just mentioned in one of these threads that 1e fighters didn't actually get better saves natively (not coming from having the highest + armors, rings, etc.) until levels above where most games ended.

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.

The weapon system for AD&D is absolutely borked (especially if you didn't use weapon vs. AC, which apparently very few of us did). At least when combined with a weapon proficiency system where you have to pick your proficiencies not knowing what magic loot you will run into. Fighters only having a -2 to non-proficient weapons helps a lot here, although if you run into a +2 horseman's flail and fight at it with -2 for 1d4+3, are you really ahead (magic-requiring enemies notwithstanding)?

The primary advantage for a fighter is that they got to use plate armor, shields, longswords, two-handed swords (more useful if your DM didn't use the DMG rules on what swords were magical), lances, and longbows. The ability to use a suit of +4 scale mail or +3 guisarme-voulge if you stumbled across one was a tertiary benefit at best.

That said, you could use the magic longswords, and the magic plate armor, and there were many of those to be had. More to the point, there were only so many magic daggers, and maces/hammers/slings, and leather armor. So you got the pick of the pile and the rest of the group had at least one category (offense or defense) where they had to vie for what little was offered.

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.

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

I think you are both right. TSR-era D&D made good use of magic items to customize your character the way that modern D&D uses feats and other build choices (which make massive amounts of magic items superfluous and maybe even detracting). I think both have their place, but can step on each others' toes. 3e (at least 'internet theoretical 3e') certainly ran into that with a 'WBL Christmas tree or magic items, but most of them just rebalancing numbers upwards' potential. More to the point, TSR-era A/D&D worked very well as a treasure-hunter game -- it used and incentivized item acquisition and made acquiring more to get better at acquiring it fun. It has its place and I think it best to recognize where and when it works best.

 

[billd91]

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.

Let's face it, the leveling up and training rules didn't make a lot of sense either. They were pretty crippling to the thief as well considering one of those could level up based on XP long before they had the money to do actually do so.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Agreed. On all counts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's almost like all these rules that favored fighters (spell interruption, initiative, speed factors, HP bonuses, leveling rules, weapon profs) were ignored or houseruled and then people complained the fighter was weak.

 

[TiQuinn]

Let's face it, the leveling up and training rules didn't make a lot of sense either. They were pretty crippling to the thief as well considering one of those could level up based on XP long before they had the money to do actually do so.

Yeah, we never did this. We just leveled when the XP was reached, but only when the current adventure was concluded, and the party had reached a place of safety. Why? Because nothing in the PHB seemed to indicate that wasn't what you were supposed to do, and so much of 1e D&D was attempting to read between the lines or find that one passage in that one book somewhere in the middle of a sea of text. Also, leveling your character not appearing in the PHB? What? lol.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Let's face it, the leveling up and training rules didn't make a lot of sense either. They were pretty crippling to the thief as well considering one of those could level up based on XP long before they had the money to do actually do so.

I mean ... I will slightly defend the levelling up and training rules. But in context.

Maybe this is one of those things that would require a longer essay. But if you accept the following premise, then the level and training rules make complete sense:

Premise: In AD&D, rules were rules. They were often put in for reasons of purely "game" balance, even if they did not always make sense in some grand "society" sense, and players just accepted the rules.

Let me briefly explain with two example. First, the canonical "Druids don't wear metal armor." Why not? Because they didn't. That meant ... that they didn't. What happened if they did? I don't know*, because they didn't. That was the rule. In much the same way that a Magic User didn't use a sword. Did it make ... I dunno ... actual sense that no Magic User, ever, for any reason, couldn't, um, use a sword? If they touched one, did their hand fall off? If a monk saw a monster standing in a pool of oil, and tried to light it on fire, did the monk burst into flames instead? There weren't questions, because the rules said that this didn't happen. You were playing a game. These were the rules to the game. You accepted them.

Did it "make sense" that to level you always had to take off weeks and spend a serious amount of money? I mean ... not really? Sure, there was some random lore put in there so it would make a little more sense (Bards and colleges). But why do clerics and fighters and thieves all spend money and train in the same way? And paladins? Because it's the rule.

But once you accept that this is a rule, the rule actually works for the game. It provides a reason for accumulating gold (you need gold to level). It provides a break on fast levelling, and on trying to "level up" low-level characters in mixed parties. It serves as a final guard so that a serendipitous discovery won't zoom characters through several levels. Finally, it provides a tension between staying on an adventure and choosing to take a break- do you continue on, or do you take off several weeks (and who knows what might change in those weeks)?

You have to remember that AD&D wasn't a designed system. It was a system that was evolved over time- from OD&D, through play. This rule is a reaction to play. But it's also a great example of how AD&D has a lot of bespoke subsystems, all of which can make sense in isolation, but ... sometimes they don't play well together.

So this rule makes perfect sense. And then you can say, "Well, the rules for less XP for the thief makes perfect sense, so it can level a little more quickly." You can understand why the different classes have different XP amounts. But ... the different XP amount rule, in practice, doesn't play well with the level and advancement rule.

I would note that the level and advancement rule, IIRC, comes later in the evolution.



*They exploded, of course.

 

[TiQuinn]

I mean ... I will slightly defend the levelling up and training rules. But in context.

Maybe this is one of those things that would require a longer essay. But if you accept the following premise, then the level and training rules make complete sense:

Premise: In AD&D, rules were rules. They were often put in for reasons of purely "game" balance, even if they did not always make sense in some grand "society" sense, and players just accepted the rules.

Let me briefly explain with two example. First, the canonical "Druids don't wear metal armor." Why not? Because they didn't. That meant ... that they didn't. What happened if they did? I don't know*, because they didn't. That was the rule. In much the same way that a Magic User didn't use a sword. Did it make ... I dunno ... actual sense that no Magic User, ever, for any reason, couldn't, um, use a sword? If they touched one, did their hand fall off? If a monk saw a monster standing in a pool of oil, and tried to light it on fire, did the monk burst into flames instead? There weren't questions, because the rules said that this didn't happen. You were playing a game. These were the rules to the game. You accepted them.

Did it "make sense" that to level you always had to take off weeks and spend a serious amount of money? I mean ... not really? Sure, there was some random lore put in there so it would make a little more sense (Bards and colleges). But why do clerics and fighters and thieves all spend money and train in the same way? And paladins? Because it's the rule.

But once you accept that this is a rule, the rule actually works for the game. It provides a reason for accumulating gold (you need gold to level). It provides a break on fast levelling, and on trying to "level up" low-level characters in mixed parties. It serves as a final guard so that a serendipitous discovery won't zoom characters through several levels. Finally, it provides a tension between staying on an adventure and choosing to take a break- do you continue on, or do you take off several weeks (and who knows what might change in those weeks)?

You have to remember that AD&D wasn't a designed system. It was a system that was evolved over time- from OD&D, through play. This rule is a reaction to play. But it's also a great example of how AD&D has a lot of bespoke subsystems, all of which can make sense in isolation, but ... sometimes they don't play well together.

So this rule makes perfect sense. And then you can say, "Well, the rules for less XP for the thief makes perfect sense, so it can level a little more quickly." You can understand why the different classes have different XP amounts. But ... the different XP amount rule, in practice, doesn't play well with the level and advancement rule.

I would note that the level and advancement rule, IIRC, comes later in the evolution.



*They exploded, of course.

Okay, but by the same token, one of the rules of the game was also that before you even got to the training, the DM had to grade your performance in your chosen class based on a letter grade system of E, S, F and P, and if you ask me how I know that, it's because I just looked it up because I don't know if I ever knew that before, but if I did, I would've laughed it off.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone using this. Why? Probably because just intuitively the idea of the DM judging how you play your character probably rankled a lot of people. I'm willing to bet this rule, as many others, simply got discarded with very little impact on the actual play of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I've never understood some people's aversion to magic gear as a power add. It has plenty of precedent in modern fiction and mythology, and IMO it's just cool. Plus, magic is amazing. Having sweet magic gear is IMO a perfectly acceptable to way to keep up in a world full of it,and 1e specifically designed the fighter to be best at it.

But, to each their own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yay! This is why every player should have more than one PC available for play, and switch off so everyone gets time to level.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay, but by the same token, one of the rules of the game was also that before you even got to the training, the DM had to grade your performance in your chosen class based on a letter grade system of E, S, F and P, and if you ask me how I know that, it's because I just looked it up because I don't know if I ever knew that before, but if I did, I would've laughed it off.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone using this. Why? Probably because just intuitively the idea of the DM judging how you play your character probably rankled a lot of people. I'm willing to bet this rule, as many others, simply got discarded with very little impact on the actual play of the game.

While I've known of tables that used that particular rule, most tables I know of either didn't use it or simply applied a multiplier of 1 (E) by default- which is the same thing. Basically, the levelling and training rules were the regular combat rules, the grading was the "Weapon v. AC adjustment".

By the way- this was mentioned in the PHB. Again, the PHB in 1e was not canonical for some areas of the gaming; it was assumed that the players would have more limited information and that the DMG would fill in the rest. But it's on page 106.

Finally, clerics' major aims are to use their spell abilities to aid during any given encounter, fighters aim to engage in combat, magic-users aim to cast spells, thieves aim to make gain by stealth, and monks aim to use their unusual talents to come to successful ends. If characters gain treasure by pursuit of their major aims, then they are generally entitled to a full share of earned experience points awarded by the DM.

I think Gygax changed his mind between the PHB and the DMG - instead of doing it as a share of XP, he moved it to a multiplier of weeks (so it added time and money). By the way, the PHB also mentions (although doesn't detail) the fact that you don't get XP until you return from adventuring to a base of operations.