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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah. In a gold=XP system, I like the idea that you have to get your treasure to a town or other safe place with people in order to actually gain the XP. Some OSR games do this now.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

I think the reason I bounce off any hard line discussion of 1e rules is just the actual structure and organization of the books themselves. I was maybe 13 or 14 years old when I first bought my 1e Player's Handbook? I couldn't make it through A Tale of Two Cities for my Freshman English Class, let alone the PHB!

So yeah, we kind of go back now and say "Oh, well, it was there! Absolutely! Page 106!" but at the time, that stuff was really easy to miss and if you did catch it, it didn't seem nearly as required as "Hey, you get this many XP, you move to level 2". And also, I didn't have the DMG at first! Because I was going to play first! Couldn't have the DMG!

Maybe it's again, the Gygaxian language. If everything is always stressed as of being the "utmost importance that you do this", then maybe none of the rules are really of the utmost importance?

Edit: And actually, as I go back and look at that entry in the PHB, it doesn't mention the training being necessary!

When a sufficient number of experience points have been gained, the character will gain an experience level (see CHARACTER CLASSES).

And in fact, it says this:

While praying and religious-oriented acts are more properly the activities for which a cleric would gain experience points, this is not the stuff of exciting swords & sorcery adventure. So too, fighters need physical training and weapons practice, magic-users long hours of study in tomes of arcane lore, and
thieves the repetition of their manual skills and discretionary prowess; but none of this is suitable to gaming. It is, therefore, discarded and subsumed
as taking place on a character's "off hours".

 

[Lord Shark]

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.

Magic gear as a power add is fine. Magic everything is silly, and a major contributor to making magic feel uninteresting (especially if most of your magic gear is boring, flavorless +whatever items). I remember one of the characters from Gygax's home campaign that was reprinted in one of the Character Folders, who had so many magic rings that they carried them on little chains attached to their wrists so they could switch them out quickly. How do you not laugh at that?

Stormbringer wouldn't be as cool if Elric were carrying around a dozen other demon-inhabited items. Anduril wouldn't be as meaningful if Strider were also dragging along the cloak, shield, helmet, boots, and nose-ring of the true heir of Gondor.

And I'd rather play a character whose capabilities are innate, rather than one who's dependent on a "cool" magic sword that any town guard could pick up and be just as cool.
But, to each their own.

 

[jolt]

Fighters were okay, but not as good as Bards. Then again, what is?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the bottom line is that 1e was much better balanced RAW than people give it credit. However, those rules were complex and very user-unfriendly, so most people didn't end up using them RAW, which let to perceived balance issues. Different issues at each table because we all house ruled differently.

It shouldn't be a big surprise than an insurance underwriter ensured there was balance, and also that it was complex and not easy for the layperson to understand

 

[Flying Toaster]

(not a crossbow, because 1E/2E crossbows were worthless)

I have never come across an explanation for why crossbows were so weak in AD&D, when IRL they were super effective. When I first got the 2E PHB I loved most of the new rules, but was baffled that they actually buffed long bows with the addition of sheaf arrows (1d8 damage) while leaving crossbows to languish.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have never come across an explanation for why crossbows were so weak in AD&D, when IRL they were super effective. When I first got the 2E PHB I loved most of the new rules, but was baffled that they actually buffed long bows with the addition of sheaf arrows (1d8 damage) while leaving crossbows to languish.

It was the loading time. If they wanted to balance it out more accurately, they should have had a minimum STR requirement for longbows and not required a weapon prof slot for a crossbow. I think those two things would have resulted in more people using crossbows like we did historically.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Magic gear as a power add is fine. Magic everything is silly, and a major contributor to making magic feel uninteresting (especially if most of your magic gear is boring, flavorless +whatever items). I remember one of the characters from Gygax's home campaign that was reprinted in one of the Character Folders, who had so many magic rings that they carried them on little chains attached to their wrists so they could switch them out quickly. How do you not laugh at that?

Stormbringer wouldn't be as cool if Elric were carrying around a dozen other demon-inhabited items. Anduril wouldn't be as meaningful if Strider were also dragging along the cloak, shield, helmet, boots, and nose-ring of the true heir of Gondor.

And I'd rather play a character whose capabilities are innate, rather than one who's dependent on a "cool" magic sword that any town guard could pick up and be just as cool.
But, to each their own.

So maybe don't have dozens of artifact swords and magic rings in your campaigns? Or pass the excess over to allies and henchmen, or give them as kingly gifts to important NPCs you want to impress? There are ways of dealing with this.

As to your last comment, that's obviously a matter of personal taste.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the bottom line is that 1e was much better balanced RAW than people give it credit. However, those rules were complex and very user-unfriendly, so most people didn't end up using them RAW, which let to perceived balance issues. Different issues at each table because we all house ruled differently.

It shouldn't be a big surprise than an insurance underwriter ensured there was balance, and also that it was complex and not easy for the layperson to understand

A rewritten/re-organized 1e and/or B/X and/or BECMI (which several OSR games functionally are) is amazing!

I guess I'm just advocating old school gaming.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A rewritten/re-organized 1e and/or B/X and/or BECMI (which several OSR games functionally are) is amazing!

I guess I'm just advocating old school gaming.

Most retroclones (mine included) mirror the tables and core rules while omitting the more complicated stuff (like initiative, spell interruptions, weapon profs, speed factors, and other stuff that favored the fighter). Basically, in many retroclones, we kinda neutered the fighter's effectiveness compared to 1e RAW.

So, thinking out loud here, if I were to do another retroclone, as a way to make up for those complex rules that helped the fighter (because who wants to go back to weird complex rules), I'd do the following. Changes while keeping true to the core mechanics of AD&D

• fighters roll 2 HD at every level for HP gain, taking the highest value.
• martials at a certain level roll two damage dice, taking the highest value.
• at a certain level, fighters can increase weapon reach
• thieves can choose two skills to be experts in. Those two skills gain a 35% bonus. So you're at least pretty good at something reliably at level one instead of sucking at everything until higher levels. And you have a pool of points you can distribute like 2e does.