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

[Flying Toaster]

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.

Strict application of the training rules would also act as a disincentive to exploration. It would be hard to go hex-crawling over the hills and far away, or sailing off into the wild blue yonder, if you know that you cannot level up until returning to a home base of some sort. Explorers would have to hope they can stumble across friendly high level NPCs willing and able to train, or else get stuck at current level for who knows how long.

 

[fuindordm]

Weapon spec is so good that in my campaign I felt the need to give single-classes clerics, thieves and MUs their own forms of specialization.
Clerics - similar to the Suel pantheon series in Dragon but with more consistent bonuses. Not as powerful as 2e specialist priests.
MUs - similar to 2e specialists but player makes their own school / theme, not the broad academic schools
Thieves - various options like burglar, swashbuckler or arcanist to boost one aspect of play.

 

[mixmastashizz]

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.

Thank goodness OSRIC 3 is in development!

 

[mixmastashizz]

Strict application of the training rules would also act as a disincentive to exploration. It would be hard to go hex-crawling over the hills and far away, or sailing off into the wild blue yonder, if you know that you cannot level up until returning to a home base of some sort. Explorers would have to hope they can stumble across friendly high level NPCs willing and able to train, or else get stuck at current level for who knows how long.

Well, there are rules for training without a mentor, it just takes twice as long (and therefore twice as much gold )

There is also precedent in some of the early 1e modules (G series IIRC) that straight up say that training for levels may be impractical and to skip it for those circumstances.

 

[Flying Toaster]

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?

In retrospect it is kind of amazing how EGG’s writing could be so verbose while also being so thoroughly opaque, leaving important game design goals in near obscurity. Ironic that Gygax’s favorite class, the fighter, may have suffered the most from having so many of its class features (e.g. magic swords, disrupting mage spells, etc) left unstated.

Contrast with the Draw Steel rulebook which apparently says something like, “Here is what you can do with this game. We drew inspiration from games A, B, and C. If you would rather do X, Y, or Z, you might want to just play those games instead.”

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

well i'd say there's two main points to that attitude, the first being wanting VS needing, 'well how much of the awesome i'm doing is actually my character?' AKA 'if you're nothing without the suit then you shouldn't be a hero in the first place', being reliant on a sack of magic trinkets kind of undermines how capable your character feels by themself, especially if you could give those trinkets to the rest of your already-independently-capable party members to raise them up even higher, the job of magic items is not to make mediocre adventurers good, but to make great adventurers excellent.

the other aspect is oversaturation diminishes their perceived value, if you've got more magic rings than fingers and enough weapons to start your own armoury then they stop feeling important and meaningful.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Well, there are rules for training without a mentor, it just takes twice as long (and therefore twice as much gold )

There is also precedent in some of the early 1e modules (G series IIRC) that straight up say that training for levels may be impractical and to skip it for those circumstances.

Well that makes more sense. Interesting that the GDQ series was probably what made me think of it in the first place. I don’t think the drow city would have a Paladin’s Guild where you could practice jousting.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

This. Also, slings. Had Gary never heard of Balearic Slingers?

 

[Flying Toaster]

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.

I like putting the magic back into magic items by giving more of them names, histories, notable former owners, and extra powers that are themed in some way. Maybe the powers need to be unlocked gradually, as the new PC proves that they are worthy to wield this ancient weapon or eldritch staff. Those articles about famous spellbooks that Ed Greenwood wrote for Dragon were quite good.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I am experiencing some Mandela Effect here regarding missile weapons. I could have sworn that clerics, druids, mages, and illusionists could all use slings, and that thieves could use slings, short bows, and light crossbows. Was this a change from PHB to UA, or just a house rule I thought was official? I remember making sure that my 1E characters all had some kind of missile weapon if at all practical, just in case.