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

[fuindordm]

3e turns casting time into a standard action, so generally only disrupted if a fighter readies an action to single attack (giving up full attacks) during casting, or if casting in melee you provoke an attack of opportunity (but the caster can make a DC 15 skill check to not provoke) and then there is a concentration check to not get disrupted if you take damage.

This was one of the biggests shifts in the game experience between 1e/2e and later editions.

When spellcasters no longer needed to fear getting disrupted, they had to nerf many iconic spells to keep some kind of parity. So from 3rd edition on, spells gradually weakened and became more like standard attacks. Until we reach 5th edition where sometimes I feel like a wizard is just a fighter who uses pretty lights instead of weapons. The sentiment is exaggerated and a little unfair, but the gradual convergence of the classes to a common standard is very real.

This is one of the big reasons I recently went back to running 1st edition. Yes, the PH is rife with save-or-suck spells, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Players love it when they can take 2 or 3 opponents out of combat with a single spell. But if they don't want to risk getting hit with hold person, then they need to keep a watchful eye out for the enemy cleric and not give them a chance to cast if they can possibly help it!

In 1st edition spells are more powerful but also harder to cast successfully, and the difficulties are tactical in nature rather than an abstract limitation like a skill roll. Being a spellcaster means something far more than "I buff" or "I have some AOE abilities". Every class has its own distinct challenges and incentives that change the player's way of interacting with the game world.

 

[James Gasik]

I've often said this before, but I don't actually believe AD&D spellcasters were all that powerful compared to their modern counterparts. Consider the following:

*Spells above 7th level were relegated to Wizards only.
*Spells not only could be easily interrupted if you took so much as a point of damage, but you were also considerably more vulnerable to attacks while casting.
*Wizards did not have full control over the spells they could cast, and could easily miss out on some of the better spells. The 1e DMG infamously advised the DM to make Wizard spell acquisition incredibly heinous, with many NPC's refusing to teach spells unless you handed them magic items!
*Many spells were "Save neg.", and as you rose in level, it became more likely for your foes to make their saving throw.
*Not a few monsters had defenses against spells, such as immunities.
*Magic Resistance was not uncommon, and while it became somewhat more tolerable at higher levels in 1e (where MR went down past level 11) it was truly horrid at lower levels. In 2e, it was bad at all levels, and it sometimes felt like it was handed out like candy to foes.
*Other planes or specialty settings often had huge lists of spell alterations (Ravenloft and Spelljammer are standouts, but just take a gander at Beyond the Crystal Cave!), often with no way of the spellcaster being aware of this beforehand.
*You had more spell slots, but memorizing spells into them took longer, and at higher levels, it could take multiple days to completely refill your spell slots.
*Getting to higher level as a Wizard was incredibly difficult- you had the defensive quality of single-ply tissue paper, the early levels took large amounts of xp, and you often could only cast a few spells each day, the rest of your time being spent hiding in the back row throwing darts or oil. Infamously a 2e housecat could easily slay a 1st or even 2nd level Wizard!

The narrative power of a spellcaster at high levels was nothing to sneeze at, when you could create mighty fortresses of stone out of nowhere, obliterate huge numbers of weaker foes, have unbelievable defenses, create wealth out of nowhere, and be nearly impossible to kill, and this has never really changed, but the play experience during the "dungeon crawling" (pre-Name) levels was absolutely vile, which is the entire reason why spellcasting had to change.

Consider how some adventures will say things like "spell x or y is required" to overcome a challenge, making having a spellcaster incredibly vital, but actually playing one is so wretched an experience that few people (at least, IME) would even want to play one!*

*That having been said, the Thief was in a similar situation, yet remained oddly popular for some reason. I can't explain that, beyond some people getting the idea that the class encouraged you to be a backstabbing jerk to your fellow players.

Sure, a single fireball might be able to clean out most of a goblin warren, but it's not like those same goblins were that much of a threat to 5th-level Fighters to begin with!

 

[jolt]

The downside for non-spellcasters in 1E/2E is that once you hit your Name/Lord level, you didn't get much. Hit points gains at that point became marginal (and you didn't gain CON bonuses anymore), your THACO and saves improved, but it felt paltry compared to the powerful magics that spellcasters were getting.

 

[Voadam]

This was one of the biggests shifts in the game experience between 1e/2e and later editions.

When spellcasters no longer needed to fear getting disrupted, they had to nerf many iconic spells to keep some kind of parity. So from 3rd edition on, spells gradually weakened and became more like standard attacks. Until we reach 5th edition where sometimes I feel like a wizard is just a fighter who uses pretty lights instead of weapons. The sentiment is exaggerated and a little unfair, but the gradual convergence of the classes to a common standard is very real.

Spells have generally always been adjusted downward as editions progress.

Oe 1st level charm person generally makes the person your permanent slave if they miss their save. The duration and effects have gone down and changed each edition.

Charm Person: This spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the “Undead” class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls. If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the “charm” is dispelled (Dispel Magic). Range: 12”.

1e magic missile does 1 missile +1 per 2 levels and fireball and lightning bolt do 1d6 per level. 2e MM is capped at five missiles at 9th level and FB and LB are capped at 10d6 at 10th level. 3e keeps them at that 2e level while monsters go up in hp from con bonuses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The downside for non-spellcasters in 1E/2E is that once you hit your Name/Lord level, you didn't get much. Hit points gains at that point became marginal (and you didn't gain CON bonuses anymore), your THACO and saves improved, but it felt paltry compared to the powerful magics that spellcasters were getting.

That's when you move into the domain game.

 

[jasper]

One of the topics that comes up (you know, not often or anything ...) on D&D threads is the so-called "LFQW," or as other people like to call it, "Wizard Supremacy." This debate has gotten a lot of attention, especially since the introduction of 3e ... to which I would say ... of course Wizards are favored. They named the class after the company, amirite?

Anyway, I was looking at the various confusingly titled threads about AD&D we have going (about why people would either want to play 1e, or WANT to play 1e) and I realized that many people didn't realize quite how awesome the AD&D Fighter was. So I thought I'd do a brief historical thread and detail the ways in which the 1e Fighter could more than hold their own against the other classes. In, um, a fight. It's kind of in the name.

So, my usual disclaimers:

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.
-As always, if you get five 1e players to tell you how they played the game, you will get seven different versions. I am sure that your table played with different rules, or discarded some of these rules, or maybe you might be thinking of the time you were playing Traveler. It's all good. This is discussing the primary PHB + DMG rules that were widely used; I will note in the essay that some of the advantages may not have been employed at all tables for rules that I know were not widely employed (specifically, the casting time issue).
-Finally, this is about fighters. Paladins and Rangers are subclasses of the Fighter, and I'm not going to specifically talk about them. They're fine, especially for that one guy who always rolled a 17 charisma when no one else was looking. Yeah, I'm talking about you, Brad.
.......

Brad died of old age in 2012. Can't you forgive him now?

 

[Voadam]

The downside for non-spellcasters in 1E/2E is that once you hit your Name/Lord level, you didn't get much. Hit points gains at that point became marginal (and you didn't gain CON bonuses anymore), your THACO and saves improved, but it felt paltry compared to the powerful magics that spellcasters were getting.

They also got an extra attack per round per level against goblins and kobolds and other humanoids with less than 1 HD.

The actual big one for 1e PH fighters after name level at 9th is gaining that full second attack per round at 13th level.

 

[Lanefan]

The downside for non-spellcasters in 1E/2E is that once you hit your Name/Lord level, you didn't get much. Hit points gains at that point became marginal (and you didn't gain CON bonuses anymore), your THACO and saves improved, but it felt paltry compared to the powerful magics that spellcasters were getting.

Theory was that those name-level characters would retire and if the campaign were to continue you'd then play their henches etc. or roll up something new instead.

In other words, even though casters were designed out to 16th-18th the game had a soft cap at about 10th for what was expected to be played.

 

[Voadam]

Theory was that those name-level characters would retire and if the campaign were to continue you'd then play their henches etc. or roll up something new instead.

In other words, even though casters were designed out to 16th-18th the game had a soft cap at about 10th for what was expected to be played.

Eh, I think plenty expected to play past 9th level. The very first module G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief suggests nine at least 9th level PCs and has predone characters ranging from 9th to 14th level (plus Fonkin Hoddypeak elven multiclass 5/8 fighter MU with a -4 AC).