Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8248827" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I am going to have to 100% disagree with that, because it ignores a lot of things the fighter could do, under the rules, that people tend to overlook that did not play extensively in 1e.To start:1. Fighters were the only class that could take advantage of percentile strength, which made fighters the best melee combatants, which made fighters the best combatants (since melee was better than missile in 1e). Just think- any class other than fighter was restricted to +1, +2, whereas fighters could go all the way to +3, +6, and they could even open magically locked doors. 2. Fighter were the only class that could take advantage of the hit point bonuses for having a Con of over 16. If you wanted more hit points, you needed to be a fighter- otherwise you were stuck, at best, with +2hp/level (fighter could get up to +4). 3. Of course, fighters were also the only class that got d10 hit points. So there was that, too.4. Fighters were the only class that could use any weapon (okay, assassins as well). Every other class had massive weapon restrictions- not the fighter.5. Fighter (and clerics) were the only class that had unrestricted armor and shields. 6. Fighters got multiple attacks per round; no other class did. Finally, fighters had a huge selection of magic items because they had unrestricted armor and weapons- in addition to the things they had as fighters. I can't emphasize this enough- fighters rocked in 1e. The ability to wear any magic armor and use any magic shield meant that the fighter would have a low ac, quickly- and low ac really, really mattered. The ability to use any magic weapon (subject to proficiencies, of course, which again ... the fighter was best at) meant that the fighter was dealing the most consistent damage. The issue was just that the Paladin and the Ranger got everything the fighter did, plus more.</blockquote>

Verification