Was the fighter in 1E underpowered compared to the MU

[AxeMental]

In the thread concerning Weapons Specialization, there seems to be an idea that Gygax thought the fighter needed to be given a boost up compared to the MU. The evidence for this assertion is presented throughout that thread (and I have no reason to doubt it). But do you agree with EGG (assuming he did feel this way)? Personally, I've always thought just the opposite. What happens when an MU (even a wizard) falls down a shoot and ends up on another floor without his fighters....generally he's fucked. He gets off his party trick or two or three and then he recedes to the background throwing daggers (along with the pore monk, a topic for another discussion).

The idea that one class is stronger then another also seems to be not that applicable to 1E. Its based on the "specialist concept". A powerful group hits that first locked stone door and they better have their thief (who suddenly becomes the most powerful). I don't see how comparing the MU to the fighter is any more useful then comparing the fighter to any other class. Certainly thieves have it the toughest at high level.

Plus, isn't making the fighter more powerful kind of destroying the premise of the game. MUs should be more powerful because they are far more rare (one gets the impression learning to be a fighter is relatively quick, while learning to be a MU takes a good chunk of your life as an apprentice). Anyhow, curious to see if you think the fighter needs beefing up relative to the MU (as Gygax seemed to think).

[Matthew]

Nah, I agree with you. The fighter could probably stand to start with THAC0 19 or something (sucks that the average orc has a better THAC0 than a first level fighter), but I think there are already sufficient checks and balances between the two classes. Maybe at high levels the magician could stand to be a little less powerful and at low levels a little more, but we are literally talking about tweaking the spell ability progression chart, or maybe limiting the spells that are available, nothing drastic.

[James Maliszewski]

Nah, I agree with you. The fighter could probably stand to start with THAC0 19 or something (sucks that the average orc has a better THAC0 than a first level fighter), but I think there are already sufficient checks and balances between the two classes. Maybe at high levels the magician could stand to be a little less powerful and at low levels a little more, but we are literally talking about tweaking the spell ability progression chart, or maybe limiting the spells that are available, nothing drastic.

That's pretty much my opinion too.

[MojoBob]

I haven't done a mathematical analysis of their relative power levels, but I will just relate this anecdote:

Once upon a time, there were three characters: a fighter (me), a ranger (my friend), and a fighter-mage (my other friend, now my wife). They came upon a valley full of orcs, an army of evil massing to lay waste to the civilized lands not far away. Mindful of their responsibilities to protect the weak, the three characters, without thought for their own safety, immediately attacked the Forces of Evil.

By the time the fighter and ranger got to them, there were about a dozen orcs left alive out of the army. And they were only alive because the MU felt sorry for us, and left us a few to play with.

That still galls, to this very day.

What was the question again?

[Bargle]

The fighter could probably stand to start with THAC0 19 or something (sucks that the average orc has a better THAC0 than a first level fighter)

Since the 1st level fighter was classed as the veteren/leader from chainmail (+1 to dice)--someone else pointed this out recently, the +1 most assuredly was counted if using any of the combat matrices from CHAINMAIL.



So, I see it more as an oversight that the veteren fighter did not receive a +1 hit point, +1 to hit, +1 damage (incedentally, this answers the question should plate armor be made more expensive so that 1st level fighters can't afford it?...NO!) which is pretty much given to NPC elves and hobgoblins (1+1 HD d10 dmg = d8+1 using a longsword) and thac0 19.

But, the question isn't really about 1st leve per sel. It's "are fighters underpowered to MU" and for that we must look at HEROES and SEERS and SUPER HEROES and WIZARDS and the other combat systems other than the optional d20. A d&d 5th level wizard can still do 5d6 damage to a dragon, ogre, or hero in a single attack, using the CHAINMAIL combat system so can a 5th level fighter. A hero wizard can kill a fighter in a round, but so can the fighter dispatch the wizard. Now, use the optional combat matrix...the fighter now takes 3 rounds at least to kill the wizard (even in Ad&d), but the wizard remains unchanged in his puissance. For purposes of backwards compatability to CHAINMAIL, yes the hero needs buffing.

A fighter needs to be able to dish out his levelx6 in damage in a single round. You cannot make the argument that the wizard has only limited spells and therefore is allowed to do more damage than a fighter because soon he will resort to, "throwing daggers etc". A wand of fireballs has up to 100 charges!

[Matthew]

Since the 1st level fighter was classed as the veteran/leader from chainmail (+1 to dice)--someone else pointed this out recently, the +1 most assuredly was counted if using any of the combat matrices from CHAINMAIL.



So, I see it more as an oversight that the veteran fighter did not receive a +1 hit point, +1 to hit, +1 damage (incidentally, this answers the question should plate armor be made more expensive so that 1st level fighters can't afford it?...NO!) which is pretty much given to NPC elves and hobgoblins (1+1 HD d10 dmg = d8+1 using a longsword) and thac0 19.

Not likely. Gygax specifically made 0 level Men at Arms FA 0 (or THAC0 21) and first level fighters FA 1 (or THAC0 20), so the +1 is obviously already accounted for. I also find your reasoning regarding platemail to be very suspect, indeed. More likely the year long gap between the publication of the MM and the PHB accounts for the oddities of humanoid power levels..

[AxeMental]

I haven't done a mathematical analysis of their relative power levels, but I will just relate this anecdote:

Once upon a time, there were three characters: a fighter (me), a ranger (my friend), and a fighter-mage (my other friend, now my wife). They came upon a valley full of orcs, an army of evil massing to lay waste to the civilized lands not far away. Mindful of their responsibilities to protect the weak, the three characters, without thought for their own safety, immediately attacked the Forces of Evil.

By the time the fighter and ranger got to them, there were about a dozen orcs left alive out of the army. And they were only alive because the MU felt sorry for us, and left us a few to play with.

That still galls, to this very day.

What was the question again?

Yes, but your future wife was "the thief at the locked stone door" at that moment. Its in that situation a MU shines. It would be opposite if the group opened a door and a dozen ogres came running out picking her as their primary target (recognized as a possible wizard). At that point, its the fighters turn to shine, she falls back and maybe gets off a spell against a one or two.

Look at sleep (a first level spell). Same thing, how many 1st level fighters does it take to kill that many HDs in orcs? See, thats why I think this nose to nose comparison isn't really all that easy or relevant.

[Benoist]

"Underpowered"? What the hell? Are we on the WotC optimization boards, all of a sudden?

[Wheggi]

You just stole my thunder, Ben!

I am opposed to comparing the classes' "power" to each other. Each class in AD&D is what it is and performs in the manner designed.

This brings up another topic that really gets under my skin. Again and again (esp. with players in the last 15 years or so) I see guys who focus on how well they are doing as compared to the rest of the players, as if the game was a competition amongst each other. Even moreso, I see players getting pissed off when they "lose" against the other players. What the fuck is that all about? Since when did D&D become an arms race within the group? I know that when I play a character (like the aforementioned underpowered fighter) I care less about how I'm stacking up against my fellows. I'm part of the team, and hope to do as well as my class is capable of regardless of how other characters' progress is coming along.

- Wheggi

[Bargle]

Well, technically the first real proto-d&d campaign was actually pitted player vs. Player fighting over blackmoor castle so...

[Wheggi]

. . . soooooo, I was talking AD&D, not some proto half-baked D&D game.

- Wheggi

[Terrex]

Well, technically the first real proto-d&d campaign was actually pitted player vs. Player fighting over blackmoor castle so...

Who is talking about the "first proto-d&d campaign"? He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Wheggi is talking AD&D. The play style explicitly and implicitly suggested in the PHB and DMG certainly doesn't encourage a pitting player v. player play style.

[Terrex]

Ha, sorry, I was a few minutes late with that last post...

[Falconer]

Yeah, Bargle, seriously, bro, not to pile on you, but, “optional d20”?? Helloooo?

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I think by the time most Fighters qualify for double specilization, MUs are definitely starting to get into the realm where (if they are played by a good, strategically-minded and experienced player) their magical resources fundamentally change the dynamics of the game. On the other hand, I'm not sure the specialization rules necessarily "fix" that.