Was the fighter in 1E underpowered compared to the MU

[TRP]

A better question for me is, "Can the fighter in my game use a little boost?"

A resounding "YES" is the answer.

Is this true for every 1e game? I wouldn't presume to tell another DM how they should be running their 1e game.

[Benoist]

You just stole my thunder, Ben!

I like to think of it as "warming up the crowd" on this one.

But seriously now:

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.

I couldn't agree more. Seriously. It's REALLY annoying the hell out of me this constant discussion of rules within rules bullshit (not particularly here, I mean on the RPG gaming intarwebz in general), all the while looking at each other's character sheet wondering if the game or the GM or the dice let you down, if that's it man, that's it, you're screwed, have a "useless character" and on and on.

It's all bullshit. All of it.

[Bargle]

Well, I don't want to belabor the point but Wargaming is still a part of ad&d (battle system Helooo. Anyone read the OSRIC/DMG section of wilderness and barony sections? ) I would certainly think it appropriate to question wether a wizard unit is vastly over powered to a fighter. Not everyone relegates ad&d to a dungeon crawl ghettos or RP free form play. Sometimes, folks, sometimes. I swear the game got taken over by people who would prefer vampire the masquerade!

[GameMaster]

My response was always, who ever said an 'x'lvl MU was suppose to be the same as an 'x'lvl fighter or any other "same" level character type to begin with ???

Sounds like WOW all over again... somewhere people got this idea that a 5th level whatever should be equivalent to a 5th level whatever else ???!!!

I never read that nor expected that... why

let's see, an attack with a fist is 1-4 by a fighter and a MU get's 1-4 hit points at 1st level... while the fighter gets 1-10 ... so you're saying I can punch the MU in the face (or for that matter punch him for 1-4 in the arm and kill him ???)

Thus I NEVER expected any of the classes to be "equal" at the same level.

Each class has it's good and bad, armors, weapons, skills, HP etc etc. and time frame to get there... ie: do you really expect a 65 year old "fighter" to still be kickin ass ??? no, he's good from about 18~45 maybe... the MU on the other hand is still rockin at 70+ years old... there's a difference and that's just how it is...

WOW players have that same idea and that's why playing ANY class or RACE is no different than any other... if you are 20th level, anything, you're as good as any other 20th level anything... WTF ?

You have to play your character to the fullest in (A)D&D. I mean sure the MU looks badass at 1st level when he casts sleep at a horde of 21 rushing 1/2 HD kobolds and 16 of them drop like flies... everyone thinks he's badass, until they realize the work is not done... they are just sleeping and someone needs to cut their throats... but the other 5 kobolds probably already exited the scene to tell the story about the MU that took down the entire tribe (no wonder the MUs are rare, being hunted at such an "early" age).... on the flip side, the 10th level fighter getting a crap ass load of attacks against the same horde of 21 kobolds really seems "badass" except... he's got better things to do at 10th level than wade through kobolds... heck at 10th level he's in his late 20s to early 30s and he's looking to build a castle and make a name before he can't do this at 45 any more...

Point is, none of the character classes are suppose to be "equal" at the same level... if that was written somewhere, I deleted it from my copies of the PHB etc since it didn't make any sense...

It's very very common in my adventures to find parties of 1st~8th level characters running around together... and the 1st~3rds seems to teach the 4th~8ths a bit about how it's done at times.... like they forgot where they came from.

[Matthew]

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.

I couldn't agree more. Seriously. It's REALLY annoying the hell out of me this constant discussion of rules within rules bullshit (not particularly here, I mean on the RPG gaming intarwebz in general), all the while looking at each other's character sheet wondering if the game or the GM or the dice let you down, if that's it man, that's it, you're screwed, have a "useless character" and on and on.

It's all bullshit. All of it.

Right, but this stems from what Gygax was saying about the purpose of his modifications to D&D in the form of AD&D and then later via weapon specialisation. The question here is really whether his perceptions were valid, rather than the usual navel gazing issues of D20 character parity.

[Benoist]

Right, but this stems from what Gygax was saying about the purpose of his modifications to D&D in the form of AD&D and then later via weapon specialisation. The question here is really whether his perceptions were valid, rather than the usual navel gazing issues of D20 character parity.

From my point of view, IF that is the sole reason why Gary included weapon specialization and the like into UA, then it was a bad reason. If however, there were other reasons, such like the intention to add some elements of rules' customization to fighter characters, then it depends. But on the sole count of "well, fighters needed a little umph because wizards are so totally awesome," I would have to say that would have been a bad reason indeed.

[Matthew]

From my point of view, IF that is the sole reason why Gary included weapon specialization and the like into UA, then it was a bad reason. If however, there were other reasons, such like the intention to add some elements of rules' customization to fighter characters, then it depends. But on the sole count of "well, fighters needed a little umph because wizards are so totally awesome," I would have to say that would have been a bad reason indeed.

Judging from what I recall of the Dragon article at the time and forum Q&As in later life, that pretty much was the sole, or at least the primary, reason, but somebody can likely double check for me. [edit] Here we go:

Weapon Specialisation

In the course of a recent visit from Len Lakofka, wherein we were principally discussing cleric and druid spells, the subject of Len’s unofficial "archer" sub-class came up. I concurred with Len’s position that a bowman, shaft readied, target at "point blank" range, was formidable. I agreed that the game as it now stands does not reflect such threat. We then discussed how to mesh the concept with the AD&D™ game system, and weapon specialization arose as the answer. We discussed use of any form of bow by a fighter or ranger. Certain conclusions were arrived at. However, after reflecting on the matter for some time, it became obvious to me that we did not go far enough in one case, and we went too far in another! Fighters have too long been the last-choice class, the group who posed the least threat. This does not apply to paladins, rangers, or the new barbarian sub-class either; these all have abilities and powers far beyond the mundane world of a fighter. Therefore, weapon specialization applies only to fighters, excluding all sub-classes.

[Benoist]

See, Matthew, I like the whole idea of the debate of an archer shooting at someone at point blank range with his bow at the ready. That makes sense to me (I'm not saying that's the reason I like WS, because I wasn't aware of this argument before you quoted that piece here - nah, I like WS because it gives fighter players a potential "schtick" of their choosing without resorting to fine hair-splitting like the WP/AC table).

The whole notion that the fighter was a "last choice class" compared to other classes because it was "weak" is balderdash, from my POV. It could have used more in the way of descriptive abilities, like for instance some specific field of knowledge that relates to warfare, siege weapons, formations and so on, but not because that would have made the fighter more "powerful", but more flavorful and enticing from a game world point of view.

[AxeMental]

Well, I don't want to belabor the point but Wargaming is still a part of ad&d (battle system Helooo. Anyone read the OSRIC/DMG section of wilderness and barony sections? ) I would certainly think it appropriate to question wether a wizard unit is vastly over powered to a fighter. Not everyone relegates ad&d to a dungeon crawl ghettos or RP free form play. Sometimes, folks, sometimes. I swear the game got taken over by people who would prefer vampire the masquerade!

I'm not at all following you. Are you saying 1E = vampire the masquerade? And whats this "wizar unit" vs "fighter"? Is that something from Chain Mail. Just a reminder this is a 1E site, I've never played Chain Mail so your going to have to be more complete in your thoughts.

The key to understanding 1E is understanding the specialist concept. Each shines in certain situations (together they function as a team), and each class is what it is. Fighters are far more powerful then MUs in some situations and visa versa in others (and that goes for every class). As far as balance goes, that was secondary to how well the description matched the stereotypical archetype look the designer of the game was going for (relative to one another). For instance, you could beef up a MUs chance of survival by giving them a higher HD, but the 1d4 really captures the wimpy persona Gygax was going for when you think "book worm". Fighters need to come off as somewhat brutes (the guy that throws the book worm in the trash can after stealing his lunch money...again). Protecting the "look" of that class was far more important then worrying about if one has the edge over the other. And in any event, alot of that has to do with what spells the MU has in his book, and what weapons the fighter chooses to use.

Remember too, classes tend to represent those universal character types we see in fairytale and literature (the wise old man, the trickster, the protector, the healer etc.). You can't really compare MUs to fighters with too much head to head analysis, they represent different things (they shine at different tasks). The key is, as a mixed group can they make it from A to Z together and survive against a series of challenges.

The sign of a good DM and dungeon designer is he remembers to throw in challenges that pertain to each class so everyone can have fun and feel needed by the group. Imagine a dungeon with no traps or opportunities to HIS for a thief for instance. As DM its my job to try and make sure things remain balanced, that each player has the chance to learn how to make their PC useful. For instance, the guard that can only be taken out by the thief's backstab. That might be the only cool thing that player does that night, but it might have been so pivital and tense that everybody remembers that when its all said and done. Alot of learning to play 1E is about learning how to grow a pair and take calculated risks - play smart. That trumps "balance" every time. Remember, 1E is not about well roundedness as it is in 3E. Its about just the opposite.

[Kellri]

Hypothetical large-scale wargaming variants aside, campaign PC AD&D fighters more often than not dominate v-s-v their level equivalent and party. Immersive characterization is key - a hoplite vs a knight vs a barbarian berserker

[Ghul]

This may be somewhat tangential, but the fighter as least-selected class might also stem from players wanting to get more fantasy out of their fantasy RPG experience; i.e. any one of us, with proper training, can be a fighter, and many of us (say, here at K&KA, for instance) might well be considered fighters, from a certain pov: fellows with military experience, cops, firemen, martial artists, etc. Playing a fighter results in less escapism for some players. To sum it up: they want their characters to do stuff that they can't do in the real world.

[Matthew]

See, Matthew, I like the whole idea of the debate of an archer shooting at someone at point blank range with his bow at the ready. That makes sense to me (I'm not saying that's the reason I like WS, because I wasn't aware of this argument before you quoted that piece here - nah, I like WS because it gives fighter players a potential "schtick" of their choosing without resorting to fine hair-splitting like the WP/AC table).

The whole notion that the fighter was a "last choice class" compared to other classes because it was "weak" is balderdash, from my POV. It could have used more in the way of descriptive abilities, like for instance some specific field of knowledge that relates to warfare, siege weapons, formations and so on, but not because that would have made the fighter more "powerful", but more flavorful and enticing from a game world point of view.

For sake of clarity, are you saying that is what Gygax is saying above [i.e. fighters pose the least threat does not translate to fighters are the least powerful] or are you saying it does not reflect the reality of the situation from your point of view. The latter I would agree with, but the former seems unlikely to me. As I have said before, pretty much the only virtue I see in weapon specialisation is literary emulation, particularly Clark Ashton Smith's Zobal the archer and Cushara the pikebearer, but even then the execution is lacklustre. The later quote I was thinking of was this one:

Q: Weapon specialization seems like a great feature that adds variety to the fighter class, but it is also accused of being overly powerful (esp. double specialization and bow specialization).

A: Too powerful? Sounds like a mage-lover's whine (as are most complaints about the barbarian class). Without the restrictions 2E placed on magic, the changes affecting fighters and their ilk were simply things that brought them more on a par with spell-casters. As for archery being too potent with dual specialization: real arrows can and did kill, were deadly, so why not?

[AxeMental]

Q: Weapon specialization seems like a great feature that adds variety to the fighter class, but it is also accused of being overly powerful (esp. double specialization and bow specialization).

A: Too powerful? Sounds like a mage-lover's whine (as are most complaints about the barbarian class). Without the restrictions 2E placed on magic, the changes affecting fighters and their ilk were simply things that brought them more on a par with spell-casters. As for archery being too potent with dual specialization: real arrows can and did kill, were deadly, so why not?

[/quote]


Reading this sounds like a PR attempt to explain why Gygax foolishly included classes and game elements that didn't with 1E (both the Barbarian and WS are poster childs for this). The entire "balance between fighters and MUs and Fighters having to be made stronger relative to MUs seems like a f..cking smoke screen. Its justification to keep tweaking the rules to stay important. It reminds me of public sector workers...find a problem to fix or your out of a job, even if it means making the problem up. Sorry, but thats my gut feeling. Gygax could easily be the master of playing the Devils Advocate, arguing both sides of an arguement for his sheer amusement. Infact, he changed his tune back and forth sometimes in the same freaking thread at DF and other places. Gygax was first and foremost a business man, never loose site of that. And what doesn't a business man mix: thats right, work and pleasure.
We wanted changes to 1E that would increase our pleasure of it, Gygax wanted changes to increase his (and his companies) bottom line.

[Benoist]

For sake of clarity, are you saying that is what Gygax is saying above [i.e. fighters pose the least threat does not translate to fighters are the least powerful] or are you saying it does not reflect the reality of the situation from your point of view. The latter I would agree with, but the former seems unlikely to me. As I have said before, pretty much the only virtue I see in weapon specialisation is literary emulation, particularly Clark Ashton Smith's Zobal the archer and Cushara the pikebearer, but even then the execution is lacklustre. The later quote I was thinking of was this one:

Q: Weapon specialization seems like a great feature that adds variety to the fighter class, but it is also accused of being overly powerful (esp. double specialization and bow specialization).

A: Too powerful? Sounds like a mage-lover's whine (as are most complaints about the barbarian class). Without the restrictions 2E placed on magic, the changes affecting fighters and their ilk were simply things that brought them more on a par with spell-casters. As for archery being too potent with dual specialization: real arrows can and did kill, were deadly, so why not?

What I'm basically saying is: (1) I like the game world connection between the logic that sustains the design and the results, like WS (the whole thing about archers being deadly and so on, that you still find in that quote on ENWorld). (2) the notion that the fighter is weak comparatively to other classes is something that doesn't match my experiences of the game. (3) if the fighter was the last played of all classes (which does NOT match with my own experiences of the game during the past twenty years), I think it has to do with elements of flavor of class, or rather, the lack thereof.

Related to these points, I think one might make the argument that the fighter is both the easiest AND hardest of classes to play in the AD&D game.

It's the easiest because it lacks nitpicky features like spells to choose from and so on: you can play one right away, roll your stats, select human fighter, choose equipment, boom, play. It's also the hardest BECAUSE it lacks distinctive features in terms of rules, which calls for the player to rely on the game world itself, the make-believe (i.e. tactical visualization of the environment, choices that are not covered by the rules, decisions like footmen in war zones would make in an RL situation) to truly shine. Which is, all in all, I think, what makes it the best introductory class to the game, because it can be played in an armchair "for the ride" so to speak, but it also encourages an active imagination and visualization of the game world to make a difference (which is great - I don't think any player is condemned to suck. I think that anyone can rise and be a great player, and the fighter offers the incentive to do just that). Contrast that with the spellcaster reliance on spells, which are defined elements of the make-believe in the corpus of rules, the obvious exception to all this being the 1st level magic user with little-to-no spells to play with. This is a challenge to make it in the campaign environment, but it is so much of a challenge that, contrarily to the fighter, it might become discouraging for new players, the middle ground between these two approaches being of course the cleric.

[TRP]

Q: Weapon specialization seems like a great feature that adds variety to the fighter class, but it is also accused of being overly powerful (esp. double specialization and bow specialization).

A: Too powerful? Sounds like a mage-lover's whine (as are most complaints about the barbarian class). Without the restrictions 2E placed on magic, the changes affecting fighters and their ilk were simply things that brought them more on a par with spell-casters. As for archery being too potent with dual specialization: real arrows can and did kill, were deadly, so why not?



Readisounds like a PR attempt to explain why Gygax foolishly included classes and game elements that didn't with 1E (both the Barbarian and WS are poster childs for this). The entire "balance between fighters and MUs and Fighters having to be made stronger relative to MUs seems like a f..cking smoke screen. Its justification to keep tweaking the rules to stay important. It reminds me of public sector workers...find a problem to fix or your out of a job, even if it means making the problem up. Sorry, but thats my gut feeling. Gygax could easily be the master of playing the Devils Advocate, arguing both sides of an arguement for his sheer amusement. Infact, he changed his tune back and forth sometimes in the same freaking thread at DF and other places. Gygax was first and foremost a business man, never loose site of that. And what doesn't a business man mix: thats right, work and pleasure.
We wanted changes to 1E that would increase our pleasure of it, Gygax wanted changes to increase his (and his companies) bottom line.

Yet, you insist upon siting just one very particular quote of Gary's to justify that Ska's interpretation of initiative is THE btb method, even though Gary stated other interpretations. Cherry-picking indeed, Axe.

So, Axe, if I understand your position correctly, then Gary ceased to be a worthwhile contributor to 1e, and he was nothing more than a snake oil salesman from 1979 forward. That's pretty darned cynical, even for Sister Mary Elephant.

Axe, never, ever, read Mythus. Your head will explode.

As for those gut feelings that you keep experiencing, you know there are some OTC medications that work remarkably well to alleviate that sort of thing.