Was the fighter in 1E underpowered compared to the MU

[Bargle]

Fact is axemetal, when gygax created the magic user and the fighter they were roughly of equal power, the official move to the d20 attack matrix--which only took place with the publication of 1e left the fighter weakened in comparison to the magic user. His first attempt at rectifying this was exceptional strength (more damage) and the next was weapon specialization (extra attacks). Through out all iterations of d&d a wizard can kill an ogre in a single round, the hero went from killing an ogre in 1 round to killing a ogre in 4 rounds.

I'm not a fan of weapon specialization, but I feel some adjustment was necessary. Variable weapon damage vs large creatures and generous strength bonuses I think were right in the sweet spot for low to mid level fighters and weapons like intelligent vorpal swords were a fine booster for high level fighters. Simply giving 7th level fighters 2/1 per round would cover everything a fighter needs to do keep his archetypical role as dragonslayer.

[Matthew]

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 children 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 that's my gut feeling. Gygax could easily be the master of playing the Devils Advocate, arguing both sides of an argument for his sheer amusement. In fact, 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: that's 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.

Might seem that way, but since there was no profit in him saying one thing or another and it accords with his earlier comments, I think we have to conclude it was his real opinion, right or wrong.

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 flavour 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.

I agree with 2) and 3), though Gygax obviously felt differently, and I also appreciate the intention behind 1), but I will add that I think bows in AD&D are already way too powerful relative to other weaponry for purposes of verisimilitude.

[AxeMental]

Well TRP, the initiative thing was based on very little evidence either way (there wasn't much to go on btb). SKA's method was the only one that made since if you factor in casting time in segments (using it everything fits nicely, and Gygax claimed thats exactly what he had meant all along). But yes, I did cherry pick that DF thread were I asked him specifically how initiative worked (and he does contradict that in other places).

You know I think Gary let that business shit go to his head. My understanding is that he did go a bit power-mad once the company really took off (at least there seems to be some stories floating around that he wasn't always the nicest guy etc.). Plus can you imagine having to work with the Blooms, good God it would drive anyone mad. I'll say this, rules-wise post the PH and DMG nothing Gygax contributed to 1E improved the game (though I did like many of his non-rule related contributions).

I've always wanted to try Mythus (and I think I'd probably like it). If I ever make it to the NTx Con I'd love to have Foster run his Mythus session he is always threatening. I'd probably never be able to GM that game though, it sounds more complex then LA.

TRP:." "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

Sick bastard.

[Benoist]

I agree with 2) and 3), though Gygax obviously felt differently, and I also appreciate the intention behind 1), but I will add that I think bows in AD&D are already way too powerful relative to other weaponry for purposes of verisimilitude.

But... English Longbow!

[Matthew]

English Longbow!

I cut them all in half with a single blow of my katana!

[Benoist]

LOL that makes me think of those jokes in my in-laws family that have been told so often you just say stuff like "Joke 22" and everybody laughs.

[AxeMental]

Fact is axemetal, when gygax created the magic user and the fighter they were roughly of equal power, the official move to the d20 attack matrix--which only took place with the publication of 1e left the fighter weakened in comparison to the magic user. His first attempt at rectifying this was exceptional strength (more damage) and the next was weapon specialization (extra attacks). Through out all iterations of d&d a wizard can kill an ogre in a single round, the hero went from killing an ogre in 1 round to killing a ogre in 4 rounds.

I'm not a fan of weapon specialization, but I feel some adjustment was necessary. Variable weapon damage vs large creatures and generous strength bonuses I think were right in the sweet spot for low to mid level fighters and weapons like intelligent vorpal swords were a fine booster for high level fighters. Simply giving 7th level fighters 2/1 per round would cover everything a fighter needs to do keep his archetypical role as dragonslayer.

The problem with your (and presumably Gygax's) feeling for the need to beef up the fighter is 1. fighters were not dieing off faster then MUs when played, nore were they sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they were engaged, 2. After those few spells are cast the MU is effectively out of the game (while the fighter keeps on plowing threw making up for shortcomings over the long haul and 3. fighters can find plenty of cool magic (+1, +2 swords, armor etc.) they can use to beef up. Another thing, combat is situational, it depends on alot of specifics. Mostly an MU needs space and time to get off his most powerful spells, while a fighter needs to get in close quickly.

As for the relationship with the game Chain Mail, I don't see it as a progression, I see it as another game entirely. I would try to think of them as completely seperate entities.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

2. After those few spells are cast the MU is effectively out of the game (while the fighter keeps on plowing threw making up for shortcomings over the long haul.

No, the Fighter's day is done as soon as the Cleric runs out of healing spells.

[rogatny]

Why does it matter? It's a class-based game. If you don't like how one class functions, don't play that class. That's the beauty of class-based games. If you don't like games with greatly different classes, I'd suggest a skill-based game in which every player has the same number of points to spread around on skills. (Of course, there will be those who complain about how some skills are so much better than some other skills and how that "breaks" the game, not once considering simply not taking that skill.)

I know some of the issues come from this conception out there that every party needs to have representatives from every (main) class, and this notion has become more and more encouraged in the editions since 1e. However, this simply is not the way 1e was set up. 1e set up a number of different race/class options that the designer thought was "cool" and let the players play those options based on what the player thought was "cool." If everyone in the party wants to play a thief and the players can succeed in that way, then so be it.

I DM'ed a very long 1e/2e campaign in which, with 5 to 8 players at all times, with each player having multiple pcs, never once did we have a single-classed m-u, thief, or fighter. (The longest running characters were human paladin, human cleric, 1/2 elf ranger, elf f/m-u, halfling f/t, and 1/2 elf bard.) And we did fine. The players thought thieves were under-powered compared to other classes and that magic-users didn't have a high-enough survival rates at low levels. And they were probably right. But they just picked the class/race combos they thought would work best, and we had a great time. As for the fighter - and we were using specialization as written in either UA or the 2e PHB (depending on my mood at the time) - I guess the players just weren't interested in playing one. Who cares?

[Bard]

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

QFT

By the way, I only have experience at high level in second edition where the fighter is supposed to be stronger and the magic user weaker, my memories are still that the magic users were very very effective and powerful at higher levels... So mathematically maybe there is something to this... But the fighters, if they piled up on magic items, cool swords, giant strenght girdles and lots of other different things, they could become unbeatable too! They could become powerful if you played them well. Robilar was a fighter and he adventured alone... This is not about balance, it's about challange...

[AxeMental]

2. After those few spells are cast the MU is effectively out of the game (while the fighter keeps on plowing threw making up for shortcomings over the long haul.

No, the Fighter's day is done as soon as the Cleric runs out of healing spells.

Good point. Thats why the cleric should ALWAYS be treated as the Duke A #1



Wheggi, check out those hooters.

[Matthew]

LOL that makes me think of those jokes in my in-laws family that have been told so often you just say stuff like "Joke 22" and everybody laughs.

Indeed, indeed.

[Wheggi]

Wheggi, check out those hooters.

Trust me bro, I rode through the early years of puberty on Adrienne Barbeau's grade-A yabos.

And I loved it when she gets eaten by Fluffy in Creepshow. "Just tell it to call you Billie!" hahahhaa

- Wheggi

[Kellri]

Trust me bro, I rode through the early years of puberty on Adrienne Barbeau's grade-A yabos.

Oh yeah, she was looking pretty hot in Swamp Thing, IIRC. Still, for me, the two plump perky words I loved most in those days were 'Phoebe Cates'.

[Falconer]

Olivia Hussey.