You mean least?
No, I mean "most." Did I mumble?
Those items set your Strength to x. Regardless of what it is. So what would you rather have, someone with 16 Str and someone with 8 Str going to 18 and 8, or the same going to 16 and 18?
Let's see. Would I rather have the 7th level fighter with two attacks a round and double specialization in his weapon (which is probably substantially superior to the cleric's weapon both in base stats AND in magical capabilities) go from 16 Str to 18, or would I rather have the 7th level cleric with eight strength, one attack per round, a lower base chance to hit, and no bonuses from specialization go from 8 Str to 18...knowing that he's only going to be a part-time fighter at best, given that he's also needed to cast support spells?
Well, let me think about that one for a minute. I know--why don't we crunch the numbers?
Let's assume that both characters hit every round. This is incredibly generous to the cleric, since the fighter has a MUCH higher chance of hitting, but we'll be nice to the cleric in this case.
Let's also use an ACTUAL first edition item, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which set Strength to 18/00.
The cleric goes from a Strength of 8 to a Strength of 18. His bonus to damage increases from 0 to 6. He swings once and hits. Total net gain in damage this round: 6.
The fighter goes from a Strength of 16 to a Strength of 18/00. His bonus to damage increases from 1 to 6. He swings twice and hits. Total net gain in damage this round: 10.
The fighter is going to gain greater benefit from the Gauntlets--and that's using the assumptions most favorable to the Cleric. If we factor in the chance of missing and the rounds where the Cleric's not attacking because he's taking out enemies with spells like Hold Person, or shutting down enemy spellcasters with Silence 15' radius, the benefit he's going to get from the Gauntlets goes down even further.
For instance, let's talk about a 7th level cleric and a 7th level fighter attacking a monster with an Armor Class of -2. The fighter needs a base of 16 to hit and the cleric needs a base of 18. We'll assume that each of them has a +1 weapon--again, being nice to the cleric, a magical weapon usable by a fighter will turn up 100% of the time on the random tables, regardless of subtable, whereas a magical weapon usable by a cleric will only turn up 27% of the time on one subtable, 13% on another, and 0% of the time on the other two subtables. But I think we can be generous and say that the DM chose to put in a mace +1, rather than trust to the luck of the die.
Now the fighter needs a 15 and the cleric needs a 17. But the fighter can double-specialize in his weapon; he now only needs a 12 to the cleric's 17, and is still swinging twice to the cleric's once. Once we add the +3 attack bonus from the Gauntlets, the fighter needs a 9 and the cleric needs a 14.
The fighter is going to hit 55% of the time; his average increase in damage per round is now 5.5. But the cleric is only going to hit 30% of the time; HIS average increase in damage is now 1.8.
Again, advantage fighter. And we're still not factoring in time taken away from fighting to cast spells.
Please: demonstrate that I'm wrong. Show how the cleric can possibly get more advantage out of the Gauntlets than the fighter. Demonstrate how he can add more to the party's chances of success if HE has them. I don't think it's possible to make the assumptions any MORE favorable to the Cleric than I did.
The ONLY time it would make sense to give the Gauntlets to a cleric over a fighter is if the fighter already has close to an 18/00 Strength...which, of course, is only a possibility for a fighter...or if the fighter is so anemic that the cleric has significantly more hit points, which, while possible, is unlikely. The fact that a cleric with superior stats might be able to equal a fighter with crappy stats proves nothing.
The HP difference also only mattered if you had a high stat there to begin with, which since you're stuck rolling 3d6 in order even after doing the suicide shuffle a few times is not very likely.
...in which case, the fighter still has a larger hit die, AND more hit points per level after 9th level, and will STILL have more hit points on average. And in a game where the average character does NOT get more than half his hit points from Con bonus, that extra hit point or two per level is significant. To third edition sensibilities, it sounds trivial--but a fighter with no Con bonus in first edition is going to have, on average, 25% more hit points than a Cleric with no Con bonus right up to 9th level--and after 9th level, the fighter is going to gain 50% more hit points every level.
So where's the cleric's advantage, again? Are we also giving him a magic item that raises his Con, while denying the fighter the same?
It's saying that the differences probably won't come up at all AND there are better ways of doing the same thing, while still being a Cleric.
Sure. A 25% to 50% increase in hit points per level, multiple attacks per round, vastly superior selection of weaponry (both magical and non-,) weapon specialization and better attack matrix (leading to, on average, about a 25% better chance of the fighter hitting, all other things being equal)--how could any of those things make a significant difference in a fight?
Seriously, you're joking, right? I'm having a hard time imagining anyone who ever actually played first edition thinking the fighter's benefits in combat are inconsequential, or that a cleric has "better ways of doing the same thing." The cleric is a solid second-string fighter, but the operative term here is "second-string."
Don't even get me started on multiclassing and dual classing.
Why not? What was the single most popular choice for powergaming the dual classing rules?
That's right--it was taking a few levels of fighter before switching to a spellcasting class, for EXACTLY the advantages spelled out above.