Cool shit the Fighter could do in old school D&D

[Libertad]

Evening, folks.  As I look further into other Editions of Dungeons & Dragons, I become more and more convinced that the 3.5 Fighter's the worst of the lot.  I found a series of forum posts on the Original D&D ProBoards that I thought you folks might find of interest:

Turn the clock back to the early 1970s, of the tabletop wargame precursor to D&D, Chainmail!

In case you can't see the link, the Chainmail Fighter could potentially gain immunity to fear (including magical fear), he can damage dragons normally invincible to non-magic weapons, force a morale roll whenever he charges towards weaker enemies (meaning that they might run away in fear), and makes multiple attacks per 1 minute combat round versus all opponents.

And in this thread, the poster evaluates the abilities of the 3LBB (Little Brown Books) fighter.

Well, for one, fighters had the best saving throws in the game (this is true for Original, Basic, and 1st Edition as well), can sense invinsible opponents, and almost all magic weapons can only be used by them, among other things.

I might evaluate Fighter capabilities in AD&D, Basic, and Original, if I can find the sources.  I will evaluate Fighter capabilities in the various Old School retroclones I own.  Who knows, we might learn something cool along the way!

[Amechra]

Yep, Fighters were badasses; if you look at 1e, for example, the fact remains that they have the best saves, the most HP, the tendency towards the best AC, the best to-hit table, and had a wide swath of magic items that only they could use.

[Garryl]

You're not wrong. The ability to strap on a shield and a suit of plate mail was a strong ability in and of itself in the earlier editions. With a good Dex score, you could have an AC of 0 or lower at level 1, which meant that most low-level enemies needed natural 20s to hit you. I don't know what abilities Fighters had in other retro games, as I'm only familiar with the core books of 1st and 2nd edition (which basically had the good HD and THAC0, weapons/armor, percentile Str and higher max Con hp bonuses, extra attacks, and ~90% of magic weapons being designed for them).

As I think about it, I'm starting to think that it's not that Fighters were made weaker in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition so much as everyone else was made stronger. Some of the abilities were removed, but they were mostly abilities that let you win battles you were already guaranteed to win (ex: extra attacks against very low level foes). Meanwhile, spellcasters got more spells and abilities, monsters got larger numbers, and the list of magic items was expanded so there was something for everyone.

[linklord231]

If I recall correctly (and it's been rather a while), fighters were the only ones that could hit Grandmaster proficiency in any weapon or style. They also got some of the best returns on a high Con score, back when having high hit points was actually important.

[Amechra]

Oh, yeah, and Percentile Strength. Made them potentially far stronger than any other class, especially since there was a group of 3 magic items that made them massively strong.

[Garryl]

If I recall correctly (and it's been rather a while), fighters were the only ones that could hit Grandmaster proficiency in any weapon or style. They also got some of the best returns on a high Con score, back when having high hit points was actually important.

The 2nd edition PHB only had regular specialization, but it was for Fighters only (not even multi-class ones, single-class only). I think later supplements gave basic specialization to Rangers and Paladins and added the extra levels of specialization, but I'm only familiar with that from Baldur's Gate.

Oh, yeah, and Percentile Strength. Made them potentially far stronger than any other class, especially since there was a group of 3 magic items that made them massively strong.

If you're referring to Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength, they actually didn't care what your original Str score was, they just set it to a fixed 18(00) (Ogre Strength) or 19-24 (depending on the giant type). But that's only 2 items, so which 3 are you referring to?

[linklord231]

Shrug. My only experience was Baldur's Gate et al as well. I know they used modified rules, but I didn't think that was one of the things they changed.

[Amechra]

If I recall correctly (and it's been rather a while), fighters were the only ones that could hit Grandmaster proficiency in any weapon or style. They also got some of the best returns on a high Con score, back when having high hit points was actually important.

The 2nd edition PHB only had regular specialization, but it was for Fighters only (not even multi-class ones, single-class only). I think later supplements gave basic specialization to Rangers and Paladins and added the extra levels of specialization, but I'm only familiar with that from Baldur's Gate.

Oh, yeah, and Percentile Strength. Made them potentially far stronger than any other class, especially since there was a group of 3 magic items that made them massively strong.

If you're referring to Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength, they actually didn't care what your original Str score was, they just set it to a fixed 18(00) (Ogre Strength) or 19-24 (depending on the giant type). But that's only 2 items, so which 3 are you referring to?

There was a hammer that worked with them as well, iirc. And those items were, as I recall, restricted to Fighters in 1e.

[Garryl]

Oh, yeah, and Percentile Strength. Made them potentially far stronger than any other class, especially since there was a group of 3 magic items that made them massively strong.

If you're referring to Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength, they actually didn't care what your original Str score was, they just set it to a fixed 18(00) (Ogre Strength) or 19-24 (depending on the giant type). But that's only 2 items, so which 3 are you referring to?

There was a hammer that worked with them as well, iirc. And those items were, as I recall, restricted to Fighters in 1e.

I just checked my 1st edition DMG, and there's no mention in either entry of being restricted to Fighters.

The 3rd item would be the Hammer of Thunderbolts, I believe. It becomes a +5 weapon when you're using both of the aforementioned strength boosters, and also deals double damage dice (2d4+2, +2.5 average damage over a longsword's 1d8, although vs. large opponents it's only 2d4, -1.5 average damage below a longsword's 1d12). It also instantly kills giants and stuns folks when thrown. Interestingly, when thrown, it's at a fixed 1 attack per 2 rounds, so Fighters can't benefit from their greater number of attacks per round. This is from the 1st edition DMG. In 2E, the stats aren't meaningfully different (the throwing range changes to a fixed value, and the stun area is increased, but it's otherwise the same). No Fighter-only restriction in either edition, although only Clerics, Druids, Assassins, and other warriors (Paladins, Rangers) are allowed to use hammers in 1E.

[Keldar]

Hammer of Thunderbolts with Gauntlets of Oger Power and a Girdle of Giant Strength was instant win.  Not only did you get the bonuses from both strength items (check the wording, they actually fracking stacked!) to damage, it was a huge area auto stun.  Sure, you could only throw every other round for ten rounds, but you could still act the other round with some other weapon.  Plus, the rest of the party gets to go full offense.  But yes, not Fighter Specific at all.


The lack of magic item shops was a subtle benefit to Fighters, who could use the most types of items that tended to appear most often when randomly generated.  Today all sorts of specialized equipment gets sold off to fund "The Equipment" when yesterday it would stick around to prove useful on occasion.  Worse, Fighters having feats to spare are more likely than most use a rare exotic weapon rather than the commonly magical sword.  And Intelligent weapons, which are most likely to be swords, used to be a bonus on a weapon, sometimes a huge bonus.  Now it just leaches off Wealth By Level on something peripheral rather than the item's main function.


I've said it before, starting with the Players Option series, Fighters really lost their role protection.  They used to only have to worry about Paladins and Rangers competing with number of attacks or use of the best magic weapons, or high hit points and strength.  And those subclasses, by default, required ridiculous rolls to play.  And then Paladin burned a good stat on useless Charisma.  That all became something everyone could get.  Which is why Fighters started sucking, someone decided that everyone should be able to accomplish every mundane task leaving Fighters with jack and squat special.  Rogues were hurt similarly by all their abilities becoming skills, but at least then there was the insight to create Trapfinding.  Pity they made it merely a blockade, rather than a real benefit.

[Unbeliever]

I can't speak to 1E, nor to retroclones.  But, from AD&D on, I think this is just rose-colored glasses talking.  First off, I recall options that were just like Fighter+.  The Cavalier from some wacky book (Unearthed Arcana?) was just like a Fighter, but better in nearly every way. 

Also, again by AD&D, the percentiles strength thing was extended to all warrior classes, so it included Rangers and Paladins.  But, this is also kind of a silly point from a game design perspective.  As others have pointed out, the very popular strength enhancing items didn't care what your base strength was.  And, it seems weird to say "you could be awesome, if you rolled fantastically well" as a class feature. 

The only big edge I remember Fighters having is Weapon Specialization.  That's nice and all, but not enough to build a class around. 

I just glanced at the threads linked in the OP, but one of them quickly points out the problem.  A Fighter/Fighting-Man's powers need to be inherently interesting.  They have to be on par with, conceptually, a Paladin's resistances and holy might, a Ranger's stealth and wilderness-ness, and so on.  Part of this may come down to (and this is echoing Keldar a bit, but from a different perspective) the fact that "fighting" isn't much of a niche in a game that revolves around adventure and combat.

[oslecamo]

Which is why Fighters started sucking, someone decided that everyone should be able to accomplish every mundane task leaving Fighters with jack and squat special. 

Pretty much this. Even the clerics eventually got a splat that allowed them to pick most nice fighter abilities in return for a reduced spell selection.

That's why I defend that the top "mundane" abilities should be restricted to characters that take levels in "mundane" classes.

Sometimes I wonder how the game would be if fullcasters didn't gain extra HD with their levels, meaning their HP, saves, Bab, feats and skills stayed the same.

[Garryl]

The best way to play a Fighter was always dual-classing. Stepping out at 3rd (5th weapon proficiency), 7th (3/2 attacks), 9th (last d10+Con hit die before the fixed +3/level and 7th weapon proficiency), or 13th (2 attacks/round) gave you a very strong core for your character no matter what you went into. You would have the Fighter's advantages at low levels when they mattered most (high AC, higher max Con on your HD, percentile Strength), plus the extra attacks after you regained your abilities post-dual-classing to multiply whatever new abilities you got.
- Thieves netted the combat abilities to make them useful in combat and to turn backstabs truly deadly (percentile Str, weapon spec, extra attacks/round, all of which get backstab's multiplier), while also bringing out of combat utility (thieving skills) and even more hit points (+2 hp/level at 125k xp/level instead of +3 hp/level at 200k xp/level, and the potential a 10th hit die of 1d6+2 from Con).
- Wizards got the hp to not die to a strong gust of wind, the ability to wear Elven Chain (the one armor that doesn't interfere with spellcasting), and the ability to pick up a sword and deal some damage if the spells ran out. In 1st edition, Wizards also gained hit dice up to level 11 for potentially even more hp at the right breakpoints (Fighter 9/Wizard 11 with 18 Con has 9d10+2d4+40 hp, avg. 94.5, whereas a Fighter 11 would have 9d10+42 hp, avg. 91.5, at around the same xp total). Only up to level 10 in 2nd edition, though. Also, a Fighter/Wizard dual-class has a sick amount of hp with Tenser's Transformation.
- Clerics probably get the least benefit, because they're basically Fighters already. They get a bit more hp and extra attacks. Clerics are still held to their weapon restrictions, unlike Wizards and Thieves, so you don't even get that. Clerics alone also have the option to dual-class from Ranger instead, which puts a further damper on the Fighter/Cleric build, although Rangers don't bring much to the table, either, except in Icewind Dale's game engine where they weirdly gave full access to Druid spells as well with your Cleric casting.
- Druids get relieved of their weaker armor restrictions. Otherwise, see Cleric.

[Unbeliever]

Which is why Fighters started sucking, someone decided that everyone should be able to accomplish every mundane task leaving Fighters with jack and squat special. 

Pretty much this. Even the clerics eventually got a splat that allowed them to pick most nice fighter abilities in return for a reduced spell selection.

That's why I defend that the top "mundane" abilities should be restricted to characters that take levels in "mundane" classes.

Sometimes I wonder how the game would be if fullcasters didn't gain extra HD with their levels, meaning their HP, saves, Bab, feats and skills stayed the same.

Wouldn't that still render them kind of boring, though?  I think it would, on its own.  Although you could solve that with meaningful tactical maneuvers (trip, etc.).  And what constitutes "top mundane abilities"? 

[oslecamo]

Stuff like power attack and its chains, leadership*, being able to use  the top weapons and armor (and make heavy armor worth it since we're at it), just plain having high HP and saves. A 20th level wizard should still go down in one hit if you manage to land a sword on his face (if you somehow manage to go trough all his defensive spells of course), not to be able to tank siege weaponry even while unbuffed.

I kinda have to blame it in modern media/games tough, where it seems that everywhere I look, there's spellcasters with swords and armor and guns that are also great leaders and strategists and political masters, or super martial artists.

I guess another alternative would be to hand out some degree of magic for everyone, so the fighter and other mundanes can  pick up easily some spells here and there. So even if the wizard gets to go around in fullplate wielding the general's spear, the fighter knows how to dispel and protect himself from scrying with some protective runes or something like that. Which again is what most modern games seem to do.

*In 1e wizards and clerics did get free followers of their own when the fighter got his soldiers. On top of whatever summons/bindings/dominate they could pull off.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

1e Core Fighter always/still strikes me as boring.
It's a 3e Warrior with smidges of upgrades.
Or a 4e Companion Character with a tweak or two.

Unearthed Arcana did some crazy+ to the 1e Fighter.
However I've never seen a really good 3e C.O. board
style wringing and wrangling of first edition.

It may not be possible to regularize the 1e monsters.
I might be wrong, but I'd like to see vicious good maths.
(edit) --- but in regards to I.P. Proofing, 1e Fighters
do have an clear (and boring) advantage.

[Unbeliever]

...
I kinda have to blame it in modern media/games tough, where it seems that everywhere I look, there's spellcasters with swords and armor and guns that are also great leaders and strategists and political masters, or super martial artists.
...

I had kind of thought about including this in my earlier post.  You wouldn't want to say that it was impossible to play a spellcaster with a sword or wearing plate mail or being a leader.  But, that's what something like multiclassing or feats or something is for.

I'm mostly with Awaken DM Golem on this one, though.  This seems to be fixing things at the margins.  I don't have a hard time making melee characters with all the traits that are commonly associated with earlier Fighter editions, to wit, high HP, AC, etc.  They don't tend to be "Fighter 20," but everyone knows that.  It seems to me this has been within charopp's reach for a very long time.  And, that has not solved any perceived problems with the class/archetype.

I mean, the stuff listed in the OP for a chainmail edition Fighter is mostly acquirable by Paladin 4, and we aren't exactly storming the gates for Paladin dips ...


P.S.:  I think Garryl might be right in that the numbers increase in later editions made the Fighter's humble modifiers look less and less impressive.  So, you end up with a character like MoMF that fills the "I have higher numbers than you do" role, leaving the guy with a pokey thing and a helm out in the cold.  Or, being replaced by a DMM Cleric.  That's a pretty solvable problem, though. 

[X-Codes]

That's the fundamental problem of 3e as opposed to earlier editions.  In AD&D, 1e, and 2e, stat rolls mattered for everyone.  Sure, you could bank on nabbing a Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to cover a poor Strength roll as a Fighter, but there would still be quite a few levels where you would be lacking that benefit.  Also, Spellcasters needed a certain amount of their primary casting stat to even be their class and cast spells of X level, and there were FAR fewer ways of increasing ability scores to cover for low rolls there.

On the other hand, in 3e that all changed.  Mundanes still want as many stat points as they can get their hands on because they need those numbers to be effective.  On the other hand, any caster can start with a 15 in their primary stat and cast their max-level spells on-time if they only put their level points in their casting stat, no problem.  Physical stats don't matter nearly as much, either, because while mundanes now have had their stat items give flat bonuses (not ignoring the base roll, anymore), casters got Polymorph, Wild Shape, and more, meaning they basically jacked THE BEST feature of the Fighter class from earlier editions -- take shit stat rolls and still rape face -- while the Fighters simply don't have that luxury anymore.

[Prime32]

almost all magic weapons can only be used by them

Refluff wands and staves as magic swords, use BAB in place of caster level, and require casters (but not fighters) to make UMD checks to use them. Let the Weapon Focus chain increase their save DC and caster level. Remove the concept of touch attacks so that fighters are better at hitting with rays than wizards.

[phaedrusxy]

That's the fundamental problem of 3e as opposed to earlier editions.  In AD&D, 1e, and 2e, stat rolls mattered for everyone.  Sure, you could bank on nabbing a Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to cover a poor Strength roll as a Fighter, but there would still be quite a few levels where you would be lacking that benefit.  Also, Spellcasters needed a certain amount of their primary casting stat to even be their class and cast spells of X level, and there were FAR fewer ways of increasing ability scores to cover for low rolls there.

I never really felt like stat rolls mattered that much in 2nd edition, unless you got an 18 for that percentile strength. I don't remember the non-hybrid spellcasters needing minimum stats to just be their class, either, other than multi/duel-classing. Hybrids (paladin, ranger, druid?, bard) required outrageously high stats. (I could be remembering incorrectly, though... I haven't played 2e in nearly 20 years...)