Edit:
This is an old post - I was updating some blog labels and somehow it re-posted - sorry for the repost!
Regular readers know we've been using the LOTFP flavor of BX/classic D&D for the past 8 months or so. Fighters are really beefed up in LOTFP and are the backbone of the party in combat - they hit better than everyone else, and they have a suite of combat maneuvers (press, parry, defensive fighting) that give them some additional choices. My group is having an edition discussion right now - deciding if we should stick with LOTFP, upgrade to LOTFP Grindhouse, or go in another direction. (I've also got a poll up currently to see which edition makes the most sense for the Black City campaign, currently under development). One thing that jumps out as we discuss editions is how mechanically plain the fighter is in BX and AD&D. It's mainly an issue of perception - no one noticed the old fighters were vanilla until the new fighters were the rock stars of combat.
A 10th level fighter in BX or AD&D only hits about 2 points better than his clerical peers (THAC0 12 instead of THAC0 14). One guy dedicates his life to the church, the other to warfare and the practice of arms, and the warrior nets a 10% improvement on his fighting ability over the man of the cloth. Clerics are limited to d6 weapons, whereas fighters can use d8 weapons and d10 weapons (although I imagine a lot of folks house rule their clerics into using swords and deity-favored weapons). There is an increase in hit points - the fighter will have 20-25% more hit points over the long haul in BX.
I suppose the fighter will arrange their stats (if you're allowing such a thing) to favor Strength and Constitution, so their to-hit and hit point advantages seem larger because of ability bonuses, but that's somewhat illusory, since the cleric could do it too. In regular BX, dwarves, elves and halflings also fight just as well as fighters.
Switching over to AD&D, the high level fighters get multiple attacks - it kicks in around 7th level with 3/2. BX fighters never get multiple attacks (although Labyrinth Lord mentions them for 15th level fighters - yeah right - like our campaign will last that long).
I always discounted weapon specialization as "AD&D 1E power creep" syndrome, but maybe specialization was seen by TSR as a necessary patch to fix a class that was otherwise indistinguishable? My Swords & Wizardry complete should be winging it's way eastward shortly, but I'm thinking it'll be in-line with BX.
Anyway - I'd love to hear if other folks have felt the need to "patch" the fighter. We've played with a vanilla fighter for 30 years without complaining, so I fully recognize this isn't a problem with the rules so much as a problem of perception for groups that have played with beefed up fighters.
This is an old post - I was updating some blog labels and somehow it re-posted - sorry for the repost!
Regular readers know we've been using the LOTFP flavor of BX/classic D&D for the past 8 months or so. Fighters are really beefed up in LOTFP and are the backbone of the party in combat - they hit better than everyone else, and they have a suite of combat maneuvers (press, parry, defensive fighting) that give them some additional choices. My group is having an edition discussion right now - deciding if we should stick with LOTFP, upgrade to LOTFP Grindhouse, or go in another direction. (I've also got a poll up currently to see which edition makes the most sense for the Black City campaign, currently under development). One thing that jumps out as we discuss editions is how mechanically plain the fighter is in BX and AD&D. It's mainly an issue of perception - no one noticed the old fighters were vanilla until the new fighters were the rock stars of combat.
A 10th level fighter in BX or AD&D only hits about 2 points better than his clerical peers (THAC0 12 instead of THAC0 14). One guy dedicates his life to the church, the other to warfare and the practice of arms, and the warrior nets a 10% improvement on his fighting ability over the man of the cloth. Clerics are limited to d6 weapons, whereas fighters can use d8 weapons and d10 weapons (although I imagine a lot of folks house rule their clerics into using swords and deity-favored weapons). There is an increase in hit points - the fighter will have 20-25% more hit points over the long haul in BX.
I suppose the fighter will arrange their stats (if you're allowing such a thing) to favor Strength and Constitution, so their to-hit and hit point advantages seem larger because of ability bonuses, but that's somewhat illusory, since the cleric could do it too. In regular BX, dwarves, elves and halflings also fight just as well as fighters.
Switching over to AD&D, the high level fighters get multiple attacks - it kicks in around 7th level with 3/2. BX fighters never get multiple attacks (although Labyrinth Lord mentions them for 15th level fighters - yeah right - like our campaign will last that long).
I always discounted weapon specialization as "AD&D 1E power creep" syndrome, but maybe specialization was seen by TSR as a necessary patch to fix a class that was otherwise indistinguishable? My Swords & Wizardry complete should be winging it's way eastward shortly, but I'm thinking it'll be in-line with BX.
Anyway - I'd love to hear if other folks have felt the need to "patch" the fighter. We've played with a vanilla fighter for 30 years without complaining, so I fully recognize this isn't a problem with the rules so much as a problem of perception for groups that have played with beefed up fighters.
It depends on how you play. If you like to use many situational modifiers in combat (à la AD&D 2e), fighters definitely need specialization or at least a better THAC0 to perform all the cool maneuvers and still have a reasonable chance of success. If you don't use/like situational modifiers, then a little more role-playing in combat could really be enough (have your players watch Spartacus :D)
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I didn't like in LotFP is that fighters are better in fighting, but that's not because they effectively hit often. They are better cause any other character sucks in combat!
Clerics are limited to d6 weapons, whereas fighters can use d8 weapons and d10 weapons (although I imagine a lot of folks house rule their clerics into using swords and deity-favored weapons).
ReplyDeleteSwords that still only do d6 damage... ;)
That's a pretty clever approach - let any class use any weapon, but limit the damage based on the class - fighters do d8 or d10, clerics and thieves d6, magic users do d4 (or something similar).
ReplyDeleteHelps with the "anything you can do I can do better for less experience" issue the fighter has vs the cleric.
I wrote about it here: class based limits on damage. Wizards are limited to d4 (d6 for 2-handed), Clerics and Thieves to d6 (d8 for 2-handed), and Fighters have no limit on the damage dice they roll.
ReplyDeleteThat's also an optional rule in the "B/X Companion." (Reviewed here: http://tinyurl.com/3jkmmdn )
ReplyDeleteDragon Mag #66 had an article on weapon damage by class. That was the first time I had seen it. We used it for a while and then didn't. Don't recall why we switched back
ReplyDeleteLook at that - weapon-by-class was originally in The Dragon!
ReplyDeleteA quick informal poll of my players via email met with a thumbs up on damage-by-class - I think we have at least one easy-to-implement patch for the old school fighter.
Did OD&D introduce multiple attacks at all? I know it wasn't in BX, but Mentzer had them (and obviously AD&D).
For my LL campaign, I use AD&D style multiple attacks for fighters and Vanilla Fighters get a type of weapon specialization. My next LL houserule doc is gonna incorporate a small list of abilities that fighters can choose from, say every five levels.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Al's first Beyond the Black Gate Compendium for his answer to this issue, for S&W. Fighters can choose from various professions. Don't recall the names, but basically toned down versions of the Ranger and Paladin, as well as Rogue type fighters, specialists with specific weapons, etc.
I think I'm gonna take Al's idea and tweak it to my tastes, for the S&W campaign I've been planning in the back of my mind, for the past few weeks. :)
@Beedo, I'll see if I can get that chart posted for u tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI might allow fighters to try multiple hits in a combat round by taking an AC penalty - their superior competence allows them to take calculated risks. I have no idea about the numbers though.
ReplyDeleteFighters seem bland, but in OD&D they are the only ones with magic weapons, which is more then enough for me.
ReplyDeleteI have not generally found the need to buff the basic fighter, but then I use weapon specialization from the Rules Cyclopedia.
ReplyDeletePrior to bloggergate 2011, there were a number of comments to this thread (9 or 10) and one popular choice was to use weapon damage by class (instead of variable damage by weapon type) to beef up the old school fighter - fighters do d8, clerics and thieves d6, and magic users d4 regardless of weapon.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that's a house rule we might try next time we play core BX or Labyrinth Lord.
Fighters don't have any problems if you use weapon mastery from BECMI (AD&D's weapon specialization provides a similar patch).
See: Fighter Spells, on the Links to Wisdom wiki. That's my take on patching them.
ReplyDeleteLink: http://campaignwiki.org/wiki/LinksToWisdom/Spells
ReplyDeleteAnd direct link to the post: http://lunchingonlamias.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-spell-weapon-tracking.html
In my house rules fighters get a special 'Prowess' die. It's a d4 at level 1. Every round they can add their prowess die to a missing attack roll, OR to a damage roll, OR to temporarily increase their AC against an enemy's attack that would hit them. Pretty powerful, but fun
ReplyDelete