"But Fighters are all the saaame!"

[murquhart72]

AKA "Shouldn't we have a skill system?" Both read in the whiniest voice you can muster.

To answer the second point first: NO
As to the title point: consider the following three Fighting-Men of Law, all with average abilities, hit points, chain mail, shield and sword:

Marcus Maximilian: Veteran soldier of the Roman Republic, wearing his old lorica hamata, wielding his gladius & scutum thoughtfully, descends into the ancient crypt for the recovery of treasure long forgotten. Hopefully the rumors of living skeletons were false...

Johann Half-Beard: Veteran of raids to the south (one of which saw the right side of his head burned and permanently hairless), lifts his colorful round shield and brilliant broadsword over his mailed, muscular form; A challenge to the bandits before him. They'll learn what it means to attack his village!

Sir Alphas the White: Veteran of the crusades, adorned in his Norman mail and teardrop shield, sheaths his arming sword to enter the courts of the city's grand hall. Surely, the nobleman's daughter will see him in a favorable light THIS time!

So yeah, they're all the same... IF YOU PLAY THEM THAT WAY. Use your imagination and give your "just a fighter" some character and/or background. That alone will help the Referee adjudicate any need for skilled action that may come up.

[Deleted]

Sigh.

Anybody who's ever played an ancient or medieval wargame knows fighters are not all the same. Heavy troops, light troops, skirmishers, missile troops, shock troops, are all different and all play their part.

The problem is that the combat turn should have stayed one minute. The dice roll is a net effect after a minute of combat, not your "fancy manoeuvre."

Once you stop thinking that the dice represents a single strike, it becomes easy.

[randyb]

Jul 19, 2017 11:13:13 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Sigh.

Anybody who's ever played an ancient or medieval wargame knows fighters are not all the same. Heavy troops, light troops, skirmishers, missile troops, shock troops, are all different and all play their part.

The problem is that the combat turn should have stayed one minute. The dice roll is a net effect after a minute of combat, not your "fancy manoeuvre."

Once you stop thinking that the dice represents a single strike, it becomes easy.

The last sentence, especially, should be graven in stone with gold fill.

[rossik]

Yeah, i have heard that one too.

This guys said "oh, but i want to play a barbarian. What are the rules?"

And i said "well, the same. just act as a barbarian, fight like a barbarian, and dress like a barbarian"

[howandwhy99]

Fighting-Man is not a personality, it's a class. It holds the features which make the class that particular class.

::To Hit ability, Hit Dice, all weapon proficiencies, all armor proficiencies, proficiency with siege weapons, limited magic item proficiency, ability to create unit formations... It's not a boring class to play at all.

Everything unique about the character comes from random generation rolls and as a result of playing the game.

[hamurai]

We had a house rule for a sort of "primitive fighting-man" a.k.a. barbarian, which limited the armour to leather & shield but raised the HD to d8 (we mostly play with d6 HD for all classes). That was a one-time character who made it to 5th level - can't say how the balancing would work out at higher levels.

[bestialwarlust]

The biggest I see with introducing players from later editions to od&d is the perception that the character needs mechanical modifiers to be "special". Where as that really comes in how you play your fighter.

[geoffrey]

Also, magic swords for fighters help differentiate them. 20% of magic items are magic swords, and half of those have special powers over and above "+whatever to hit and/or damage", not to speak of egoism, special purposes, etc. Elric's Stormbringer sure made him stand out.

Sadly, this emphasis on lots of unique magic swords was lost in later editions.

[Zulgyan]

This very cool and all, but on the other hand this is a game, and gamers like to play around with game (rules) elements. That is why I do like the concept of special or unique abilities that players can get for their fighters, so as to make them feel more unique from a game perspective. "I can do something no else can do" is something players feel pride and get excited about. That's a positive game element in my opinion. All while trying to keep the game simple, open and not overly codified, for all the benefits this characteristics bring to the table.

We DM's get to play around with all the cool monsters and all the cool variety out there, but I think players also want to have more game stuff to play around with.

[Scott Anderson]

What about a fighter who can cast the knock spell once a day? He doesn't Know Magic but one time he makes a deal with a djinn to learn one spell or something. You can figure out what it would take to gain - I would guess 5,000 XP and at least third level but you could say different. Then put an appropriate encounter into the campaign for it to happen.

That way, your fighter isn't flinging fire balls or flying but he has this one cool little trick he keeps in his back pocket for emergencies.

Is that the kind of thing you would want?

[Zulgyan]

That's pretty cool.

[hamurai]

I once gave a fighter the ability to summon a ghostly horse of mist which only she could ride. She had learned it in the campaign by helping some tribe and the shaman taught her the spell she could cast once per day only, and only as a 1-hour ritual.
She liked it and while it didn't unbalance anything, it was something very special for her and changed the way she saw her character. Her fighter would become more spiritual afterwards.

[Scott Anderson]

Upon further rumination, I think that fighters being so similar to one another mechanically is a boon rather than a drawback. What you learn from playing one fighter is almost entirely transferable to playing another one. This is almost as true about the cleric as well.

When it comes to the old school virtues of player skill outweighing character abilities and the several clever players playing face-up at the table, nothing could be more fitting than to give two players the same mechanics and equipment list, and seeing what each in turn can make of them.

And, just as one chess player will be able to get more work out of a knight than another one, so one player should be able to get more work out of his fantasy medieval knight than another.

[foxroe]

Another way of approaching it (and this is really just rehashing what has already been said)...

Fighters are all the same.
Clerics are all the same.
Magic-users are all the same.

Mechanically.

How does a player differentiate his Cleric from the "crowd"? The character worships a different god/goddess and selects appropriate spells, maybe uses a club instead of a mace, etc.

And how does a player differentiate his Magic-user from the "crowd"? The character prefers offensive magics and selects the appropriate spells, likes staves so casts Continual Light on a big stick ("Behold! I am Rodrik Sun-Wielder!"), etc.

So how does a player differentiate his Fighter from the "crowd"? The character prefers lighter armor and ranged weapons, maybe she wants to wear demonically decorated plate and crush skulls with a two-handed morning star, etc.

As soon as one starts adding "special abilities" to the Fighting-man class, one has opened the door for the whiners players of Magic-users and Clerics to ask about special abilities for the other classes because "they're all the same". Time to break out the 3.5 books...

I think adding the misty horse and the 1/day knock spell are neat ideas, but they should evolve through game play and these sort of benefits should be available to any deserving PC and not just the Fighters.

[/my super-duper-awesome opinion]

[Scott Anderson]

Magic users are not all the same like fighting men are. Each has access to different spells; even if as in ODD they all have access to every spell, they must decide which to memorize in the morning. Then at crucial moments, they must decide how to use those spells. On top of that they can research new spells. Fighting men cannot research new ways to harm their opponents.

While what you learn playing a MU is largely transferable, like the fighting man example, what you do will differ from what another person would do exponentially more than with two fighters.

Two fighters are equivalent to two knights in chess. Useful but almost entirely interchangeable. Two magic users however are like two Lego sets. Magic users differ from one another on a much greater scale than fighters.

None of this should be taken as a statement of the relative worth of the two classes. It is only meant to illustrate how fighting men are almost interchangeable, especially compared to magic users.

Clerics fall in between the two other classes, since they choose to pray for certain spells but cannot research new ones. They are also nominally limited by alignment which gives some mechanical difference.

[waysoftheearth]

Well, to play devil's advocate (what me?)...

Aug 17, 2017 1:44:45 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

Magic users are not all the same like fighting men are. Each has access to different spells; even if as in ODD they all have access to every spell, they must decide which to memorize in the morning. Then at crucial moments, they must decide how to use those spells. On top of that they can research new spells. Fighting men cannot research new ways to harm their opponents.

While what you learn playing a MU is largely transferable, like the fighting man example, what you do will differ from what another person would do exponentially more than with two fighters.

Fighting men are not all the same like magic users are. Each has access to different weapons and strategies; even if as in ODD they all have access to every weapon and strategy, they must decide which they will bring with them in the morning. Then at crucial moments, they must decide how to use those weapons and strategies. On top of that they can gain new entourages of fighty types. Magic users cannot lead armies of fighty types to harm their opponents.

While what you learn playing a FM is largely transferable, like the magic user example, what you do will differ from what another person would do exponentially more than with two magic users.

...

You see that...?


I'm pretty sure that variability lies more with the player than in any specific class. A dull player will make any character seem identical, while a creative player makes every character seem unique.


But seriously. The options for fighters are wiiiide open.

To start with, you have all the dozen or so wargamey troop-type functions plus all the myriad fighty sub-classes that have ever been thought of at your disposal as your basic archetypes. That's a broad base right there.
Combined with whatever equipment you bring to bear.
Combined with whatever military strategy (or number of strategies) you decide this character favours.
Combined with whatever entourage you may build up (thugs, men at arm, elves, dwarves, orcs, dogs, balrogs, octopus cavalry, etc. the list is a mile long).
Combined with whatever magic items you may have acquired. Not forgetting that magic swords have all sorts of kewl powerz, including some which can Read Magic so now it's firing off spells from scrolls too.
Combined with whatever personality quirks you and/or your PC may develop.
Combined with your ability/luck/success at military execution.
Combined with your prestige on the jousting field!


In short, if our fighting-men are always the same, let's not immediately presume it's a problem with the class!

Ding.

[Scott Anderson]

We're not disagreeing here. Maybe I'm saying it wrong. I mean to praise the mechanical simplicity of the fighting man class, not to bury it. All the benefits you list are the same benefits I would extol.

[sixdemonbag]

Aug 17, 2017 3:32:19 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

 plus all the myriad fighty sub-classes that have ever been thought of at your disposal as your basic archetypes. That's a broad base right there.

I would like to emphasize this more, in particular. It's an underused and undervalued notion, IMO.

[Deleted]

Fighters are not all the same.

Crappy players are all the same.

Okay, we're done here. Somebody fetch me a beer.

[Scott Anderson]

the best character in our current campaign (1e) is a gnome fighter who started with two hit points and continually blunders into successes rather than being smart or clever. The dice just love him.

[oldkat]

I've hesitated jumping into this discussion because, well, these matters seem to come up all the time; at least now and again. And often with sincere intentions.

If the study and analysis of the core classes reveals anything (IMO) about actions/professions/classes, as broken down into simple game mechanics, it is this: the actual physicality of the character has no effect on the career s/he wishes to pursue. IOW, the 6'6" 320 lb. leviathan of a farm boy can study magic if he so desires, or enter the clergy, or take up the sword. As well as the 5'1" 100 lb. daughter of the local butcher. How one plays the character within the framework of their chosen career, is the differentiating factor of what many call, style of play. And within a somewhat thought out campaign sprinkled with various cultures and sub races, further differentiation is possible.

But then, it appears. Before us. On the pages. A concept that, I would argue, counters the above. It is the foundation upon which much of the entire system stands. STATS. Symbolic or not, they represent some kind of actuality of the world concerning a character's physicality, and mental abilities to think, and analyze. If one is to argue that STR does not mean anything, then why have it at all? If it does mean something--like, the ability of a character to force a door--then it absolutely is screaming out that a true physicality exists within the character in order to perform certain actions; as those required in the game.

But stats do not determine a person's physicality. Do they? In a way, they do. A Fighting Man can have a STR 3 and still be a fighter. Albeit, he would be one of the weakest, and likely meekest, around, but the player's job/role is to control the character within its abilities, as best as possible, to ensure he/she survives. Now, would you want to play a 6'6" 320 lb. fighter with a STR 3? Some might, seeing the fun and challenge it presents. Others might not. That, is player choice. The player might opt, instead, to make the character 4'9" and 98 lbs; which would be much more fitting IMO, and just as challenging/fun.

Heavy troops, light troops, skirmishers, missile troops, shock troops, are all different and all play their part.

I mention the quote from Mr. Mornard simply to compare it to this: Linesman, Center, Half-back, Full-back, Running-Back, Quarter-back, Kicker, Offense, Defense. All are different, yet they all have their role to play. And, in general/in most cases, the biggest will be the linesmen, and the smaller-lightest ones, runners and/or kickers.

Fighters are not all the same, yet they might very well share the same physicality of others. It is how the player controls/runs the character that matters in the end. But ignoring the fact that no two characters are or will likely be the exact same in physicality, is a fool's game.

How does that not make sense?

[starcraft]

Aug 24, 2017 17:31:00 GMT -6 oldkat said:

If one is to argue that STR does not mean anything, then why have it at all? If it does mean something--like, the ability of a character to force a door--then it absolutely is screaming out that a true physicality exists within the character in order to perform certain actions; as those required in the game.

I have to admit while I am far more interested in OD&D style rules on stats than the explosion of stat importance/bonuses in future editions, this is a very fair point. If a Str 9 and Str 13 fighting man are essentially identical as far as game mechanics, it makes one wonder the very question "why have it at all?"

Even in a system like Mr Gygax used of allowing bonuses to hit for high strength or allowing for penalties for low strength, of say the -1 or +1 to hit variety, are we not simply rating strength as weak/normal/strong?

Please don;t misunderstand, a DM can - and ABSOLUTELY SHOULD - take stats into account during game play. Forcing doors, lifting the portcullis, catching the clumsy Cleric as he falls from the castle wall and the like could all be a function of a strength check if the DM so desires. But again, if the fighting man's strength does not affect his combat ability - does it make sense to rate it at all?

I have no desire to complicate the game - I love my OD&D simple, but I think this is a fascinating discussion and love "hearing" everyone's take on it.

For the record, I use a +1 to hit for Str 15 or over for fighting men in my game. I like the simplicity of it all while still seeing the absurdity of their being a benefit to a 15 Str vs a 14 but no advantage of a 18 vs a 15.

Color me a hypocrite!

[howandwhy99]

I agree Ability Scores should matter. I use A LOT of subscores under each of them. I think each point should matter (and I never use "ability checks"). But I disagree with AD&D's rule of needing a 9 or better in a class's prerequisite to be the class. Core classes aren't subclasses. Anyone can become one. It's how the player plays the game which ultimately matters, which scores them points, and which advances them in level.

...But if a newbie tried to play a below average strength Fighting-Man I would certainly point out how only the average scores are going to be a balanced difficulty of odds. And they might prefer something with an easier difficulty at a higher ability score. Even rerolling if their heart is set on it. Rather than playing the challenging STR 3, 1hp fighter out of the gate.

[foxroe]

Of course Strength matters; it's the Prime Requisite for Fighting-men! Experience bonus, yes?

[foxroe]

With all of these fighter and thief threads flying around like a flock of stirges in a blood bank, I'm becoming confused as to where I should post my thoughts on the matter!

Anyway...

I started playing D&D using the Holmes rules many eons ago. No strength bonuses. Then along came B/X and AD&D, and I thought, "Cool! Extra damage and chance to hit for higher strength!", and then soon thereafter "Fighters are useless unless they have at least 15 strength." and "No bonuses in OD&D(Holmes)? That's dumb!"

Now that I'm older, and I've gone back to my roots, so to speak, the absence of combat related bonuses doesn't phase me in the least. Sure, I played around with "+1 hit/damage for strength 15 or better"-type house rules, but in the end... meh.

Here's how I see it. In a game where every weapon, from rusty boot dagger to adamantium flamberge, does 1d6 regardless of size, does it make sense to boost the damage because your strength is higher than average? Because you can swing that Dwarven icepick harder? Why not boost damage for high dexterity? Surly someone with highly tuned reflexes and hand-eye-coordination should be able to land a blow exactly where it would be the most effective. And why not intelligence? Surly an intelligent character would possibly have knowledge of where the Fourteen Points of Lethal Contact are on any given target, and thus be more likely to inflict more damage, right? Why not wisdom? Constitution? Charisma? One could come up with a great chart, summing up all the bonuses and penalties for all the character's ability scores to arrive at One True Damage Bonus, right? Blech.

The intrinsic beauty of OD&D's ability score system is that it is so utterly simple, as a player (and a DM), I don't have to worry about what I roll for them. No more do I look at a 13 strength and think "Useless as a fighter"; instead, I think "Thirteen is above average, so I guess I could be a fighter. But I really want to be a magic-user, so I'll do that. Hmmm... what would a magic-user with 13 strength be like?" I no longer fuss. I roll, I imagine, I play.

Just my opinion of course; not for everyone. There's a whole industry built on the opposite train of thought, so what do I know...

[hamurai]

When playing with shorter combat rounds, where one die-roll equals one strike, where every class has many abilities they can perform in this short time (based on different stats), then I'd say it makes perfect sense that a higher STR equals higher damage. The same is true for differentiated weapon damage and hit points, they all make more sense when you break down your combat into smaller chunks where every strike (or, in general, "action") is rolled.

But OD&D has the 1-minute abstract round, where (as I see it) the damage done is abstract enough to say, all applicable bonuses have already been figured into your d6 damage and the result of your roll means the overall damage done. Characters with all low stats do the same damage maybe because their "inferiority" makes them fight with even more aggression or despair (no stats for that!) and thus they level with the rest of the party.

The same goes for hit points. When you only look at the hits you can take or dodge, then yes, it makes sense for the fighters to have higher HP than the wizard, because of the fighters' training and the wizard's lack of it. But when looking at the 1-minute round again, what the fighter may have as combat prowess and stamina, the wizard may have as pure willpower or mental techniques to overcome physical strain. Yes, they might get hit, but their minds are honed to control the forces of magic! Mind over matter, so in the (abstract) end they have the same HP as the fighter because what they lack in training they make up for by their will. And that can be true for a MU of any INT or WIS score - they're all Magic-Users.

[Scott Anderson]

I disagree about how much ability scores should matter in OD&D. I think they are suggestive and an aid to the imagination first. A 3 is just as reasonable a stat as a 13 or an 18. To me, a 3 just means the lowest stat among healthy, adventurous people - not a crippling disability. a character with a DEX of 3 has a very slim chance of walking a balance beam or of juggling but he's not going to fall over walking around. A MU with and INT of 3 is probably an incurious lout, but he can cast spells fine.

Again - talking about OD&D. Ability scores mean different things as early as BX and arguably Greyhawk.

I also think that ability checks on 1d20 or 3d6 are good to use to adjudicate actions that are irrespective of experience (saves are better for tasks adventurers get progressively better at.). This is another way that ability scores become a little bit important - but never super critical.

[sixdemonbag]

BTB, ability scores in M&M are just fancy shmancy names for determining the following derived stats:

- XP Bonus
- HD Bonus
- Survival Chance
- Missile Bonus
- # of Hirelings
- Loyalty Bonus
- # of Languages
- Command Range
- Ego

Instead of ability scores, you could just roll the above stats to put on your character sheet and avoid abilities altogether! Those stats tell me much more about my character than the classic array.

[howandwhy99]

Aug 25, 2017 14:24:39 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Instead of ability scores, you could just roll the above stats to put on your character sheet and avoid abilities altogether! Those stats tell me much more about my character than the classic array.

Agreed. I've mentioned this before. DMs can have as many subscores as they want or need for their system. Those are the scores representing actual mechanics. Ability Scores are really aggregate traits of similarly derived subscores IMO.

The ease of Ability Scores is you can roll 3d6, "generate on the fly", major portions of a previously abstract creature very quickly. The 6 scores simplify what could have been an untrackable heap of variety if they didn't exist. Not that players can't tweak their details as the game goes along, but those are slow changes I can keep up with. Not a dozens and dozens of scores for everything everywhere.

[sixdemonbag]

Aug 25, 2017 21:22:57 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

The 6 scores simplify what could have been an untrackable heap of variety if they didn't exist. Not that players can't tweak their details as the game goes along, but those are slow changes I can keep up with. Not a dozens and dozens of scores for everything everywhere.

Now that's an interesting perspective. Slowly develop "substats" during play as needed. This would be in lieu of front loading everything at character creation. I like this concept very much.

NOTE: If I misinterpreted your point, apologies.