Fighting-Men and Dexterity: What Was Lost Later

[thegreyelf]

Something that consistently tugs at me: there's a common consensus that in later editions of the game, fighters get outclassed by wizards after a certain point. They are, overall, a fairly basic class in AD&D, getting a good attack bonus, the best access to weapons and armor...and little else. Their ability to gain multiple attacks against 1HD or lower creatures becomes of decreasing utility as they reach mid to higher levels. There's arguments both for and against this take on fighters. We could go back and forth for years and not reach a consesus.

What I want to talk about, however, is the special ability that Fighting-Men get in OD&D that was, for some reason, lost in AD&D.

In OD&D, fighters with a Dexterity of over 14 reduce enemies' attack rolls by 1 point per point of Dexterity over 14. That's a huge benefit that's just lost in AD&D, which appears to just replace it with a "defensive adjustment" based on Dex for all characters.

Anyone have any theories on why this particular ability was lost after OD&D?

[hamurai]

I guess it was done away with after everyone got a bonus to AC from Dex 15, called "Defensive Adjustment":

Defensive Adjustment refers to the penalty or bonus applicable to a
character’s saving throws against certain forms of attack (such as fire ball,
lightning bolts, etc.) due to dodging ability. It also applies to the
character‘s parrying and/or dodging ability in missile or melee combat; in
this case the penalty sutracts from the armor class (q.v.) of the character,
making him or her easier to hit, while the bonus adds to the defensive
value of the character’s armor class, making him or her harder ta hit.

(PHB AD&D 1E, p.11)

[Zenopus]

Yes, the Greyhawk adjustment for Fighting Men became the Defensive Adjustment in AD&D. Note the range is identical: 1 point of adjustment per point of Dex from 15-18.

Also note that in the LBB, magic items subtracted from the Attacker's To-Hit roll rather than changing the Defender's AC. So the "reduce their opponents' chance of hitting them" was just the using the language of the LBBs for anything that affected AC outside of armor/shield. Greyhawk began to shift this with the "Magic Armor Effects on Armor Class Guide" that shows ACs less than 0. (And Holmes Basic still stated that magic armor/shield reduced the attacker's to hit roll.)

The full Greyhawk quote is:

Fighters with a dexterity of greater than 14 can use their unusual manual dexterity to attempt to dodge or parry opponents' attacks. For every point over 14 they are able to reduce their opponents' chances of hitting them by 1 (5%).

I have on occasion seen this interpreted as requiring an "dodge or parry" - i.e., that the fighter must do this in place of attacking. This would make it more like the Holmes Basic parry rule. But I don't believe that was Gygax's intention here.

But thegreyelf, you are correct that that it was a Fighter-only bonus that was shifted to all characters in AD&D. Perhaps an attempt to give Thieves a chance at a decent AC without better armor, but it does remove a special ability (feat?) once limited to Fighters.

Another one is the Strength bonus. In Greyhawk, all of the Strength bonuses are for Fighters only, whereas in AD&D, only exceptional strength is limited to Fighters (of course the tables were also shifted so there are less under 18 bonuses in AD&D). Also note that Greyhawk requires the Fighter's strength to be "raw" (i.e., not modified by Int or Wis) in order to get the bonuses.

[premmy]

Not germane to the dexterity issue, but I want to remark on the multiple attacks against weak enemies. In recent months, I've seen an interesting variant of this in Melan's games, which greatly extended the utility of Fighters without making them overpowered. Instead of getting one attack per level against 1 HD monsters, Fighters can attack as many HD's worth of opponents as they themselves have levels. For example, a 7th level Fighter could attack 7 1 HD enemies (assuming he could get within close combat distance of that many in a single round), or 3 2 HD ones and a 1 HD one, or a 5 HD one and a 2 HD one, or any other combination aas long as his targets' HD add up to 7 or less. This allows them to retain the multiple attacks ability even at higher levels, when "trash mobs" are likely 2, 3 or possibly higher HD monsters. At the same time, it doesn't make him overpowered against very weak enemies, since his number of attacks is still limited by how many targets he can physically get close to in a round.

[thegreyelf]

May 12, 2020 13:22:55 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Yes, the Greyhawk adjustment for Fighting Men became the Defensive Adjustment in AD&D. Note the range is identical: 1 point of adjustment per point of Dex from 15-18.

Also note that in the LBB, magic items subtracted from the Attacker's To-Hit roll rather than changing the Defender's AC. So the "reduce their opponents' chance of hitting them" was just the using the language of the LBBs for anything that affected AC outside of armor/shield. Greyhawk began to shift this with the "Magic Armor Effects on Armor Class Guide" that shows ACs less than 0. (And Holmes Basic still stated that magic armor/shield reduced the attacker's to hit roll.)

The full Greyhawk quote is:

Fighters with a dexterity of greater than 14 can use their unusual manual dexterity to attempt to dodge or parry opponents' attacks. For every point over 14 they are able to reduce their opponents' chances of hitting them by 1 (5%).

I have on occasion seen this interpreted as requiring an "dodge or parry" - i.e., that the fighter must do this in place of attacking. This would make it more like the Holmes Basic parry rule. But I don't believe that was Gygax's intention here.

But thegreyelf, you are correct that that it was a Fighter-only bonus that was shifted to all characters in AD&D. Perhaps an attempt to give Thieves a chance at a decent AC without better armor, but it does remove a special ability (feat?) once limited to Fighters.

Another one is the Strength bonus. In Greyhawk, all of the Strength bonuses are for Fighters only, whereas in AD&D, only exceptional strength is limited to Fighters (of course the tables were also shifted so there are less under 18 bonuses in AD&D). Also note that Greyhawk requires the Fighter's strength to be "raw" (i.e., not modified by Int or Wis) in order to get the bonuses.

Indeed. It certainly seems to weaken fighters significantly while powering up all the other characters. I'm just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the rationale for doing that.

[retrorob]

AD&D gives fighters d10 for hit points, I wouldn't call it a weakness

[Zenopus]

Thieves in AD&D are the most likely to benefit from the expanded AC bonus, and I never hear of thieves in D&D - even AD&D - being described as overpowered.

[thegreyelf]

May 13, 2020 12:00:45 GMT -6 retrorob said:

AD&D gives fighters d10 for hit points, I wouldn't call it a weakness

By the time the Dexterity benefit was introduced in Greyhawk, Fighting Men also had better hit dice. Hell, even in OD&D they had MORE hit dice than everyone else. And I'd DEFINITELY call it a weakness. Certainly it's not enough to offset the loss of a penalty to hit on every single blow which was then given to everyone in the game. But again, we're bordering on the old argument of whether fighters are outclassed by magic users at higher levels, and that's an unwinnable argument

[thegreyelf]

May 13, 2020 12:08:02 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Thieves in AD&D are the most likely to benefit from the expanded AC bonus, and I never hear of thieves in D&D - even AD&D - being described as overpowered.

The issue isn't whether thieves are "overpowered." Nobody said that. There's a difference between "powering up," which means "benefitting," and "becoming overpowered."

There's LITERALLY no argument that can be sustained that losing this benefit which was spread among all characters kicks everyone up at the expense of the fighter losing one of their only real benefits that mattered. Jumping from a d6 to a d10 hit die, for example, quite literally means an extra 2 hit points per level--less than a sword hit. It doesn't make up for potentially a -4 (with an 18 Dex, admittedly) to hit the character every swing.

[Zenopus]

You asked for theories as to why it was done, and that's my theory: that the AC bonus makes thieves a bit less fragile, and they are much more likely to qualify for the bonus, given that Dex is their Prime.

In OD&D, only 20% of 3d6-in-order PCs will have a Dex of 15 or more, and a number of those will choose Thief as a class (particularly if Str is low), so only a minority of Greyhawk Fighters get the bonus anyway.

[Desparil]

May 13, 2020 12:12:19 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

May 13, 2020 12:08:02 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Thieves in AD&D are the most likely to benefit from the expanded AC bonus, and I never hear of thieves in D&D - even AD&D - being described as overpowered.

The issue isn't whether thieves are "overpowered." Nobody said that. There's a difference between "powering up," which means "benefitting," and "becoming overpowered."

There's LITERALLY no argument that can be sustained that losing this benefit which was spread among all characters kicks everyone up at the expense of the fighter losing one of their only real benefits that mattered. Jumping from a d6 to a d10 hit die, for example, quite literally means an extra 2 hit points per level--less than a sword hit. It doesn't make up for potentially a -4 (with an 18 Dex, admittedly) to hit the character every swing.

But the fighter didn't lose anything. A fighter with 18 Dexterity in AD&D is just as hard to hit as an OD&D fighter with 18 Dexterity. As for the extra hit points, those mitigate attacks that bypass armor class, like traps and fireballs and dragon breath. Also, particularly at 1st level, there's a big binary difference between having enough hit points to survive a hit, versus going down the first time a goblin strikes you. And of course, the hit point advantage accumulates as you gain levels. Fighters also benefited from the adjusted Attack Matrices in AD&D, while the other classes mostly stayed stagnant. Gaining fractional extra attacks at higher levels was also fiddly, but definitely a plus.

Also, by comparison, magic-users definitively lost some things in the transition. Several of the most powerful low-level spells, such as Sleep, got toned down in AD&D, and Intelligence requirements to use spells of 6th level and higher were all raised by 1 point compared to the prerequisites given in Greyhawk. That and no longer being able to buy a full set of spell books with every standard spell upon reaching a new spell level... overall, compared to the state of things in Greyhawk, I would say that fighters got slightly better in AD&D, clerics and thieves quite a bit better, and magic-users got slightly worse.

[waysoftheearth]

A couple of observations:

May 13, 2020 12:09:34 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

By the time the Dexterity benefit was introduced in Greyhawk, Fighting Men also had better hit dice.

Seems to me there's little point comparing fighter HD between editions. What matters more is any shift in the balance of fighterHD-to-monsterHD-to-damage between editions. E.g.;
In the 3LBBs both fighters and monsters have six-sided hit dice and hits deal 1-6 damage; so all even.
In GH both fighters and monsters have 8-sided hit dice and hits deal variable damage.
-- Fighter damage is by weapon type. Most of the GH "fighter weapons" deal 1-8 damage most of the time, but some deal less or more.
-- Monster damage is proportional to monster size/power; many low-end monsters deal less than 1-8 damage and most higher-end monsters deal more than 1-8 damage.
So, arguably, the GH fighter is better off than the 3LBB fighter against entry-level monsters (because they now deal less damage than his HD) but worse off against high-end monsters (because they now deal more damage than his HD).

May 13, 2020 15:31:17 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

In OD&D, only 20% of 3d6-in-order PCs will have a Dex of 15 or more

The probability of 15+ on 3d6 is 20/216 or roughly 9.26%

[Zenopus]

May 13, 2020 22:20:33 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

May 13, 2020 15:31:17 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

In OD&D, only 20% of 3d6-in-order PCs will have a Dex of 15 or more

The probability of 15+ on 3d6 is 20/216 or roughly 9.26%

D'oh! Thanks for the correction - I quickly looked at a graphic and just added up the columns, not realizing it was 20 out of 216 rather than 100.