|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 24, 2011 6:17:31 GMT -6
There are various arguments about that suggest the original fighting-Man lacks a bit of punch compared to the other classes. E.G.G. appears to have agreed, since he gave the fighting class a boost with GH, then again with AD&D, and then yet again with UA. But exactly how humble is the 3LBB fighting-Man? Well, let's have a look at the advantages he does have shall we... 1. Fighting-Men have the best armour. The magic-user description (M&M p6) says " The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armour of the fighters" explicitly stating that fighters have the use of magical armour, and hence non-magical armour by implication. 2. Fighting-Men have the best HD and hit points. " they gain the advantage of more 'hit-dice'" (M&M p6). See also "Dice for Accumulative Hits" (M&M p17-18). Fighting-men "top out" with 9+3 HD at 9th level, and add 1 HD per two levels thereafter. For comparison, clerics "top out" with 7+1 HD at 9th level, and add 1 HD per there levels thereafter. Magic-users "top out" with 8+1 HD at 11th level, and add 1 HD per four levels thereafter. Having the most HD fighting-men also: -- Derive the most benefit from a constitution score above 14, which delivers +1 hp per HD. -- Have the most attacks versus normal types (per M&T p5). 3. Fighting-Men have the best saving throws Of clerics, fighting-Men and magic-users (for the levels listed 1 to 13). According to the Saving Throw Matrix (M&M p20) clerics require an average roll of 10.7 to save, fighting-Men 10.4, and magic-users 11.8. 4. Fighting-Men have the best attack rolls. Fighting men have the fastest progress on Attack Matrix I (M&M p19). Additionally--per the Fighting Capability stat and the attack/defence rule (M&T p5)--a 1st level fighter adds 1 to attack throws versus normal types. A 2nd level fighter throws 2 attacks versus normal types. And so on. 5. Fighting-Men have the use of all weaponry. " All magical weaponry is usable by fighters" (M&M p6) implying also the use of all non-magical weaponry. Especially missile weapons. No other classes can use bows, crossbows or the like. 6. Magic Swords are for Fighting Men only. Magic swords (arguably the best weaponry in game) are usable exclusively by fighting-Men. Note that some magic swords also have the power to Read Magic. 7. Almost All Magic Weapons are for Fighting Men Only. 92% of all magical weaponry appearing on the treasure tables (M&T p23-24) is usable by fighting-Men only. 80% are swords, 8% arrows, 1% bows, 1% axes, and 2% spears. Only the 4% daggers, 2% maces and 2% hammers are usable by magic-users and clerics respectively, and these are usable by fighters as well! So the other classes will have to argue their case that they should get these weapons ahead of the fighters. 8. The Spear is Usable by fighting-Men Only. The spear is especially deadly since " if something impales itself upon the spear damage will be double or even treble if the force is sufficient" (M&T p31). This is clarified later (GH p15) as double versus charging foe or triple when set versus charging foe. Additionally, the spear is often ruled as enabling attacks from a second rank (although I don't see this in the text). 9. Fighting-Men have Multiple Attacks According to both their Fighting Capability stat and the attack/defence rule (M&T p5) fighters have multiple attacks (as a normal man) versus normal-types. Implied by the Fighting Capability stat (M&M p17-18) and M&T p5: " Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks". Exactly what qualifies as a "normal-type" is the subject of debate, and ultimately a referee decision. Various monsters with 1+1 HD and also 2 HD Cavemen are listed as "Men" and/or described as "man-types" (see the full discussion of this here). According to their Fighting Capability stats, clerics and magic-users remain "normal" until they attain 6th and 7th level, respectively. Note that although AD&D states explicitly that this is a fighter ability, the fighter example given in the FAQ might be read as merely an example, for nowhere else is it stated explicitly in the 3LBBs that other classes do not enjoy this same benefit. However, even if allowed the other classes too, the fighting-man has the best FC/most HD, and hence would have the highest number of attacks. 10. Not Subject to Multiple Attacks from 3rd Level. According to his "Fighting Capability" a 3rd level fighting-Man (with 3 HD) has become a "heroic type" rather than a "normal type" as thus is no longer subject to multiple attacks per round by high HD monsters. For comparison, clerics and magic-users retain their "normal" status until they reach 6th level and 7th level, respectively. 11. Fighting Men can Sense Invisible Opposition. High level fighting Men are able to sense invisible opposition (as per M&T p16, see Pixies). If used, this special ability might kick in at 4th or 8th level depending on what you consider to be "high level" in your game. 12. Fighters are the only class entitled to Joust! U&WA p15 (Castles) states: « Fighting-Men within castles will demand a jousting match with all passersby of like class». Note "of like class". Non-European-based settings might conceivably offer alternate prestige-contests of martial prowess (e.g. sumo wrestling?) that would likewise be reserved for fighters only. 13. Heroes (and above) positively impact the morale of friendly normal-types around them. CM 3rd ed. p30 (Heroes): « they add 1 to the die or dice of their unit (or whatever unit they are with)». CM 3rd ed. p43 (Fantasy Reference Table) states heroes have « The ability to raise morale of friendly troops». 14. Superheroes (and above) can cause enemy normal-types to test morale just by their threatening presence. CM 3rd ed. p30 (SuperHeroes): « When a Super-hero approaches within his charge movement of the enemy, all such units must check morale as if they had taken excess casualties» and CM 3rd ed. p43 (Fantasy Reference Table): « The ability to cause the enemy to check morale». 15. Heroes (and above) ignore fewer than four normal hits in a combat. CM 3rd ed. p30 (Heroes): « four simultaneous kills must be scored against Heroes (or Anti-heroes) to eliminate them. Otherwise, there in no effect on them». This neglected detail can go a long way toward sustaining fighter hit points during an extended delve. It implies that Heroes and above ignore up to three normal hits in a combat. This phenomena is apparent in fantasy fiction where heroes enjoy a tendency to bounce back after combat encounters. Moreover, it implies that clerics need not function as heal-bots for fighters, that healing magic can be reserved for non-trivial injuries, and that the fighter's XP requirements are that much more justified. It doesn't look so bad for the humble fighting-Man when it's all laid out in a long list  Somebody hand me 3d6! edit: Added mention of missile weapons. Added that fighters can also use the magic weapons allowable to other classes. Added that 1+1 HD may not be enough to prevent suffering multiple attacks. Added ability to sense invisible opponents. Added comment regarding HD and constitution > 14. Updated notes on who should/should not be subject to multiple attacks. 2019: Added Jousting Added Chainmail morale advantages. Added Chainmail invulnerability to normal hits. A few minor language corrections. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 24, 2011 6:26:59 GMT -6
I think that the problem with the Fighting Man is not that they are weak (and I think you clearly make the case for why they are not weak) but that they are sort of bland or vanilla compared to spell-casting classes.
And the effect gets worse when optional fighing classes (paladin, ranger) get put into the mix. "Why be a Fighting Man if I can be a Ranger?" I think that this is the mentality of many players.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Nov 24, 2011 8:39:17 GMT -6
Nice summary, Ways. [opinion] I think that there is a huge plus for Fighting-Men that a lot of folks miss when they start looking at pure game mechanics and the allure of the abilities of other classes, and that's the in-game role-playing aspect. If I'm a Fighter, I'm pretty much free to do whatever the feck I want. But (depending on the particular campaign), there are usually certain expectations of role-players from the rest of the group when it comes to Clerics and Magic-Users (and even the Fighter sub-classes): Religious observances/limitations/tithes for Clerics and Paladins, constant study/spell-research/expenses (and perhaps a degree of master-dependence to go along with that) for Magic-Users, Clerics healing/curing other party members, use of detection/informational spells, etc. The only real expectation for Fighting-Men is... fighting. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing Clerics and Magic-Users just as much as the next gamer, but sometimes there's just something liberating about playing a Fighter. I don't know. My 2 c.p. anyway.  [/opinion] |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 24, 2011 12:57:54 GMT -6
Great opening post. I have long enjoyed playing fighting-men. Overall, magic-users are my favorite, but fighting-men are my second favorite. |
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Nov 24, 2011 14:08:26 GMT -6
Finarvyn: strongly agree, and that is why I'm not a fan of the fighter+ classes. I would prefer people to try to play those archetypes using the fighter class for rules. But players, they love their crunch sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 24, 2011 14:31:48 GMT -6
Great post, I've always liked to play the fighting-man as-is and don't really feel I have to keep up with the cleric of m-u. Your post does raise a few questions in my mind, the problems I see is that some of his advantages at low-level are equal to other classes, and some at high-level are shared by other classes. So overall, he's never 'better' at any one thing. 1. Fighting-Men have the best armour. The magic-user description (M&M p6) says " The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armour of the fighters" explicitly stating that fighters have the use of magical armour, and hence non-magical armour by implication. However Clerics can don the same magic armor, so not really an advantage. 2. Fighting-Men have the best HD and hit points. " they gain the advantage of more 'hit-dice'" (M&M p6). See also "Dice for Accumulative Hits" (M&M p17-18). Yes, but for the first 4 levels of play the Cleric is on-par with the fighting-man, save for the +1 at 1st level. 3. Fighting-Men have the best saving throws of clerics, fighting-Men and magic-users (for the levels listed 1 to 13). According to the Saving Throw Matrix (M&M p20) clerics require an average roll of 10.7 to save, fighting-Men 10.4, and magic-users 11.8. Yes, but the Dwarf and Hobbit are both better. 4. Fighting-Men have the best attack rolls. See Attack Matrix I (M&M p19). Yes, but it's not until 4th level that any difference really shows up, and then its just 5%. 7. 92% of all magical weaponry appearing on the treasure tables (M&T p23-24) is usable by fighting-Men only. 80% are swords, 8% arrows, 1% bows, 1% axes, and 2% spears. Only the 4% daggers, 2% maces and 2% hammers are usable by magic-users and clerics respectively. Yes - as long as the DM keeps the treasure output this way, it certainly helps the fighter; and annoys the cleric. 9. Fighting-Men have multiple attacks versus 1 HD (and fewer) monsters. Implied by: " Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks" (M&T p5). Later (SR Vol 1 No 2) clarified as meaning " A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)". It occurs to me that I don't recall anywhere that this is stated as solely a fighting-man capability, though everyone plays that way. So this advantage doesn't exist, though perhaps I'm mistaken. 10. Similarly, a 1st level fighting-Man (with 1+1 HD) is not subject to multiple attacks per round by high HD monsters. A 1st level magic-user or cleric (with 1 HD) is subject to multiple attacks. This disappears pretty quickly (2nd level). |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 24, 2011 16:03:21 GMT -6
Just for the record, I'm not attempting to argue that the fighting-Man is or is not over- or under-powered. My intent was merely to state what advantages are given to that class by the 3LBBs. In reply to some of Harbinger's counter-measures... Regarding HD and hit points: Yes, but for the first 4 levels of play the Cleric is on-par with the fighting-man, save for the +1 at 1st level. So the fighting-Man is advantaged over the cleric at 1st level, and levels 5+. Regarding saving throws: Yes, but the Dwarf and Hobbit are both better. The Dwarf and the Hobbit are members of the fighting-Man class, are they not? (I didn't include them in my average saves, but doing so would improve the position of the fighting-Man). Regarding attack rolls: Yes, but it's not until 4th level that any difference really shows up, and then its just 5%. An advantage may be slight, but it is still an advantage is it not? Regarding multiple attacks: It occurs to me that I don't recall anywhere that this is stated as solely a fighting-man capability, though everyone plays that way. So this advantage doesn't exist Even if you do rule that this multiple attacks apply to all classes, fighting-Men have the most HD, and therefore have the most attacks (since the text states that it is one attack roll per HD rather than per level). This disappears pretty quickly (2nd level). I think it is more a question of getting to 2nd level. The fighting-Man is less likely to be killed before he makes it that far... |
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 24, 2011 16:11:21 GMT -6
BTW, you forgot one:
Because they are mechanically simple, the fighting-men have the best personalities.
In my experience, it's always my fighting men I've had the most fun developing personality-wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Nov 24, 2011 19:18:51 GMT -6
That, and Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings have limits. Pure fighting men do not! I pretty much favor a fighter or a dwarf if I'm playing. Maybe its just a reflection of my baser nature, or a hell of a good way to vent your spleen about the #@!!ed up real world I cannot change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 24, 2011 19:20:08 GMT -6
Some awesome ideas, etc., here!  Just for the record, I'm not attempting to argue that the fighting-Man is or is not over- or under-powered. My intent was merely to state what advantages are given to that class by the 3LBBs. I get where you are coming from. I think that many times folks overlook what the Fighting Man can do in their enthusiasm of looking at the flashy classes. Finarvyn: strongly agree, and that is why I'm not a fan of the fighter+ classes. I would prefer people to try to play those archetypes using the fighter class for rules. But players, they love their crunch sometimes. That's one thing in favor of a "big four" campaign (fighter, thief, magic user, cleric). If you want a Ranger, for example, just play a Fighting Man but act more like a woodsman. Since OD&D doesn't have a skill system, I can tweak things so when you try to do woodsy stuff you have a better chance at a Dex check or whatever. Easy to house-rule on the spot. Because they are mechanically simple, the fighting-men have the best personalities. In my experience, it's always my fighting men I've had the most fun developing personality-wise. Also a great point. Some characters are defined by what they do, fighters tend to be defined by how they act. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Nov 24, 2011 22:25:38 GMT -6
Good points, Ways and harbinger. I agree pretty much with everything you guys are saying.
The biggest problem with the fighter, in my opinion, is now he is constantly having to complete with the cleric for hit points. Not only goes the cleric have the same hit points and to hit progression for much of the first few levels, but the cleric also has spell casting ability and turn undead. Only after 9th level does the fighter constantly outside the cleric in combat. In my mind, that's a long time to weight for the class to wait - and even then clerics still have their spells and power over the undead.
Personally, I believe Greyhawk solves the fighter's woes with variable weapon damage and the weapon vs. armor tables. Now there's no dispute between the cleric and fighter as to who is the most effective combatant at any level. Just grab a sword and military pick and they're good to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Nov 24, 2011 22:46:16 GMT -6
A moderately lucky fighting-man can end up with spell casting ability before the cleric. Also, using the other combat system, either FCT or mass combat, the fighting man is head and shoulders above the cleric every level of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Nov 24, 2011 23:50:03 GMT -6
Depending on how you decide to work troop types, yes. but there is still a time (1500-2000XP) that the cleric wins out in just about every respect.
Also, how can the fighting-man end up with spell casting ability. I don't understand (unless you're talking about psionics).
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 25, 2011 3:23:59 GMT -6
Only after 9th level does the fighter constantly outside the cleric in combat. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion Tombowings. By my reckoning, it seems clear that the fighting-Man is distinctly advantaged over the cleric in combat at levels 1 thru 9. At level 1 he is not subject to multiple attacks. The cleric is. At levels 2+ he makes multiple attacks against 1 HD foe. The cleric does not. At levels 1 thru 9 he has use of the spear, possibly doing double or triple damage, and possible attacking from rear ranks. The cleric does not. At levels 1 thru 9 has also has use of missile weapons. A by-the-book cleric does not (though some referees may allow cleric the use of slings). Comparing average hit points at levels 1 thru 9, the fighting-Man is 27 hit points better off across the 9 levels. Comparing average saving throws across levels 1 thru 9, the fighting-Man is 1 pip on the die better off across the 9 levels. If Dwarfs and Hobbits are considered, the fighting-Man's odds improve further. Comparing attack throws across levels 1 thru 9, the fighting-Man is 8 pips on the die better off across the 9 levels. If magic weapons are considered, the fighting-Man's odds improve further. Perhaps most significantly, at levels1 thru 9 the fighting-Man is 23 times as likely to have the use of an enchanted weapon than is the cleric. Moreover, magical swords (and other fighter weapons) add to hit rolls and possibly damage rolls also, while magical cleric weapons add only to damage rolls. there is still a time (1500-2000XP) that the cleric wins out in just about every respect. I don't know... even if we do (perhaps unfairly?) compare a 1st level fighting-Man to a 2nd level cleric, it seems to me that the fighting-Man might still have an edge in combat. Sure, the fighting-Man has (on average) 2.5 fewer hit points. But that aside their ACs are likely to be the same, and their saving throws are nigh on the same also. If the fighting-Man has already acquired a magical weapon then his attack rolls will be better and possibly his damage roll too, but otherwise their attack and damage rolls will be the same. But then the fighting-Man still has the advantage of missile weapons, and also of spears, either of which could be decisive. Consider this: The fighting-Man and the cleric both spot the hated foe (each other) 60 yards away across a field. The fighter stabs his spear into the ground and aims his crossbow as the cleric begins to run at him... Or this: A fighting-Man and a cleric walk into a bar expecting a peaceful drink and a meal. Midway through dinner, the evil Sheriff and his thugs bust into the place looking for trouble, bringing with them the only weapons in the place; swords, spears and daggers. The fighting-Man is the more versatile combatant. He is ready to fight any time with any weapon. The cleric is not equally capable. The fighting-Man also has one other advantage which hasn't been mentioned yet; he is more likely to be able to carry more loot due to his high strength! ;D |
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Nov 25, 2011 4:48:53 GMT -6
I agree with all said above about the FM's advantages, but IMHO cleric beats FM in STs at least during the first three levels (FM saves better against Dragon Breath.. but how many dragons are you going to face in those levels?) Because they are mechanically simple, the fighting-men have the best personalities. I quote, but it's not just a matter of crunch: there's also a social aspect, IMHO. Unless a FM has a bounty on his head, he has usually totally freedom of movement all over the world. MU has not, because he could be feared and mistrusted. Cleric has not, because his actions have to be aligned to his God. Thief - if we consider GH - has not, because he's usually an outlaw. In few words, the FM is the only one able to be himself among the playable classes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 10:47:07 GMT -6
I'd also like to point out that if you play strict "3d6 six times in order," or even "3d6 arrange as you like," the Paladin, Ranger, etc. are going to be EXTREMELY RARE.
35 years of playing, I've played 2 magic users, 1 elf, a cleric, a paladin... and dozens of fighters. By choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 11:39:11 GMT -6
I'd also like to point out that if you play strict "3d6 six times in order," or even "3d6 arrange as you like," the Paladin, Ranger, etc. are going to be EXTREMELY RARE. True. Rolling a legit 17 or 18 is hard enough, but getting in on the RIGHT STAT is a lot harder. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Nov 25, 2011 12:25:13 GMT -6
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion Tombowings. By my reckoning, it seems clear that the fighting-Man is distinctly advantaged over the cleric in combat at levels 1 thru 9. Well, I'm basing my estimates on XP rather than level, for 1 and that the cleric has the ability to heal himself between fights. While the fighter may be able to win out in a single fight, most of the time the cleric will do better overall because of the ability to refresh his resources. I chose level 9 because that is when the fighting-mans to-hit progression starts to constantly exceed the cleric's. At level 1 he is not subject to multiple attacks. The cleric is At levels 2+ he makes multiple attacks against 1 HD foe. The cleric does not. At levels 1 thru 9 he has use of the spear, possibly doing double or triple damage, and possible attacking from rear ranks. The cleric does not. At levels 1 thru 9 has also has use of missile weapons. A by-the-book cleric does not (though some referees may allow cleric the use of slings). Comparing average hit points at levels 1 thru 9, the fighting-Man is 27 hit points better off across the 9 levels. Comparing average saving throws across levels 1 thru 9, the fighting-Man is 1 pip on the die better off across the 9 levels. If Dwarfs and Hobbits are considered, the fighting-Man's odds improve further. Comparing attack throws across levels 1 thru 9, the fighting-Man is 8 pips on the die better off across the 9 levels. If magic weapons are considered, the fighting-Man's odds improve further. Perhaps most significantly, at levels1 thru 9 the fighting-Man is 23 times as likely to have the use of an enchanted weapon than is the cleric. Moreover, magical swords (and other fighter weapons) add to hit rolls and possibly damage rolls also, while magical cleric weapons add only to damage rolls. I'll give you these. They're all generally right, but I think you're forgetting the cleric's spell casting ability: - Hit points are more than made up for by healing spells though
- Saving throw differences and magic weapons are partially overturned by bless
- Protection from evil (either type) can make up can give the cleric increased survivability
- Light can be used to blind a particularly nasty monster
- Sticks to Snakes can be used for psuedo-ranged combat.
If the fighting-Man has already acquired a magical weapon then his attack rolls will be better and possibly his damage roll too, but otherwise their attack and damage rolls will be the same. But then the fighting-Man still has the advantage of missile weapons, and also of spears, either of which could be decisive. Consider this: The fighting-Man and the cleric both spot the hated foe (each other) 60 yards away across a field. The fighter stabs his spear into the ground and aims his crossbow as the cleric begins to run at him... Or this: A fighting-Man and a cleric walk into a bar expecting a peaceful drink and a meal. Midway through dinner, the evil Sheriff and his thugs bust into the place looking for trouble, bringing with them the only weapons in the place; swords, spears and daggers. The fighting-Man is the more versatile combatant. He is ready to fight any time with any weapon. The cleric is not equally capable. The fighting-Man also has one other advantage which hasn't been mentioned yet; he is more likely to be able to carry more loot due to his high strength! ;D I agree, this is the fighting man's advantage: magic items and ranged combat. The one problem with magic swords is finding one that can't starting controlling you when you're low on hit points, though - all swords are intelligent, remember. Especially the powerful ones (those with more special abilities) are difficult to control. |
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 25, 2011 12:34:49 GMT -6
I always look at the Fighting Capability of the fighter and tell myself - that's where he's better, and the alternative combat doesn't take that into account.
I'm thinking of switching things around such that FC applies to the # of attacks (and maybe a + for one of the rolls) using the d20 charts. This will make me infinitely more happy with the fighter 'as-is'.
Does this sound about right, I've based it on the OD&D FAQ?
- The character's HD is based on the FC, Hero being 4, Superhero 8, Wizard ?
- If fighting opponents at an HD ratio of 1HD or less (ie. Hero (4th level) vs 4 1HD or 2 2HD monsters) then the player may roll as many attacks as their HD, 1d6 damage per hit.
- If fighting higher level monsters, then it is one roll, a hit does HD x 1d6 damage.
- Monsters work the same way. So troll either rolls 6 attacks (+3 to one) doing 1d6 each (+3 to one), or rolls one attack, doing 6d6+3.
I believe there are people here who play this way. Do you find it too deadly? Should the single attack hit do only 1d6 damage?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Nov 25, 2011 15:49:26 GMT -6
What greyhawk did basically was 1/2 level in melee dmg per round. That's certainly the route OSRIC took. So a 6HD troll can do up to 3d6 melee dmg per round, a 12 HD dragon might have a 3d6 bite plus two claw attacks that add up to another 3d6 dmg.
I would do hd/2. So a 4+1 hd hero does 2d6 perhaps, a 5hd fighter could do 2d6+2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 25, 2011 15:49:37 GMT -6
I'm thinking of switching things around such that FC applies to the # of attacks (and maybe a + for one of the rolls) using the d20 charts. This will make me infinitely more happy with the fighter 'as-is'. I've done it this way sometimes, where the FC determines number of attacks. I also allow for non-fighters to get this same advantage (e.g. a 6th level MU "magician" gets 3 attacks with +1 on one). My question is always whether or not to "cap" attack numbers. The fighter never actually lists any more than 6 men (attacks) as a FC although one can assume that a "super hero" would classify as 8 men. The magic-user never actually lists anything higher than 3 men (3 men +1, actually) in the FC. The cleric also never goes over "3 men + 1". So I suppose that "by the book" one could rule that fighters go up to a maximum of 6 attacks per round while MU or cleric characters cap out at 3 attacks per round. I believe there are people here who play this way. Do you find it too deadly? Should the single attack hit do only 1d6 damage? Oh, yes, it is quite deadly. Those extra attacks (or sing uber-damage attacks) can wipe out a monster or a character in a hurry. Next time I try this I may tinker with some sort of healing surge or allowing characters to start each encounter at full hit points. Otherwise they can die really fast. The neat thing about doing this is that combat gets scary. No more fighter "tanks" out there and non-fighters do their best to stay far away from melee whenever possible. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 25, 2011 21:55:24 GMT -6
My question is always whether or not to "cap" attack numbers. The fighter never actually lists any more than 6 men (attacks) as a FC although one can assume that a "super hero" would classify as 8 men. The magic-user never actually lists anything higher than 3 men (3 men +1, actually) in the FC. The cleric also never goes over "3 men + 1". So I suppose that "by the book" one could rule that fighters go up to a maximum of 6 attacks per round while MU or cleric characters cap out at 3 attacks per round. Yeah, an interesting thing about that is the Beyond This Point be Dragons draft manuscript doesn't have the "or hero, superhero, etc" and so does actually cap fighters at 6 (+1) FC and Clerics at 3 FC and MU's at 4. |
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 26, 2011 16:14:51 GMT -6
Going back to the original post - if the fighter gets to exercise everything waysoftheearth lists, I think the fighter is just as good as the cleric, but at times may not feel that way. But really, those who complain about the fighter being underpowered are probably not playing OD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Nov 26, 2011 17:22:17 GMT -6
Harbringer, I think you're right in a sense that in the context of an actual campaign, the fighting-man is fine. There are always circumstances in which one character type will perform better than another.
That being said, this is a theoretical discussion. In an actual play, success is rarely determined by whether a character's class is over or underpowered but by the choices and tactics of the character's player.
While I believe fighters can be outshined by clerics in combat under several circumstances, I also don't see the need to bolster them up in any way, either.
That being said, I do typically run AD&D or B/X rather than OD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 3, 2013 19:52:34 GMT -6
Digging up an old thread... And the effect gets worse when optional fighing classes (paladin, ranger) get put into the mix. "Why be a Fighting Man if I can be a Ranger?" I think that this is the mentality of many players. The various optional fighter sub-classes have their appeal, for sure. I see them as specialisations who sacrifice one thing to be better at another. The ranger, for example, is good at wilderness survival, but he has various limitations that the fighter does not. The ranger is not so good as the fighter at handling armed forces and fortresses; he can only own what he can carry, he can't employ hirelings, he doesn't attract a body of troops, he doesn't collect taxes if he builds a stronghold, and so on. The referee might insist that certain magic swords will not function for a mere ranger -- they will only serve a "proper" fighter. And so on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 19:57:05 GMT -6
You could give fighters optional (highly simple) thematic abilities––for example, "skilled woodsman" or "turns undead as a cleric." A fighter chooses one theme. This creates specialization-like abilities, but it doesn't expand the class system or introduce a system of skills.
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Jan 4, 2013 1:32:40 GMT -6
If you only allow multiple attacks for the fighter he is still hosed since there is a tendency to throw higher HD monsters at higher level parties rather than larger groups of Lower HD monsters. As game masters if we used large numbers of 1hd human men-at-arms and tuckerized kobolds to instill a little fear in them rather than Aboleths then the fighter would seem infinitely more attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 4, 2013 9:51:54 GMT -6
Digging up an old thread... And the effect gets worse when optional fighing classes (paladin, ranger) get put into the mix. "Why be a Fighting Man if I can be a Ranger?" I think that this is the mentality of many players. The various optional fighter sub-classes have their appeal, for sure. I see them as specialisations who sacrifice one thing to be better at another. ..... Heh, WotE, Class Specialists are just how paladin and kin are defined in CoZ. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jan 27, 2019 12:25:50 GMT -6
8. The Spear is Usable by fighting-Men Only. The spear is especially deadly since " if something impales itself upon the spear damage will be double or even treble if the force is sufficient" (M&T p31). This is clarified later (GH p15) as double versus charging foe or triple when set versus charging foe. Additionally, the spear is often ruled as enabling attacks from a second rank (although I don't see this in the text). That is one I had not noticed. My child and her spear wielding Dragonborn (retrofitted to OD&D) Paladin thank you! As her DM, I thank you for all wonderfully entertaining messes she can now get into by charging into things—blocking missile fire, pit trap, slipping on oil, oh what fun awaits! |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 27, 2019 18:36:54 GMT -6
her spear wielding Dragonborn (retrofitted to OD&D) Paladin What is that... a lawful lizard-man? Another handful of advantages of the fighting class (drawn mostly from Chainmail, but all good fun to try none-the-less) that escaped my notice when I posted this topic over seven years ago: . Fighters are the only class entitled to Joust! . Heroes (and above) positively impact the morale of friendly normal-types around them. . Superheroes (and above) can cause enemy normal-types to test morale just by their threatening presence. . Heroes (and above) ignore fewer than four normal hits in a combat. Edit: Added these to the top post. |
|
