Perceived Class Balance in AD&D, Levels 1-20

[Irda Ranger]

The impetus for my invitation here at TDD was this thread here at Dragonsfoot, wherein I expressed some frustrations with old school AD&D despite my strong interest in playing it. I asked for help in overcoming these frustrations, but most of the replies were not terribly helpful. I think a lot of them were on mental autopilot.

Part of the fault was probably mine however, as my question was very broad in scope. I make it narrower this time.

One of my chief concerns with going back to AD&D is that I recall (based on my memories of AD&D 2E in middle and high school) feeling the classes were not well balanced at all levels of play. Notably the wizards was weaksauce at the beginning and Uber-Super later on. Thieves seemed weak across all levels. Fighters were respectable across all levels, but seemed 'boring' past a certain point (especially compared to how wizards and clerics kept getting access to more/better spells).

So here's my question: Has your experience been the same? Did you do anything to fix this (if so, what)? Or were maybe we "doing it wrong" and certain oft-overlooked rules keep things balanced and fun even into the highest levels?

[greygriffin20]

when it comes to class balance D&D in general isnt the game you want to play. First edition made a point to try to balance based on over all, Magic users are awesome at 15th level but not so much at first, fighters are awesome at first but pale next to the MU at 15th. But i prefer this to 3rd ed., where you must be a magic user if not you suck. From a players stand point first is what you and your group make of it (just like any rpg). From a Dms standpoint, id tweek a bunch.....monks get better ac, theives have build traps, clerics have a different healing spell that gets progressivly better every other level, and fighters can specialize in a weapon to make them even more awesome.....but then thats when you have to ask is it becomeing too much like 2nd?

[The Red Priest]

So here's my question: Has your experience been the same? Did you do anything to fix this (if so, what)? Or were maybe we "doing it wrong" and certain oft-overlooked rules keep things balanced and fun even into the highest levels?

At a convention earlier this year, I ran an OD&D game. There was this one player, that, every time I asked her what her character was doing, she immediately buried her nose in her character sheet to see what spell or magic item would best suit the situation. Well, if something didn't fit the bill, she'd shrug and say some variation of "there's nothing I can do; I don't have anything that will help." Midway through the game, I began to feel bad for her, because it was obvious she was getting a bit frustrated at rarely getting to "do anything." I hoped one of the other players would step up and help her out, and I tried to coax other actions from her (giving her extra time to declare, saying things like "okay, no spell is good for this, but what else do you think your m-u could do here to help?") We only had a four hour game, and it wasn't meant as a tutorial, but I still wanted everybody to have a good time.

The fun of the game is not to be found in the rules, but in the play of the game. I know that may seem zen and/or cryptic, but it's true. In fact, it's true of all games.

Let's take one thing at a time, because there's a helluva lot of stuff that goes into the answers of the points you raise.

I'd like to start with "Notably the wizards was weaksauce at the beginning". By that, do you mean that they don't get many spells and fight like wimps? Well, there's no denying either of those, but that doesn't make the character weak or uninteresting to play at low level. It does if you look solely at the rules as to what you can do with that character. One sleep, magic missle or friends spell per day isn't a lot, and neither is entering hand to hand combat with no armor and only a dagger. This is where PLAYER skill steps in. Is casting spells really the only worthwhile thing a magic-user can do? Throw the rulebook away. Forget everything that you think that magic-user can do. What if the character didn't have any spells or weapons at all? How would it survive a dungeon exploration? What supplies would it need? What could it carry, or what tactics would it need to employ to survive an encounter with some goblins? Would a flask of slippery, and possibly flammable, oil tossed at the feet of a charging enemy be helpful? What about a large pouch filled with small round hard clay balls? How about a guy, wearing a bandoleer loaded with daggers, that stands at the edge of a melee and tries to take out unengaged foes with thrown daggers?

Those are just some options for melee. What about between fights? Every party needs at least one good negotiator. Maybe the thief could use a consultant when it comes to figuring out how a trap may work. Engineer, scholar, adviser..

If you want to look for literary inspiration, how many wizards started as powerful mages? Even if they began the book as a powerful mage, there's usually some backstory that explains the early life of the fledgling wizard. These guys have to be generalists sages, and maybe have a specialty. What happens to the high level wizard when the fireballs and prismatic spheres fail? If it's done nothing but cast spells all it's life, it's going to be in a helluva pickle at 10th level when spells fail.

I think that if you keep looking to the rules, and how to tweak them to "buff" up characters here and there, you're going to be missing the point of how this particular version of D&D is played. Think of the rules as a scaffolding that just begins to tell you how to play the game. These particular rules weren't written to encompass everything that the character can do, they're really nothing more than the minimum of what a character can do.

The fun is not "in" the rules.

[Irda Ranger]

First edition made a point to try to balance based on over all, Magic users are awesome at 15th level but not so much at first, fighters are awesome at first but pale next to the MU at 15th.

Gentlemen(?), thank you both for your comments. Unfortunately your comments largely confirm my memories of poor class balance at given levels (something I am not fond of, as we can only have fun in the now and gratification delayed for years of gaming (or worse, lost never to be regained!) is not a happy pastime). If, for instance, a wizard's player has to look outside the rules for "something to do", that suggests quite strongly that the rules as-provided are not sufficient relative to the opportunities available to other players. For surely all the exogenous opportunities are available to the thief, cleric and fighter as well, no?

I have also seen on many an old-school DM suggesting that the Wizard be given a few scrolls to cast or hirelings to play at low levels to give the player "something to do." This is also suggestive that the class, as written, is not sufficient. It would be as if DM's felt compelled to give Fighters a magic weapon, or Paladins a squire, right from the start just to help them "keep up." In fact I believe it was a desire to obey the Gygaxian tradition of "few spells at first" that caused Wizards of the Coast to make scroll-making so cheap and easy for low-level wizards, a solution that caused its own problems in turn.

But i prefer this to 3rd ed., where you must be a magic user if not you suck.

No edition seems to get is quite right, do they?

From a Dms standpoint, id tweek a bunch.....monks get better ac, theives have build traps, clerics have a different healing spell that gets progressivly better every other level, and fighters can specialize in a weapon to make them even more awesome.....but then thats when you have to ask is it becomeing too much like 2nd?

This is very helpful advice, as I have no emotional hangups about adopting rules from 2E (or any other game or edition for that matter). I just want everyone playing the game to have fun, and I'm merely using AD&D 1E as my "base from which to begin." I am not a purist of any sort. I think the Greyhawk setting, Gygaxian prose and classic adventure modules are what really made AD&D so beloved, and rules from any edition of D&D from OD&D to AD&D 2E (and even a few from 3E, such as ascending AC) can be adopted as desired without harm.

Of course, one must also be careful about what one adopts from an d20-based version of D&D. The addition of Feats and changes to the Multiclassing rules (including Prestige classes) for instance made "Pimp my Build" the game within the game and gave decisive in-game advantage to good builders. This is a complete change from Gygaxian D&D's focus on heroic Archetypes and moved player focus from the in-game aspects of playing a character to its meta-game aspects of "builds" and equipment combos; a change I think most old school gamers would agree was a mistake. Changes like ascending AC were must less important.

Anywho ...

The fun is not "in" the rules.

This is absolutely true, but if there's anything I learned from playing D&D 3E, poorly considered rules can make the game less fun as well.

I think, to begin, I will give Wizards of high intellect bonus spells to the same degree as Clerics of high wisdom, using the Wisdom Table II in the AD&D 1E PHB. I will also look into C&C's cantrips, although that's not decided yet. One or both ought to make up for the lack of "something to do" that has plagued many campaigns. I fully understand that the class abilities are merely the "starting point" of what a character is capable of, and will encourage such an understanding in my players as well if necessary, but let's make sure that starting point actually has a little meat on its bones.

I think the Thief also needs a small boost at the beginning so that he can actually use his backstab without engaging in suicide missions. Perhaps merely the ability to make a backstab attack and retreat quickly in the same round to avoid reprisals?

I don't have enough playtest experience at high levels though to say what the Fighter might need to keep him interesting, but I'll keep your suggestions in mind.

[The Red Priest]

Okay.. let's go a different route then and see if we can meet somewhere.

Can you articulate what you *do* like about 1e? Maybe from there I/we could help with some tweaks to get you where you'd like to be?

[Irda Ranger]

Okay.. let's go a different route then and see if we can meet somewhere.

Can you articulate what you *do* like about 1e? Maybe from there I/we could help with some tweaks to get you where you'd like to be?

Sure. I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple years, so I have it fleshed out pretty well (at least it sounds good in my head). This may be a bit stream-of-consciousness though.

I like the strong archetypes of the classes and the complete absence of the "pimp my build" pastime that infected recent versions of D&D (starting with NWP, though they weren't too bad, but AD&D 2E: Skills & Powers really killed simple chargen). The only thing I need to know about a PC is his class, race and level (chosen spells and equipment also matter at higher levels, but that can be handled pretty quickly). I love writing character backgrounds, working on motivations, sketching his wizard-mark, etc. and never "wasting" a single minute trying to scrounge out an extra +1 from some Feat/Item/PrC combo (a necessary past-time unless I feel like sitting back and letting the "builders" absolutely dominate play).

I like the combat chapter. I like that combat is objective enough that you can use a floorplan hastily drawn on dry-erase mats to show charges, retreats, etc., but is also loosey-goosey enough that it can all be handled narratively too. There's no mandate for a detailed battle-board broken down into 5' squares to show flanks, attacks-of-opportunity, auras, etc. etc.

I like that spell descriptions are vague, open to interpretation, and occasionally "broken" by any sense of a well-tuned game. The safeties are turned "off", and players know that these same spells are in the hands of their enemies. Over-regulated spells are boring spells, and don't feel magical. Similarly, I like Save-or-Die/Suck spells, traps and monsters. The chance of failure is real, immediate and around every corner. Regular death & dismemberment makes success all the sweeter.

I like hirelings, henchmen, and all the little game rules that allow for them. I like that running characters is simple enough that it's possible for a single player to handle his PC and pretty much as many hirelings as he can afford.

I like the dungeons and modules, that magic items are "take it or leave it" rather than made-to-order, and the aesthetic that directs player skill at mastering the world rather than the rules. Really I like the whole "core engine" of AD&D and the only things I want to "fix" are the ones mentioned in the DF thread: a more complete, less arbitrary saving throw system (fairly easy I think, since I plan on adopting C&C's) and tweaking the classes to be ballpark-balanced across all levels. Balancing the classes will probably require a lot of little tweaks, but all towards just the one goal of improved class balance. Any other house rules I might adopt are simply the ones commonly held throughout much of the old school community, like reverse AC or changing level limits in some fashion.

[Irda Ranger]

So here's a concrete example: the Fighter. Role-playing restrictions aside, you would have to be retarded to choose the Fighter over a Paladin or Ranger. Paladins and Rangers (PRs) have the same to-hit table as the Fighter, can wear any armor and use any weapon, and gain access to weapon specialization (if that optional rule is used) just like the Fighter. The only thing the Fighter gets that PRs don't is an extra weapon proficiency and Attack-the-Unskilled (a useful power if you're bing mobbed by 0th-level bandits, goblins or kobolds, but otherwise not that great). Paladins and Rangers get a whole list of stuff that Fighters don't.

Further, the XP penalty associated with their slower advancement just isn't that much of a penalty, even when you factor in that Fighters more easily qualify for the 10% XP bonus. Most of the time they're the same level as the Fighter, and when they're one level behind (because the Fighter leveled while they need another 10-30% of that level's XP to catch up again) they're essentially trading -5 HP and -1 to-hit in exchange for:

+2 to all Saves
Immune to all Disease
Cure Disease (1/5-levels/week)
Detect Evil (at-will, 60')
Protection from Evil (10' radius)
Lay on Hands (2 HP/level/day)
3rd Level: Turn Undead (as cleric -2 levels)
9th Level: Clerical spellcasting (as cleric-8 level)
Holy Sword-Dispel Magic

In the case of a Paladin, and

More HP than the Fighter up until 5~6th level, then slightly less (eventually quite a bit less, but not until the mid/high teens).
Alert Against Surprise (Surprise on 1/6)
Kill Badguys (+1 dmg/level vs. humanoids & giants) (this is ridiculously good)
Tracking (base 90% in wilderness; base 65% in dungeons)
8th Level: Spellcasting (as Druid & Magic-User)
10th Level: Band of Followers
10th Level: Use Scrying Devices

in the case of a Ranger.

And that's assuming they're actually behind. The Ranger actually achieves levels 10 and 11 a full level before the Fighter does, which puts the Ranger ahead in the to-hit table and erases the HP lead, on top of the above-listed benefits. A Paladin eventually starts falling multiple levels behind the Fighter starting at 14th level, but most campaigns don't even reach that point, so it hardly seems like a "fair trade" from the Fighter's player's point of view.

The type of "fix" I might be looking for, and the sort of "Well, we tried this and it worked quite well" stories I was hoping for, might go like this (I'm just brainstorming here):

-Allow Weapon Specialization for Fighters only. Maybe give them a couple more WP.
-Grant bonus to AC for shield use and/or bonus damage for lances and two-handed weapons above what other classes get.
-Scale Attack-the-Unskilled up with level, say by effecting creatures with less than 1/3rd the Fighter's level in HD (less than 2 at 6th, less than 3 at 9th, etc.).
-Hirelings and henchmen led into battle by a Fighter (meaning he has to lead from the front, not just give orders) receive a +1 to hit, dmg and AC and +3 HP for each 4 levels of the Fighter (I really like this one, as it makes the Fighter the 'Leader of Men' archetype).
-????

Now I'm not saying I'd give Fighters all of the above (that might be too good), but I wanted to get out the ideas I'd been having onto 'paper' for consideration by others. Your thoughts? Other suggestions? The goal of the exercise is to make sure that the Fighter is just a good a choice as the Paladin or Ranger. My guiding principle is: if I handed out pre-gen characters with the exact same race and stats but difference classes, would I be screwing anyone over by giving them class X?

Before I close, I would like to address two points:
1. Role-playing Restrictions: I am not a fan. RP restrictions should always be adopted voluntarily by the player as part of his PC's persona, and not forced on them. Moreover, I wouldn't want to suggest that Fighters or Magic-Users couldn't be just as uptight about their Lawful Goodness as Paladins are as written. RP should be completely orthogonal to class ability.

2. Magic-Item/Wealth Restrictions: I don't see these as significant. Everyone is limited by encumbrance. If the Fighter owns 5 magic swords all that means is that he has a nice collection at home. He can only wield one at a time.

[Abacus Ape]

In our campaign, we let straight fighters roll damage dice again if they roll maximum damage. So if the player rolls a 20 (auto hit and max damage in our campaign), he would roll damage again and add the two damages up. This would keep on going as long as maximum damage is rolled. We figure a fighter can just concentrate on really learning to fight instead of praying or learning woodcraft.

Good luck finding something that works for your AD&D!!

[Grognard]

If you're rolling dice, the paladin and ranger are going to be extremely rare. Thus, any player wanting to play a fighter-type is almost always going to have to choose fighter. The dice simply do not allow paladins and rangers into play that often, whether you roll 3d6 in order, 4d6 drop the lowest, or most of the other methods.

Thus, the fighter isn't really underpowered compared to the paladin or ranger, because its next to impossible to actually be a paladin or ranger.

There is no incentive for a player to pick paladin over ranger unless he roll really high numbers while generating ability scores. This will happen so infrequently that it should never be an issue.

If you're not requiring players to roll stats for their characters, well, the system can't be held to blame if you aren't actually using it as written.

I also think you discount the alignment and other restrictions far too much. If a paladin commits even a single act, he becomes a mere fighter and loses all of his bells and whistles forever, with no way to fix this. That's really strict!

If a ranger changes alignment, he likewise becomes a fighter forever, and with only a d8 for hit dice.

If a fighter does something evil, or changes alignment, nothing really happens to him. He's still a fighter with all of his abilities, and can keep on laying the smack down with hardly a worry about RP issues.

Roleplaying a paladin or ranger is hard. Unless, of course, the DM isn't bothering to make use of the alignment system and the strictures placed upon those classes...

[Irda Ranger]

If you're rolling dice, the paladin and ranger are going to be extremely rare.

Getting lucky on the roll of the dice is something I leave for combat and saving throws (or Las Vegas). Relying on luck to get the character you want isn't something I'm interested in, since it's a result you're stuck with for weeks or months (or years, if you're lucky enough to be in a campaign that lasts that long). Telling someone "Sorry, you can't play the character you want to play. How about a nice 2nd prize?" isn't a good way to start off a relationship.

If you're not requiring players to roll stats for their characters, well, the system can't be held to blame if you aren't actually using it as written.

Your tone is light, but they're shitty rules. And yes, I can blame the system for that. Starting a new campaign with "Here's your second-rate character" is piss poor game design. Maybe I could go with 3d6-in-order determining random class and race assignments if they were all equally good choices, but they're not as-written.

OD&D had it right with the basic classes being all more-or-less equal choices, but AD&D screwed this one up. I like having more choices in character class, but the choices need to be better choices.

I also think you discount the alignment and other restrictions far too much. ... Roleplaying a paladin or ranger is hard.

As I mentioned above, I don't like these rules (and I don't use them). But not because I hold Paladins and Rangers to a lower standard, but all PCs to a high one. I encourage all of my players to accept difficult in-game roles for their characters. Do you not think that a Thief who is a double-agent infiltrating an evil guild of assassins would face repercussions if he failed to role-play properly? What about a wizard on a quest through the multiverse who has found himself in a den of demons with only his wits to protect him?

Roleplaying any hero is hard, because heroes do difficult things. That's what makes them heroes. And the penalty for not being a hero is the same for all - dying unremembered. There's nothing special about Paladins or Rangers in this regard.

[Grognard]

So essentially, you've ditched the prerequisites for ability scores, as well as the restrictions placed upon the classes, and then you're complaining about the different fighter types not being equal?

When you kick two legs out from underneath a three legged stool, did you expect the stool to remain standing?

Each of the classes have their strengths and weaknesses. Removing the weaknesses from paladins and rangers, and then complaining that fighters suck in comparison after the fact is silly. Essentially, you are the one who has made the fighter suck in comparison to paladins and rangers. Its not the system's fault.

With no downside to playing a paladin or ranger, of course they are going to be better class choices!

Here you go. Let fighters use spells, turn undead, track their enemies, call a special warhorse, and employ scrying devices, with no restrictions to their alignment, treasure, and so on. Problem solved.

[Irda Ranger]

So essentially, you've ditched the prerequisites for ability scores, as well as the restrictions placed upon the classes, and then you're complaining about the different fighter types not being equal?

You've got it completely backwards.

1. To the player who just got lucky and rolled stats that meet the prerequisites, they are not restrictions. They're just luck, and he did nothing to earn them other than sit there and roll the dice (just like everyone else did). In a point-buy system like D&D 3E uses the player who wants to qualify for a certain class must make trade offs, but this guy isn't making any trade offs at all. He's just been handed a huge gift. Nice for him, but it sucks for everyone else at the table who gets stuck with the booby prizes.

2. The role playing restrictions are also not special restrictions either. They are voluntarily assumed, just as I recommend that everyone in my game do. Every player has oaths of fealty, political allegiances and religious obligations - ones that cannot be broken without repercussions. The only difference is that the Paladin and Ranger have theirs spelled out in the PHB, while everyone else's are bespoke. But they're not any heavier or lighter than anyone else's.

So you see, the Paladin and Ranger players pay no cost for all the benefits they receive. And that's purely from good role playing by the other PCs, not by any change in the rules. I haven't "kicked out any stool legs." The rules are just poor as written.

Each of the classes have their strengths and weaknesses. Removing the weaknesses from paladins and rangers, and then complaining that fighters suck in comparison after the fact is silly. Essentially, you are the one who has made the fighter suck in comparison to paladins and rangers. Its not the system's fault.

This comment isn't even wrong. It's nonsensical.

What weaknesses? What great price did the Ranger's player pay to qualify to be a Ranger? He paid nothing. He got lucky, and then he agreed to play a cookie-cutter-Aragorn rather than make one up for himself. In fact he engaged in less creative play than a Fighter or Thief's player who make up their own code of conduct. And you want to reward that? "Hey, you're a lucky bastard with no imagination! Take your prize!".

I didn't make the Fighter suck. He does suck. He's a slap in the face to any player who wants to play any role other than Aragorn or Sir Gawain.

Here you go. Let fighters use spells, turn undead, track their enemies, call a special warhorse, and employ scrying devices, with no restrictions to their alignment, treasure, and so on. Problem solved.

Very helpful. Thank you. You're a peach.

[Dagger]

Getting lucky on the roll of the dice is something I leave for combat and saving throws (or Las Vegas). Relying on luck to get the character you want isn't something I'm interested in, since it's a result you're stuck with for weeks or months (or years, if you're lucky enough to be in a campaign that lasts that long). Telling someone "Sorry, you can't play the character you want to play. How about a nice 2nd prize?" isn't a good way to start off a relationship.

Your tone is light, but they're shitty rules. And yes, I can blame the system for that. Starting a new campaign with "Here's your second-rate character" is piss poor game design. Maybe I could go with 3d6-in-order determining random class and race assignments if they were all equally good choices, but they're not as-written.

Irda Ranger,

Here's where I think the disconnect is: AD&D is built around a sensibility where campaigns are embarked upon by players (not characters). The randomness of what class you qualify for in character creation is based on that. So, the first major part of the game is determining what kind of character the player is going to have at his/her disposal when delving the DM's dungeon (no pun intended). Getting a Paladin was a big deal and meant the player got access to cool stuff that most players don't, but like I said... what character you qualified for was "part of the game".

My point is that the original AD&D rules come from a much different place than you are trying to go. Unearthed Arcana took a step away from this sensibility with character generation Method V where players could try to "go for" certain character classes. The ultimate answer for moving to a character-based game (rather than player-based) is to get rid of prequisites and make the classes equal, but it's tough to do! 2nd edition AD&D didn't do it. 3rd edition D&D tried but failed. 4th edition succeeded... but it's so far away from the original game. From what I've read, you may want to see what they do with the Pathfinder RPG. I think their design goals align with yours in many ways. It could give you some tips toward the game you are trying to run.

Hope that helps!

[Grognard]

The role playing restrictions are also not special restrictions either. They are voluntarily assumed, just as I recommend that everyone in my game do. Every player has oaths of fealty, political allegiances and religious obligations - ones that cannot be broken without repercussions. The only difference is that the Paladin and Ranger have theirs spelled out in the PHB, while everyone else's are bespoke. But they're not any heavier or lighter than anyone else's.

So the fighter sucks because you saddled the class with a bunch of new house ruled restrictions? And then you whine about how crappy the original rules are because they no longer work in the framework of your house rules?

Look, house rule the game any way you want. Doesn't matter to me. But at least be honest about the fact that you're the one creating the "problem" in the first place.

The only reason that the restrictions to paladins and rangers don't balance out their particular class abilities against any "perceived" lack of power for the fighter is because you have house ruled the game to be that way.

Play the game any way you want, but don't act like the rules suck when they don't work after you've changed them in such a way that they can't work.

[Irda Ranger]

The ultimate answer for moving to a character-based game (rather than player-based) is to get rid of prequisites and make the classes equal, but it's tough to do!

This is a very fair point, and one I've struggled with as well. I think it's tied in to your discussion about how rolling for what class you get as "part of the game" is also relevant to this point. In a game environment where PC life is nasty, brutish and short it doesn't matter as much what class you get - because he'll be dead by the end of the session, most likely. Just roll with it, and maybe you'll get a Ranger next weekend. In a more modern approach, where the PC is expected to have more staying power and hopefully at least a couple of the PCs who start a module will see it through, there is a stronger incentive to make sure there's fair treatment between the classes.

It's like I said about dice being appropriate for combat and saving throws: those are very temporary and the next attack/save is right around the corner. Where PCs are just as temporary, maybe getting a "lucky" Paladin or Ranger shot is equivalent to getting a lucky natural 20. Where we normally celebrate each other's critical hits it would nevertheless get tiresome if one person was assigned "the good d20" (it doesn't have a 1 or 2, but two 19's and 20's) for the length of a campaign.

From what I've read, you may want to see what they do with the Pathfinder RPG.

I've been meaning to look into it, but I don't have high hopes. I hate 3E's feat, PrC and multiclassing rules (which make "PC building" a sub-hobby within the game) and so far I've been lead to believe that Pathfinder is following that lead. I much prefer AD&D's "pick an archetype and just level it" approach to character growth.

As you say though, it may provide some good tips.

Hope that helps!

Thanks!

[Irda Ranger]

So the fighter sucks because you saddled the class with a bunch of new house ruled restrictions?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D is a role playing game. Expecting all of my players to role play is NOT a house rule. If you aren't role playing you're doing it wrong, and might as well be playing Dungeon Hack or Diablo.

[The Red Priest]

So the fighter sucks because you saddled the class with a bunch of new house ruled restrictions?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D is a role playing game. Expecting all of my players to role play is NOT a house rule. If you aren't role playing you're doing it wrong, and might as well be playing Dungeon Hack or Diablo.

Let's not get into who's doing what "wrong". That's seldom a rode that leads to anyplace good.

[Grognard]

So the fighter sucks because you saddled the class with a bunch of new house ruled restrictions?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D is a role playing game. Expecting all of my players to role play is NOT a house rule. If you aren't role playing you're doing it wrong, and might as well be playing Dungeon Hack or Diablo.

In AD&D, the fighter does not have to deal with any of this:

Every player has oaths of fealty, political allegiances and religious obligations - ones that cannot be broken without repercussions.

Paladins and rangers DO have to deal with all kinds of restrictions like that. Fighters simply need to play within their alignment, and if they want to be rat bastard mercenaries (perhaps with a neutral or even evil alignment), giving no allegiance to any political or religious institution, they can do so per the rules. There may be undesired consequences during the campaign for being a rat bastard mercenary, but its certainly within the player's purview to play a character like that.

If you want fighters (and all other classes) to have to deal with the same kinds of restrictions that paladins and rangers have to deal with (i.e., oaths of fealty, political allegiances and religious obligations) then YOU are the one who has removed the checks and balances between fighters and the fighter subclasses. You have forced the fighter to compete with the other two subclasses and then scratch your head wondering why anyone would want to play a fighter rather than a paladin.

As I stated, do want you want with your own game. Doesn't matter to me.

But its retarded to say that fighters suck in comparison to paladins and rangers when you are the one who has altered the class to make that so. Its not the fault of the rules, it the fault of your own house rules. If you can't understand that the game has its own checks and balances, and that removing those changes the game in many ways, then I'd be careful about throwing around words like "obuse." Pot, kettle, black, and all that.

Now, feel free to resume the bashing of your own house rules.

[Grognard]

Deleted double post.

[Irda Ranger]

Fighters simply need to play within their alignment, and if they want to be rat bastard mercenaries (perhaps with a neutral or even evil alignment), giving no allegiance to any political or religious institution, they can do so per the rules. There may be undesired consequences during the campaign for being a rat bastard mercenary, but its certainly within the player's purview to play a character like that.

Emphasis added to make my point. Everyone has role-playing restrictions. The only difference is that some classes have theirs written into the rulebook and others inherit theirs from playing within a living campaign world. I will say again: role-playing is not a house rule. Or do you only play in static dungeons that have no future, past or world outside?

Besides, the ranger's only "restriction" is that he has to stay good-aligned. That's hardly difficult or even a restriction, since most players in my groups choose good alignments voluntarily and stick to them without difficulty for the length of a campaign. But there's no upside to that for them other than the intrinsic reward of good role-playing. Why is that, do you think? Are you suggesting that the Fighter's primary class feature is the option to turn chaotic evil? Thanks, I'll stand by what I said before then: if "the chaotic evil option" is a primary feature, the class sucks. Piss. Poor. Design.

[Irda Ranger]

Quick example: Boromir, Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee.

None of them a Paladin or Ranger, but very real consequences for failures of character.

[The Red Priest]

Let's toss literary examples out of the window (at least for the moment, eh?). D&D is a game, not a re-creation of anything literary. Forget Frodo, Grey Mouser, Elric, Conan, Thomas Covenant or any of their novelized brethren, and not try to emulate what we've read in books.

Let's just start with the game, as a game and not a simulation of anything.

It's a game. It's got rules, often referred to as guidelines, and nothing more than that. If the rules for D&D are tweaked, and just about everyone does that to one extent or another. You do have to ask yourself, as was pointed out earlier: how much tweaking can you do before you're playing another game, or come to the realization that you've tweaking yourself into a game that's already published?

[Irda Ranger]

You do have to ask yourself, as was pointed out earlier: how much tweaking can you do before you're playing another game, or come to the realization that you've tweaking yourself into a game that's already published?

Although a valid question, and one I'm not sure I know the answer to, I feel comfortable saying that tweaking some of the classes to improve balance between the players does not qualify "playing a different game." I'm still using 95%(?) of the rules in the book at written. I never said I plan on rewriting the combat chapter, or spell descriptions or the random encounter tables in the DMG.

Why is there so much mental resistance to answering my request for help? I've taken a 10 year break from actively playing AD&D, so maybe I have the detached perspective that others (too close to the material) lack? Everything that has been posted here (not by me; by everyone else) has confirmed my memories of the class imbalance being outright poor. If you're genuinely not interested in fixing that, fine, play your game however you want. I came here asking for tips on how to improve class balance, not to question my motives for doing so. I've already given this a lot of though after lurking at EN World and Dragonsfoot for a while, running a short RC D&D campaign BTB last year and generally discussing the issues with my friends and fellow gamers over good beer.

So, ultimatum time. I'm tired of defending this point, as I believe anything I say from here on out would be repetitive. Anyone who has some thoughts on how to make the various classes all equally good choices is welcome to contribute from here on out. Anyone who just wants to tell me the game is perfectly fine as written and I should enjoy it as-is or go play 4E can post somewhere else. This thread isn't for that topic. Thanks.

[greygriffin20]

Ok, looking at the different directions this conversation has taken, lets go back to the start out of box issues. The game as written is not perfect, thats part of its charm as well as the charm of most rp games, the more a game tries to become "unbroken" the less modification fun you can have. I am (and might be one of the only ones) that has played holmes basic, OD&D, AD&D, 2nd, 3.5 and 4th and you know what...i had fun with them all. AD&D is a roleplaying game that uses game rules for a table top fantasy war game. That in itself means that it will not be perfect for roleplaying so any "its not good from a roleplay aspect" really needs to relax. The question here is really about house rules.....what do you do to make the game more fun for players, i agree that a fighter is boreing but i feel that is because your playing a game character developed for a non fantasy war game.But if thats what you want fine....but if you dont like that why not get rid of the fighter? Add the barbarian subtract the "hates magic" side and you have a 4th version of a fighter (i consider a monk a form of fighter rules be damned) next make what i call a footman knight (not a paladin) This is a fighter that excells at nonmounted combat. addtional ac when useing a shield +1 per level every five. + 2 when fighting a mounted enemy (to ac and at), at 7th level can inspire comrades when leading a charge (addtional +1 to attack and no penalty to ac when chargeing but only works if at least two others charge with him).To be honest i do feel Irda that maybe you should look at the fighters handbook from 2nd addition if you dont like the AD&D fighter the mastery/specialzation rules alone balance the different fighters.

[Irda Ranger]

AD&D is a roleplaying game that uses game rules for a table top fantasy war game ... i agree that a fighter is boreing but i feel that is because your[sic] playing a game character developed for a non fantasy war game.

Yeah, I noticed that a while ago. The classes developed for OD&D are relatively balanced against each other (not great, but decent) while it's the later-introduced Paladin, Ranger, Assassin, etc. that screw things up (from my perspective). You could say that my goal is to "finish the job" that AD&D started by saying "Hey, these new classes are really neat, but let's make sure the older classes you built on are updated so we're all on the same page, game-edition-wise."

why not get rid of the fighter?

If I change the class-rules sufficiently, is he still the fighter, or have I removed him and replaced him with a simulacrum?

Actually, I have considered explicitly removing the Fighter and replacing him with some explicitly new classes (the only reason for this is that "Fighter" would then be too generic, and I'd hope for something more descriptive). I'm glad you've raised the topic. Or, more to the point, there'd only be the "category" of "Fighter Classes", of which all PCs must choose a sub-class (Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, etc.). Several of the sub-classes would have to be "non-magical" though to cover purely martial achetypes.

Add the barbarian subtract the "hates magic" side and you have a 4th version of a fighter (i consider a monk a form of fighter rules be damned)

This is on the agenda, but I haven't started reading UA yet. I have a PDF of it but I'm still working on the PHB, DMG and MM1. Thanks for the suggestion.

Aren't there problems with the Barbarian as written though? I haven't payed too much attention to the barbarian threads at Dragonsfoot or K&KA yet, but there seem to be issues. Maybe I'm mistaken in my reading though.

next make what i call a footman knight (not a paladin). This is a fighter that excells at nonmounted combat. addtional ac when useing a shield +1 per level every five. + 2 when fighting a mounted enemy (to ac and at), at 7th level can inspire comrades when leading a charge (addtional +1 to attack and no penalty to ac when chargeing but only works if at least two others charge with him).

Thank you.

Let's see if I understand you suggestion:

Footman.
Concept: Heavy infantry. Anti-mounted Fighter.
HD: d10
Weapons: Any
Armor: Any
Class Features:
+1 AC/5 levels (+1 at 1st, 5th, 10th, etc.) when using a Shield.
+2 to-hit and AC vs. mounted enemies
7th Level: +1 to-hit, no penalty to AC when charging, but only if two others charge with him

Comments: I like it, but I'm not sure it has enough to really be a good choice relative to the Ranger and Paladin. The AC bonus when using a shield is really good, but it's also the only "generic" class feature that can be used in most combats. The bonus vs. mounted is good, but mounted foes just aren't the common, particularly in dungeons. It also relies on the DM to provide you with mounted foes to feat, sort of the same problem that AD&D 2E Rangers had with their very narrowly defined special enemies.

Suggested Additional Class Features:
+1 to-hit, dmg per 4 levels (1st, 4th, 8th, etc.) when using Two-Handed Swords or Polearms (this is good, but effectively he has to choose between this and the bonus to AC from shields).
Hirelings and Henchmen (aka, Enlisted Men and Squires) receive +2 to Morale (+4 at 10th level) when the Footman is fighting with them.
3rd Level: Can request shelter and food from fellow Knights.
10th Level: Can build a Castle.

you should look at the fighters handbook from 2nd addition if you dont like the AD&D fighter the mastery/specialzation rules alone balance the different fighters.

Oh man, that's a book I haven't thought about for a long time, but thanks for the reminder. The Kits could also be a good source of inspiration for new Fighter sub-classes if I were in the mood to write some up.