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

[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.

[Irda Ranger]

Come to think of it, I think the proposed Footman should eventually "graduate" to a full Knight with mounted combat options. He starts out as a Footman, around 3rd level becomes a Squire, and around 7-8th becomes a Knight. His name level would be Lord Knight.

I wouldn't want to make too much of the mounted options though. D&D doesn't transition well to games on horseback, since none of the other classes are well designed for it. And horses are not well designed for dungeons or city campaigns.

[Sieg]

The UA has the "Knight" sort of class (The Cavalier) but IMO its a bit too oomphy unless you really play up the vassalage-code of honor bit. There were a lot of third party publications in the late 70s and early 80s that gave specific subclasses of the fighter such as Gladiator, Pirate, etc. I'll see if I can dig up actual book titles if you're interested.

I can't speak for their 'balance' but they might give you some ideas...

[Irda Ranger]

The UA has the "Knight" sort of class (The Cavalier) but IMO its a bit too oomphy unless you really play up the vassalage-code of honor bit. There were a lot of third party publications in the late 70s and early 80s that gave specific subclasses of the fighter such as Gladiator, Pirate, etc. I'll see if I can dig up actual book titles if you're interested.

I can't speak for their 'balance' but they might give you some ideas...

That would be great. Even if all you can find are titles (and authors?) I could look for them myself. Thanks.

[greygriffin20]

the cavalier is broken much worse than the barbarian, if there were a class i wouldn't allow it would be that.

[thedungeondelver]

the cavalier is broken much worse than the barbarian, if there were a class i wouldn't allow it would be that.

I allowed a Cavalier in an AD&D game a couple of times; the last time taught me not to do it...

...with the caveat that it's in a large group. If I had a group of two or three gamers who had their hearts set on playing the "G" series, I'd probably do stuff like allow higher level caps for demi-humans, I'd absolutely allow the cavalier, and other "optional" classes, and I for sure would allow weapon specialization. For a small group. Stuff like that is a force multiplier, and it does make me think that Gary was seeing (or hearing) that the "average" AD&D group wasn't the 20+ person basement-filling cavalcade of gamers like he'd had in his house during the freewheeling days of original D&D, but rather three to five folks, so rather than say "Run six characters each" he instead created these force multipliers and went that direction.

Of course the extreme end of it is stuff like an elven ranger (possible under UA) being able to deliver 700+ HPs of damage in a single combat. As someone over at enworld said "Feather me yon Elder Being, good ranger!" (It requires a series of events so utterly improbably - and a DM so completely...uh...bent around by his players as to defy description, rather like the IUDC).

[genghisdon]

Well I am guilty of auto pilot posting too often, but I'll do what I can.

I think the "problems" were not well addressed in 2e, one might as well stick to pre UA 1e(& tweak that should it be desired). Most will say AD&D breaks down past L14 or so, and they have valid views.

The wizard or MU starting weak & finishing strong is a feature, not a defect. The "balance" of AD&D is long term and more subtle than 3 or 4e. All HL spellcasters are quite mortal considering rest/memorisation rules (DMG pg 40). Spell descriptions & rules are not a strong point of 1e; changes or bannings are likely wise, although that's a huge topic on it's own merits. Some method of reigning in spell damage at extreme levels may be another good idea. MR ceases to perform this function past L20.


Some find the fighter to be a bit boring at any level. Magic items are assumed to provide interest(especially things like elemental command rings & the like), as well as provide quick combat resolution at VHL (vorpal & sharpness blades, girdles of giant strength)

A key point so many miss, especially those starting after 1e, is that level comparisons are useless at HL. The comparison is of XP totals. If your L1-20 game halts when the first characters hit L20, you get Thieves at just over 2,000,000 base XP(and +10% for 16+dex). This is compared to fighters of L16/17, clerics of L17/18, mages of L15/16. The 1e subclasses fit interestingly into this mix. A L20 MU is far " higher level" than other classes(who are in mid to high 20's by that point) & the game system is getting shaky at that point.

I hope that was of some help Irda Ranger.

[Irda Ranger]

Most will say AD&D breaks down past L14 or so, and they have valid views.

The wizard or MU starting weak & finishing strong is a feature, not a defect.

I appreciate your thoughts, but do you see the problem with the two sentences above when read together? How am I to resolve this tension that the game breaks down just as the M-U is really starting to grow into his power? I've been telling this guy all through the low levels "Be patient. Your day will come" and then what? We retire the characters at the height of his effectiveness because the game can't handle it? That blows.

Some find the fighter to be a bit boring at any level. Magic items are assumed to provide interest (especially things like elemental command rings & the like), as well as provide quick combat resolution at VHL (vorpal & sharpness blades, girdles of giant strength)

I'm aware. One of the things I really liked about 3E/4E is that they make the Fighter interesting without the need for items. Feats, powers, etc. I don't like having to build a character (I hate, hate, hate it, which has driven me back to AD&D), but at the same time I don't like that a Fighter without his gear can be pretty helpless/useless. I'm not sure how to solve this problem though.

A key point so many miss, especially those starting after 1e, is that level comparisons are useless at HL. The comparison is of XP totals.

Yes, certainly. But that's why I included the XP comparisons between the Fighter sub-classes. Most of the time they're the same level or only 1 level behind (and at some levels the Ranger actually levels up faster!). It's only past 17th level that the Paladin really starts to fall behind, which (as you mentioned) is well past where most campaigns break down. So a level-to-level comparison is actually pretty fair.

I'll probably get rid of the different XP tables for the Fighter sub-classes and just use the Fighter table for them all. It's just simpler and makes my job as a "fixer" a little easier.

[thedungeondelver]

I hate feats, I hate character builds. As to whether or not a fighter is "useless" - that's up to the player. Honestly? If you want to see the dividing line between good player versus good numbers, run a group through A4. Doesn't mean you have to put them on the railroad and grind through A1-3, just put them in A4 "as a test of their abilities".

Fighters sans equipment, magic-users sans (most) spells, and clerics likewise...that's when you'll either see people giving up in frustration or a high degree of creative play come in to measure.

De-emphasize the builds, de-emphasize the whole idea of the fighter as an item actuator. In this way you'll get more ROLE playing versus ROLL playing without having to take a monkey wrench to the game.

[Falconer]

This thread was long and involved, so I didn't read it all, but here are my observations in response to the original post:

I ran a campaign that lasted probably about 4 years, and went from levels 1 to about 12. All my players (about nine of them) were very different people and had very different play styles. One of them started as a fighter and only ever played that fighter for the entirety of the campaign. That player will never enjoy playing anything other than a fighter. It's just his style. He has no interest in the finer aspects of rules and strategy, and just enjoys the roleplay and hacking with his sword. Well, he was kick-ass at 1st level and kick-ass at 10th level (his current level), I mean really a very prominent character and THE major dealer and taker of damage.

No-one else in the campaign (remember, there were 8 other players) ever really played a fighter. My point is, Fighter is all-around the most powerful class, but it's not for everyone.

Magic-user starts out weak and ends up powerful, that's a calculated risk and tradeoff that anyone undertaking to play a Magic-user knows they're in for. It's also true to the literature.

Clerics, Druids, and FIghter Subclasses are stable like Fighters, but they trade off a little power for some unique chances to shine due to special abilities such as spells.

Monks and Thieves have to be very aggressive players who like to hog the stage a little bit and use a lot of skills that aren't necessarily always powerful but are guaranteed to be "neat" and to thwart the DM a lot. I'm not a huge fan of the Thief, but it worked out especially well at lower levels for a player of mine who had a strong personality and tended to take a lot of initiative and was the usual Caller. If a non-Thief is the Caller, it's not so great, as they tend not to think in terms of using the Thief as much if they're not one. I personally find the Monk a lot of fun to play, and it was also great for another player of mine who tended to really hog the stage, in a sort of "Stand back--it's the John Show!" sort of way. Which sucked for the rest of us when he was a Magic-User, but was great when he was a Monk.

So over time everyone settled into comfortable roles and there was a great balance in the party. I am always surprised at DMs who don't tend to think in terms of these sort of party dynamics, as they are pretty much central to keeping the game fun. I think a lot of people approach it as if everyone plays the same way, which is just not true. (Or have you found it so?) Regards.

[Irda Ranger]

Falconer - I really appreciate your feedback. Could you tell me what rules you used? This is an AD&D forum but you mentioned a Caller which I think is OD&D only, isn't it? Also, did you have Weapon Specialization?

Thanks!

[Falconer]

Could you tell me what rules you used? This is an AD&D forum but you mentioned a Caller which I think is OD&D only, isn't it?

Heya--

No, it was AD&D 1e. Check out the Players Handbook, p. 106, column 2, paragraph 2: “Assign one individual as leader. This character will ‘call’, i.e. tell the referee where the party will go and what they will do.” Also see on the same page, column 1, paragraph 2, and I'm sure you'll find more references in this section. (If you have any questions about the caller please feel free to start a new thread about it.)

Also, did you have Weapon Specialization?

Yes, that was one of the few things from Unearthed Arcana that I did use. (No “Double Specialization” though.) In the early days of my campaign, I was feeling my way backwards from 2e, and so this rule was introduced right off the bat. Needless to say, it improved the fun of the game for Fighters and Rangers! I eventually wanted to remove it because I just saw it as annoying power inflation, but of course the players who already had it wouldn’t have liked that, so I left it in.

What I don’t like about it is 1) It makes it a lot less exciting to find a magic weapon. If the Fighter/Ranger does not happen to be specialized in that particular weapon, his bonuses from specialization probably outweigh the bonuses from the weapon's magic! Lame. And, 2) It makes non-Fighters/non-Rangers completely pathetic in combat by comparison. Especially in a large group, the specialized character getting first and last attack every other round, and those attacks having +1 to hit and +2 to damage, is a HUGE advantage over the other characters, who have one lame attack per round. Regards.

[Irda Ranger]

I guess I missed the part about the AD&D caller. My group is too small though to really need one, so I don't miss it, but thanks for the heads up.

What I don’t like about [weapon specialization] is 1) It makes it a lot less exciting to find a magic weapon. If the Fighter/Ranger does not happen to be specialized in that particular weapon, his bonuses from specialization probably outweigh the bonuses from the weapon's magic! Lame.

Don't weapon proficiencies generally cause this problem? I have the AD&D1e DMG and MM, but for the PHB I'm using OSRIC, so maybe I'm getting this wrong, but my understanding is that any weapon you're not proficient in is a -2 to attack (I think, even my OSRIC is at home and I'm at work). Fighters only start with 4 WP, so that places a hard limit on what items they can profitably use.

And, 2) [weapon specialization] makes non-Fighters/non-Rangers completely pathetic in combat by comparison. Especially in a large group, the specialized character getting first and last attack every other round, and those attacks having +1 to hit and +2 to damage, is a HUGE advantage over the other characters, who have one lame attack per round. Regards.

Yeah, the "take turns having fun" problem. That's why 4E make Thieves into Ninjas in all but name and Clerics and Magic-Users into at-will "magic laser gunslingers." I don't particularly like their solution, but it's a real problem that deserve attention. A good alternative that leaves Fighters and Rangers the "king of battle" without making it quite so obvious may be a slightly better (and level scaling) damage bonus without the extra attacks, but that's just one idea among many.

[genghisdon]

I'd avoid the UA like mummyplague, it causes more problems than it ever could fix.

I don't end campains as soon as most. I often have trouble with folks who ignore house rule effects HL & my concerns for "fixes" are almost always for HL games(other than L1, another weak spot perhaps, but one easily ignored, you aren't there long) I have never forced retirement on anyone & truthfully, less than a handful of my player's characters ever have. They seem to be much as you in attitude there. Of course this means they end up dead (for good) at some point...

Others can & do have valid concerns about HL play, because they are uncomfortable with, dislike it or are ignorant of how to run it. Nothing is for everyone. Thankfully.

I have played plenty of 3/3.5 & a bit of 4e. I had fun. They are different games. Not important for 1e. If you mean to play a lower treasure game( far less magic items &/or less powerful) you need to get a bit creative. The simplest way I can think of offhand is asigning damage bonus to characters, akin to the monk ability. Fighters get +1 damage/2 levels, clerics & thieves +1/4 levels mages +1/6 levels to reflect fighting skill improving damage(Level capped classes need some special dispensation near max level

[genghisdon]

AC could also be increased via combat skill, at about half the damage rate.

You are off on your XP/ level comparisons, but nontheless, in 1e the subclasses are a potential reward for those lucky enough to have the high attributes in the correct places. They are MEANT to be better. They aren't so much so, that the game breaks down however. Trust me. I know the allure of everyone must always be equal at all moments that 3 & 4e strived for. It's not all it's cracked up to be, not at all.

[genghisdon]

I hate feats, I hate character builds. As to whether or not a fighter is "useless" - that's up to the player. Honestly? If you want to see the dividing line between good player versus good numbers, run a group through A4. Doesn't mean you have to put them on the railroad and grind through A1-3, just put them in A4 "as a test of their abilities".

Fighters sans equipment, magic-users sans (most) spells, and clerics likewise...that's when you'll either see people giving up in frustration or a high degree of creative play come in to measure.

De-emphasize the builds, de-emphasize the whole idea of the fighter as an item actuator. In this way you'll get more ROLE playing versus ROLL playing without having to take a monkey wrench to the game.

While I agree with your sentiments, some folks aren't ready for cold turkey.

and A1-3 need not end in railroad. the party can be allowed to duke it out. They probably loose, but then it's on to A4. If not, then the DM has a little work to do. and the PC's get some well earned swag.

I also like the idea of designing your own "helpless" adventures. Shipwrecked or lost in a desert sound like easy choices in addition to captured by foes. The old mods are a good start point, but it's better to learn to make your own adventures.