|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:33AM
#951
|
|
|
Unearthed Arcana was released in 1985 or so as a supplement to the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons product line.
Does the term "1E" refer to the original AD&D or the Basic Set?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:36AM
#952
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
Ok so I looked it up. The original 1974 D&D had 3 classes: fighting-man, magic-user, cleric. AD&D (1e advanced) had fighter (paladin and ranger as subclasses), magic-user(illusionst subclass), cleric (druid subclass), thief(assassin subclass), bard, monk. D&D basic was released after 1e advanced and AD&D 2e.
So although my facts were wrong on some counts my general assertion that fighters have been THE defender since D&D's earliest days is very much correct. Especially when you take into account that ranger/paladin were sub-classes of fighter until 3e, thats a fact. When I played 2e I always saw pally and ranger as a kind of fighter, yet stil a fighter.
What was the fighting-man's mark back in 1st edition? In other words, what game mechanic allowed the fighter to function as a defender?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:39AM
#953
|
|
|
3) By the time spell casters had enough levels to cast 3rd lvl spells they very much did more damage than a fighter. Theonly reason for the fighter to exist was to soak up damage, until the mage had enough power to take the high damaging spells.
Not really. Back in the old days fighters killed things while the Wizard's meager spell alotment was rapidly depleted. At higher levels they still killed things, but it took the wizard a little longer to run dry. The wole idea was to kill things fast enough so they couldn't kill the wizard. Other than clogging a hall with fighters in front of the squishy mage there was no way to be a "defender".
Of course there was no mechanic for 'defending' as we now know it; but, by virtue of class features the most suited to holding the front line was the fighter. The fighter was the "first in last out" type and because of that was a defender: creatures attacked him because he became the immediate (closest) threat.
I wont argue there was nothing to do if the creature wanted to move to the other party members, but in my experience the monsters did not ignore the big burly guy in front of them unless there was a good logical reason to do so, and the monster in question was smart/tactically sound enough to notice said reason(YMMV depending on your DMs, of course).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:41AM
#954
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Ok so I looked it up. The original 1974 D&D had 3 classes: fighting-man, magic-user, cleric. AD&D (1e advanced) had fighter (paladin and ranger as subclasses), magic-user(illusionst subclass), cleric (druid subclass), thief(assassin subclass), bard, monk. D&D basic was released after 1e advanced and AD&D 2e.
So although my facts were wrong on some counts ~~~~
You're facts are still wrong on some counts. At least 3 versions of the Basic set were released before 2e.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:42AM
#955
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
Of course there was no mechanic for 'defending' as we now know it; but, by virtue of class features the most suited to holding the front line was the fighter. The fighter was the "first in last out" type and because of that was a defender: creatures attacked him because he became the immediate (closest) threat.
Closest because the hallway was narrow?
I wont argue there was nothing to do if the creature wanted to move to the other party members, but in my experience the monsters did not ignore the big burly guy in front of them unless there was a good logical reason to do so, and the monster in question was smart/tactically sound enough to notice said reason(YMMV depending on your DMs, of course).
Like targeting less armored enemies?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:43AM
#956
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
I can understand why you might come to the conclusion you did, what with your facts being so confused.
1. In 1e the classes available were magic-user, thief, cleric, fighter, dwarf, elf, and halfling (demi-humans, as they were called then, constituted classes with their own progression...they were like preset multiclass options w/o being called so explicitly). Later they added the druid and the mystic.
Incorrect.
2. The paladin and ranger were optional classes introduced in 2e, not every table had 'em.
Incorrect.
3. "Other classes could do more damage,"
Incorrect
1) very correct, at least until the unearthed arcana came out. I no longer have my copy, but it was released in the late 70's, I can remember that.
2) Paladin, barbarian, & ranger were all in the UA, so yes the original statement is incorrect, as far as not remembering the edition they came out in.
3) By the time spell casters had enough levels to cast 3rd lvl spells they very much did more damage than a fighter. Theonly reason for the fighter to exist was to soak up damage, until the mage had enough power to take the high damaging spells. That is defending. By level 10, or so spell casters could frequently "one shot" creatures with a good roll. Even with house rules and fudging the dice no fighter could do that after lvl 8 or 9.
Now, you are making a living on this board at being a condescending ass. I can think of quite a few people who have called you out on this, so why don't you pull your head out of whatever hole its in and "try" to be polite. I know it's asking much, but no one wants to listen to someone who not only doesn't know the sourse material, but is being a dick as well.
Go grab a 1E Players Handbook. You'll definitely find Paladin, Ranger, and Druid.
The fact that he would conflate Basic D&D and 1E while claiming classes that existed in the 70s were introduced in 2nd Ed tells me he is not actually familiar with any of them.
You're wrong about UA. Paladins and Rangers were not "introduced in UA". They existed in the original 1E Players Handbook.
I'm sorry if it comes off as condescending to point out where peoples statements of fact are incorrect.
Would you rather I smile and nod and let his misinformation go uncorrected? How can one be expected to debate a subject when the facts someone used to form a conclusion are flat out wrong?
Everyone has a right to an opinion. But you don't have a right to your own set of facts. Until facts are understood and agreed upon, no fruitful discussion can result. If you find this attitude condescending, then I don't have much else to say.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:46AM
#957
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2003
|
1) very correct, at least until the unearthed arcana came out. I no longer have my copy, but it was released in the late 70's, I can remember that.
2) Paladin, barbarian, & ranger were all in the UA, so yes the original statement is incorrect, as far as not remembering the edition they came out in.
3) By the time spell casters had enough levels to cast 3rd lvl spells they very much did more damage than a fighter. Theonly reason for the fighter to exist was to soak up damage, until the mage had enough power to take the high damaging spells. That is defending. By level 10, or so spell casters could frequently "one shot" creatures with a good roll. Even with house rules and fudging the dice no fighter could do that after lvl 8 or 9.
Now, you are making a living on this board at being a condescending ass. I can think of quite a few people who have called you out on this, so why don't you pull your head out of whatever hole its in and "try" to be polite. I know it's asking much, but no one wants to listen to someone who not only doesn't know the sourse material, but is being a dick as well.
BZZZZZZ! On points 1 and 2, you're just flat Wrong.
Unearthed Arcana was released in 1985. I know. I still HAVE my copy. But even if I didn't, I could find that out with a Wikipedia search.
Moreover, the classes in it were the Cavalier, the Barbarian and the Thief-Acrobat. The only sense in which the paladin was changed is that it was turned into a sub-class of cavalier.
You seem to be very confused on editions. Allow me to enlighten you.
In the 1974 boxed set (so-called "OD&D" or "White Box"), the only classes were fighting man, cleric, and magic-user. Races were human, elf, dwarf, and...hobbit (Tolkien's lawyers loved that). Thief was added in the Greyhawk supplement, with other classes following in various supplements throughout the '70s. In 1978, the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook was released, which collected the classes from the various supplements into a single hardcover. It included the classes of cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, thief, assassin, magic-user and monk. It also included the races of human, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, half-elf, and half-orc. The hardcover PHB & DMG, along with Unearthed Arcana and other supplements constitute what's generally referred to as First Edition, or 1e. Because of OD&D, 1e is really the game's second edition, but we can let that slide.
Where you're confused is that around the same time as 1e, there was a Basic D&D, released in various boxed sets (the 1978 "Blue Box," the 1981 "Magenta Box," and the 1983 "Red Box") that included the classes of cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief, elf, dwarf, and halfling. The elf was basically a fighter/magic-user multiclass, whereas the dwarf and halfling were just slightly modified fighters.
Parallel development of Basic D&D and Advanced D&D continued for many years. Including during the switchover from 1st Edition AD&D to 2nd Edition. When WotC bought TSR, they did away with the Basic/Advanced separation and just called the 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons.
Don't feel bad. A lot of people get confused with edition numbering. And some still believe that Basic D&D was a previous edition of AD&D. It's understandable. But please don't correct falsehood with falsehood.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:52AM
#958
|
|
|
Ok so I looked it up. The original 1974 D&D had 3 classes: fighting-man, magic-user, cleric. AD&D (1e advanced) had fighter (paladin and ranger as subclasses), magic-user(illusionst subclass), cleric (druid subclass), thief(assassin subclass), bard, monk. D&D basic was released after 1e advanced and AD&D 2e.
So although my facts were wrong on some counts ~~~~
You're facts are still wrong on some counts. At least 3 versions of the Basic set were released before 2e.
Oops! I wrote it worng, sorry. I meant that basic was released between 1e and ad&d 2nd.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:54AM
#959
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
What was the fighting-man's mark back in 1st edition? In other words, what game mechanic allowed the fighter to function as a defender?
DM discretion and general behavior and high hitpoints were the mechanics of the day. A minor edge damage wise initially, and gradually everybody else dealt more damage you were at least progressively good at taking out minions (aka zero levels)
People slept/retreated whatever when the big guns ran out of ammo... that was the correct strategy.
The final bit.... ummm pretending anybody but casters were big guns is putting your head in the sand.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 7:58AM
#960
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2010
|
1st Edition original D&D had:
Fighter (human) max level 36
Cleric (human) max level 36
Wizard (human) max level 36
Rogue (human) max level 36
Halfling (max lvl8), Elf (max lvl 10) and Dwarf (max lvl12) (not so sure about the dwarf now 
the demihumans then advanced in steps (a,b,c,d,e,f) etc. but didn´t get any hp anymore
Warrior could become Knight and Paladin (only when Lawful)
Cleric could become Druid (with neutral alignment)
Thats all i can recall from my memory (played D&D from 1983-1985)
I don´t have the Boxes anymore (Red,Blue, Green and Black)
Never got the golden box
|
|
|
