Wednesday 2 December 2020

How Tough is a First Level Fighter?

It is, my friends, time to return to this most ancient of chestnuts. Is a 1st level fighter a blithering mook, at the start of his adventuring life, or an already-established, decently competent soldier? 

In one sense, of course, the question is moot, because the answer is entirely relative. A 1st level fighter is as tough as a 1 HD monster (say, an orc). How tough is an orc? However tough you want it to be. It could be along the lines of a Warhammer goblin, or along the lines of a Warhammer black orc; it's really up to you. And this is partly to the good, because it's one of the things that makes D&D so gloriously flexible. Your game can be at the starting power level of The Hobbit or at the starting power level of The Malazan Book of the Fallen in your imagination, but whichever it is, it will begin at the same level, with the same rules. It's just in how you imagine what 1 HD, and therefore 1st level, represents. 

Take the following scene, from Mythago Wood. Which do you think is the 1st level character here - the narrator, or the man who defeats him?


And then all around us the woodland burst into brilliant fire, the trunks catching, the branches, the leaves, so that the garden, was surrounded by a great, roaring wall of flame. Two dark human shapes came bursting through that fire, light glinting on metal armour and the short-bladed weapons held in their hands. For a moment they hesitated, staring at us; one had the golden mask of a hawk, its eyes mere slits, the ears rising like short horns from the crown. The other wore a dull leather helmet, the cheek straps broad. The hawk laughed loudly.  
‘Oh God no ... !’ I cried, but Guiwenneth screamed at me, ‘Arm yourself!’ as she raced past me to where her own weapons were lodged against the back wall of the house.  
I followed her, grabbing up my flintspear and the sword that Magidion had presented to me. And we turned, backs to the wall, and watched the gruesome band of armoured men who emerged, dark silhouettes, through the burning forest, and spread out around the garden.  
The two warriors suddenly ran at us, one at Guiwenneth, one at me. It was the hawk who chose me.  
He came at me so fast that I hardly had time to raise and thrust my spear at him; the events happened in a blur of burnished metal, dark hair, and sweaty flesh, as he deflected my blow with his small round shield, then clubbed me heavily on the side of the head with the blunt pommel of his sword. I staggered to my knees, then struggled to rise, but the shield was struck against my head and the ground hit my face, hard and dry. The next I knew he had tied my arms behind my back, worked my spear under my armpits, and trussed me like a turkeycock.

There is no right answer to that question, of course: it just depends how you frame your campaign.  

18 comments:

  1. Theoretically you can imagine level 1 to mean what you want it to mean in terms of power, but in practice almost everyone measures it on a 1 to 20 scale, which makes it look decidedly on the lower end of a pretty extensive scale. If there were only, say, 3 or 6 levels in the rules, I'm sure level 1 would be rated higher than on a 1 to 20 scale.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I play it as deadly as possible, the caveat being that the player's job is to avoid the near random impartiality of the rules by impressing me with their ingenuity. If I like what they're saying, then they dice don't come out or are well stacked towards the PC. Thus(and this is maybe kind of a shitty answer), the level 1 fighter is as good as the player that runs him/her.

    I've seen mooks, I've seen level 1 Aragorns.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess that I come at this question from an AD&D 1E perspective. In that iteration of the game I think that we know just how tough a first level fighter is, because we have statistics of persons to which we can compare him. Compared to ordinary mercenary soldiers the fighter is just a bit better (same average HP, but the fighter hits a bit better and saves a bit better). Compared to ordinary people he's a lot better (much higher average HP, and the fighter hits quite a bit better and saves a bit better). All of this leaves out ability scores, which will likely be better for the fighter.
    So the level 1 fighter is a cut above an ordinary person - but he's a long way away from Conan, Achilles, or Launcelot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My favorite answer to the question posed above, can be found in full here:
    D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations

    Since I've linked to a longish essay, I'll excerpt the part most directly relevant to the question hand:

    Almost everyone you have ever met is a 1st level character. The few exceptional people you’ve met are probably 2nd or 3rd level – they’re canny and experienced and can accomplish things that others find difficult or impossible.

    If you know someone who’s 4th level, then you’re privileged to know one of the most talented people around: They’re a professional sports player. Or a brain surgeon. Or a rocket scientist.

    If you know someone who’s 5th level, then you have the honor of knowing someone that will probably be written about in history books. Walter Payton. Michael Jordan. Albert Einstein. Isaac Newton. Miyamoto Musashi. William Shakespeare.

    So when your D&D character hits 6th level, it means they’re literally superhuman: They are capable of achieving things that no human being has ever been capable of achieving. They have transcended the mortal plane and become a mythic hero.


    Yes, the piece that I've linked to above makes specific reference to D&D's 3rd edition, but much of the reasoning (found in the full version of Mr. Alexander's essay) could still apply to many versions of the D&D game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link is giving me Javascript errors...

      But wouldn't most people you've ever me be 0th level? That's what I give low level PCs are hirelings and they're useful in large numbers as back rank or missile support.

      Delete
    2. https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

      By 3rd edition mindset, there is no 0 level. 3rd edition had 1st level Commoners (or Warriors) instead of 0th level NPCs.

      Delete
    3. I agree about the 0th level point, but 3E doesn't have 0th level characters, and the article that was linked is geared toward 3E. I think that the logic in the article doesn't really work for the early editions. Per the 1st edition Monster Manual, a bandit chieftain or pirate captain are 8th - 10th level fighters, so 6th level characters aren't meant to be mythic/superhuman.

      Delete
    4. It's an interesting essay but it works better for skills in 3e than for combat ability. Take the example of Aragorn. Presumably he is at least as high level as Gimli. And in one battle Gimli kills at least 20 Orcs (he's competing with Legolas.) That's a bit improbable for a 0e or 1e 5th level fighter. 10th level makes it more plausible. I can show my math if anyone really cares but using D&D combat rules to do what he does he needs to be high level. Ditto for Legolas & Gimli. Not that I'm arguing for Conan as a 25th level character - there was a good argument that in B/X he'd work as a 14th level Thief. But the notion that 5th level represents the best fighters and 10th is flat out superhuman doesn't really work in older versions of D&D.

      Delete
    5. Yes, there is a huge gulf in expectations in terms of what a 3e character can do and what a 1st edition one can.

      Delete
  5. Also connects with the magic level of the campaign world. In a high magic world there can be plenty of first level wizard scrubs but if magic is race and wondrous then even a first level wizard is impressive and if a first level wizard is impressive then a first level fighter should be so as well.

    Also as anyone who'd done sports knows there's a yawning vast gulf between random decently healthy people off the street and even a pretty half-assed amateur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah - I have a feeling I wrote a post about that once. Can't remember, but might revisit it.

      Delete
  6. From the B/X perspective, a level 1 Fighter is intimidating.
    A Normal Man has 1-4 hit points and a THAC0 of 20.

    A Fighter lvl 1 has 1-8 hit points and a THAC0 of 19.

    So, 5% better to hit, nearly 100% more hit points (2.5 avg vs. 4.5 avg.), better saves, almost guaranteed better armor, and probably a Strength or Con bonus to hit/damage and hit points.

    The average 1st level B/X fighter is probably worth 2 Normal Men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So a 1st level fighter is perhaps equvalent to a private soldier in a real world army who has completed his training but not yet developed real world combat skills.

      Delete
  7. I'd say 1st level can cover a range but the ceiling is pretty low. In earlier editions of D&D/AD&D an ordinary fighting man was 0 level. A 1st level fighting man was a little better - and titled a veteran - but not that much better. So at best the 1st level fighter has a significant edge on the ordinary man at arms. At worst, I've seen people who treat 1st or 2nd level as apprentices and 3rd or 4th where you're dealing with a proper professional fighter.

    In your example, the narrator is taken down pretty quickly. In essence he goes down in one or two rounds. That suggests the narrator is 1st level or 2nd level, maybe even 0th level - a higher level character would hang in longer even against a high level appointment. As for his opponent? Technically under D&D rules another 1st level fighter could just get lucky with the first blow but the text suggests it wasn't luck. So definitely better than 1st level. How much better is unclear but I would go with at least 4th level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but now you're into the realm of how long the length of a round is and what goes on it it...

      Delete
  8. One thing that D&D does - perhaps more so than other RPGs - is put a premium on armour. That contrasts with, say, Runequest, where attack and parry skills are probably more important overall. So the starting wealth of typical fighters has quite an impact on how formidable they are in combat.

    Now, the average first-level fighter in B/X or RC can afford to equip himself with plate mail, a poleaxe, sword and shield, and a bow. That combination makes him much more deadly and durable than the average brigand or orc. If you were playing a large-scale combat game, you'd be better off taking "average first-level fighters with typical starting gear" over the same number of brigands and orcs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a nice idea, but it falls apart the moment a game mechanic interacts with anything objective or familiar.

    People should just leave 0-1st level to represent average/terrible, and if they want to start out powerful they should start at 3rd or 10th or whatever. *grumble*

    ReplyDelete