Greyhawk Dexterity Modifier to Armor Class: Just for the Fighting Man?

Okay, this is going to be a hardcore nerd post. I’m going to indulge into a bit of rules minutiae. I’ve been digging in my OD&D books lately because I plan at some point to do a post comparing the different retro clones and how closely they hew to the source. I’m not interested in finding out which is the most authentic, but rather, I’m curious to note how the small deviations actually affect play at the table. Whether intentional or not, these small mis-readings or diverse interpretations are just as interesting to me as any factual historical account of how particular rules came to be.

In looking at how ability score modifiers changed from the 3LBBs to Greyhawk, I noticed something I had never come across before. I did a little poking around in the old forums and didn’t find anything about it either. It could be that I missed an article or just that no one has ever posted about it because it’s so universally known. I came across a passage that seems to suggest that the Dexterity modifier as it is applied to Armor Class is a benefit exclusively enjoyed by the Fighting Man.

What prompted me to check the Dexterity modifier in Greyhawk in the first place was noting how different the Dexterity modifier table in Iron Falcon was from the parallel table in Swords & Wizardry Core (which is the 3LBBs plus Greyhawk). In S&W Core, the Dexterity modifier is universal to all classes as better by 1 for scores of 13-18, and worse by 1 for scores of 3-8. The Iron Falcon table showed the Dexterity modifier giving a Dex score of 0-14 gives no bonus or penalty, a score of 15 improves AC by 1, a score of 16 by 2, a score of 17 by 3, and a score of 18 by 4. This modifier is applied only to Fighters, with an alternate option to apply it to all classes at the GM’s discretion*.

This wide discrepancy again sent me to my copy of the first supplement. Again, I’m not particularly interested in what Strategic Review article or late-era Gary interview may have influenced Chris Gonnerman or Matt Finch to write their charts as they did. I’m more interested in comparing them to the original to see how the changes might affect the game one way or the other. What I found in Greyhawk was surprising.

It turns out that Iron Falcon’s Dex mod chart replicates what is laid out for Dexterity’s effect on AC. The relevant passage on the middle of page 8 of Greyhawk reads:

“Dexterity affects both the ability of characters to act/react and fire missiles. It is also the prime requisite for thieves. Fighters with a dexterity of greater than 14 can use their unusual manual dexterity to attempt to dodge or parry opponents’ attacks. For every point over 14 they are able to reduce their opponents’ chances of hitting them by 1 (5%).”

The Iron Falcon chart reflects this passage exactly, a bonus of 1-4 for scores of 15-18, and no mention of a penalty to AC for a low Dexterity. What struck me most was that it specifies that the fighter receives this bonus. Now it’s possible that Gary was using “fighter” as common parlance for Player Character combatant – meaning any character of any class. However, “fighter” is used as shorthand for the Fighting Man class all over Greyhawk. There is also a passage earlier on page 4 that seems to reinforce this idea the fighter-only Dexterity mod to AC:

“Fighting Men: Other character-types may engage in hand-to-hand combat, but only true fighting men are able to use their strength and dexterity to utmost advantage in melee.”

When viewed next to the wording of the passage on page 8, it would seem only fighters would be able to use their Dexterity in combat to avoid a blow. Thieves may be the most dexterous, but their class lacks the combat know-how to take advantage of it in close-combat. While I may not want to run my games that way, the intention of the rule seems pretty clear.

What is interesting to me is how Swords & Wizardry (and other simulacra) apply the AC modifier to all classes, as AD&D did in 1978 (PHB), B/X did in 1981, and every edition did thereafter. (Holmes in 1977 is a notable exception as it used the 3LBB rules more closely.) I’ve always played it with all classes getting the AC mod. Everyone I’ve ever known has played it that way. It’s as if everyone missed the exclusivity of this rule, or simply, like me, decided, ‘Nah, I’m not going to do it like that.’ In any case, how that conscious (or not) re-interpretation affects the intent of the rule is pretty huge.

First, applying the Dexterity modifier to AC for all classes makes Dexterity much more important. Many modern players feel that Dexterity is the true God Stat – it’s useful to everyone no matter what your class. Finch, in his WhiteBox rules’ alternate Universal Attribute Bonus rules, gives the -1/+1 modifier option for Dexterity to AC. There is a caution that it maybe should be limited to more swashbuckling campaigns without a lot of armor. There is an implied recognition that having Dex affecting AC makes the stat have a very powerful impact on the game.

Next, by giving this benefit to all classes, it takes something special away from the fighter. If only the fighter gains this benefit it makes this class much more powerful. When paired with the rule that only fighters use Strength bonuses for melee attacks and damage, it truly differentiates this class from the others and makes the cleric not nearly as good at combat (one of these days I’m going to write a post about how the 3LBB cleric is OP). If you use the strict interpretation of the rule (as S&W does with Strength to-hit & damage), that fighters, and only fighters (no paladins or rangers), get this benefit, it makes playing a bog-standard character much more appealing.

It should be noted (as was pointed out to me*) that S&W’s application of Chainmail’s man-to-man parrying rules does give some of that power back to Fighters. However, a parry is an active action taking the place of an attack, which is not as great a boon as a passive AC boost. Still, some of that Fighter “specialness” is preserved. In Delving Deeper, for instance, parrying is a non-exclusive action for any class.

As for how I feel about using this in my own games, I’m pretty sure I won’t. Possibly because my players would revolt. Partly because I grew up playing the game with AC being affected by Dex for all classes and it’s what I’m used to. More than that though, is the affect it would have on my game. Magic-users would be even more fragile than they are. Thieves would be less-likely to engage in combat, more likely to be played strictly as scouts, lock-picks, and trap-removers. People would want to play clerics even less. Then there’s thinking about how it would make a party of bandits (or other fighter humanoids) more powerful adversaries.

It has been said that Gary never understood why anyone would ever want to play anything other than a fighter, a Conan-like superhero. Given this rules interpretation, I can see how that makes sense.

CORRECTION: I updated this post because I made some incorrect statements about how Iron Falcon and Swords & Wizardry Core handle these rules. Just like Greyhawk, I glossed over the finer details. Both Gonnerman and Finch note that their work differs in parts (intentionally so) from the original game so shame on me for not careful reading. On the other hand, what’s an RPG post without a little errata?

Holmes and the Human Fighting Man

I've been revisiting my copies of Holmes Basic Dungeons & Dragons and Blueholme - both the Prentice and the Journeymanne Rules. This is a version of D&D I only gained awareness of 20 years ago when I bought TSR's Silver Anniversary box set. It's a version I can examine with fresh eyes, unaffected by the fog of nostalgia. Sure, it's familiar in that there's a bunch of Sutherland and Tramp art throughout and the core concepts are the same. And yet, in terms of tone, it's pretty singular.

Caught between OD&D and AD&D, and edited by neurologist, J. Eric Holmes, this rule set is a streamlined reinterpretation of the original rules designed to bring new players into Dungeons & Dragons who didn't have a background in war gaming. To that end, it was incredibly successful, and it provided a nice segue into the advanced game which would come out over the next couple of years.

There are small differences between this compact rulebook and both the original and advanced rules, but again, it's the tone that separates it from the other books. It feels open and mercurial and magical compared to the abstract war gaming instructions of the original rules, and nowhere near as precise as AD&D with its explanations of bell curves and rules for grappling and psionics. In the section titled, "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art," Holmes explains how to run the game with simple pragmatic advice to make the game challenging, but survivable. He directs DMs to narrate dramatically, use colorful dialogue, and have characters invoke gods like Zeus, Crom, and Cthulhu when they swear. The spell lists, monsters, and magic items don't feel Basic. They have a Byzantine, Old World faerie-land feel to them. They evoke all kinds of mysterious possibilities. Blueholme's retro-clone version of the rules extends this feel with its whimsical fairy-tale art and tone.

I recently read an old Dragonsfoot post by Geoffrey McKinney about using the Holmes edition as a complete game. There's something compelling to the argument. There are better places to read about Holmes' rules (like here), so rather than go on and on over well-covered territory, I wanted to touch on one particular topic that's I found interesting: Holmes' human Fighting Man.

The Fighting Man is in some ways the base class of any edition. You can tell a lot about the system by how it treats its fighters. Looking at Holmes' Human Fighting Man, it strikes me as curious how unimpressive this class is when compared to the others. The only benefit the Fighting Man has is having the largest hit dice of any class. Although, Rules as Written, you could still roll a 2 on the d8 while your Magic-user rolls a 4 on their d4, though the law of averages who suggest the opposite most of the time.

So what do other classes have that the Fighting Man doesn't? I mean, outside of the fact that they don't cast spells, turn undead, or have special skills.

First, every class has the same attack matrix as the Fighting Man for levels 1-3, which is all that this rule set covers. That means the Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief are equal to the Fighting Man in terms of combat ability. In OD&D, the Fighting Man and Cleric both increased in their to-hit roll at 3rd level. In Holmes, everyone hits an AC of 9 on a 10. Since the Human Fighting Man needs more XP to level up than the Cleric and Thief, it's likely that those two classes will improve their to-hit roll before the Fighting Man. Holmes also does not use the Greyhawk supplement's Strength bonus for attacking or damage given only to the Fighting Man. This means that a high Strength only nets the Holmesian Fighting Man a bonus to their XP. There's only a vague mention that Fighting Men's Strength should make them able to carry more weight. Which makes them mules.

While it is true that Holmes' human Fighting Man can wear any armor, the same can be said for dwarven and halfling Fighting Men, as well as the  Cleric and elves, which can both cast spells as well. It's not a special benefit. The Fighting Man can also use any weapon. This limitation is rendered mechanically meaningless though by the fact that Holmes didn't incorporate Greyhawk's variable weapon damage, so everything does d6 damage (except burning oil, which uses the d8). This means that a Magic-user could do as much damage with their dagger as the Fighting Man deals with their two-handed blade. There is no mechanical limitation to a character's weapon restriction, meaning the Human Fighting Man doesn't get bragging rights for being able to swing everything. Holmes even loses the OD&D Fighting Man's multiple attacks per level against opponents of less than one hit die (Goblins, Kobolds, etc.).

In terms of Saving Throws, the Human Fighting Man is equal to the Thief, a little better than Magic-users on the whole, but not as good as Clerics. Both dwarven and halfling Fighting Men, however, have better Saving Throws than the human version of the class. It's also worth noting that all the demi-human Fighting Men have abilities (infravision, search chances, +1 to hit with missiles, etc.) that their human counterparts don't.

So, after all this, why would you choose to play a Human Fighting Man in Holmes? While I'm not a power gamer, and I dislike discussions of character optimization, the Holmes game world seems stacked against your standard fighters. And yet, in some ways this makes them more heroic.

There is something inherently noble in a character without any special talents or abilities who decides against a life of common serfdom or as a village guard to choose to adventure into the unknown for gold and glory. It may take them longer to advance and progress, but that advancement means more because it was harder fought and wasn't aided by spells, sly tricks, or extrahuman abilities. Any abilities the Holmes Fighting Man has must be based on in game play where trial and error connects with an understanding between the player and their referee.

This is who the Holmes Fighting Man is. Their heroism is one that is earned and based on their deeds, not on a gift package given to them by their god (I need to write a whole post on why Clerics in D&D are OP). It also makes them more challenging to play, encouraging the player to find ways to make their Fighting Man matter to the group outside of combat. This makes the Holmes fighter stand apart from the modern incarnation of the uber-warrior tank. That doesn't exist in Holmes. The Fighting Man's relative weakness is perhaps what provides the Holmes rule set the space to be as magical as it is.

[All this said, I still prefer a little more in the way of game fighter game balance and advocate for something a little closer to the Fighter in BFRPG and S&W, or B/X and OD&D if you prefer.]