D&D (2024) Do you see Fighter players at your own table?

[Yaarel]

Interesting, I’ve heard otherwise, but haven’t tried it out. How were they unbalanced in play?

For example, the AIM Martial classes compare to 5e classes, such as Sneak Attack, Extra Attack, and "Mortal Wound" damage-multiplying.

Meanwhile, the "Scholar" paralleling the 5e Wizard gets − instead of Wish − for its level 17 class feature, a limited form of telepathy that somewhat compares to a level 1 character in 5e, plus an extra hitpoint. LOL! The other features for the AIM quasi-spellcaster classes are similarly designed to be inferior to the Martial class features. There is no pretense at class balance. AIM is designed so that Martial characters will dominate.

 

[Yaarel]

I actually feel it is unethical to design imbalanced classes.

Because it ultimately affects the power dynamics among reallife players.

Meanwhile, reallife players get "punished" because they like a flavor that happened to get less "privileged" in the game.

 

[gamerprinter]

The last group I regularly played with, the hostess (we mostly run games at her house), she has all the books (her Dad who is passed away was a DM and she inherited all his dice and minis). But she doesn't really read or understand the rules much, and she only ever plays a fighter, because it's the simplist class - the least to have fuss about. Emphasis being feats and little else. Me, I'm always the DM, but only those very rare occasions that I'm a player, I'm almost always play a ranger, sometimes a paladin, but I never play spellcasters (as a player). As the DM running all the NPCs, I'm always running casters, so I know how and can do it well, but I just don't prefer to play casters.

 

[Yaarel]

The last group I regularly played with, the hostess (we mostly run games at her house), she has all the books (her Dad who is passed away was a DM and she inherited all his dice and minis). But she doesn't really read or understand the rules much, and she only ever plays a fighter, because it's the simplist class - the least to have fuss about. Emphasis being feats and little else. Me, I'm always the DM, but only those very rare occasions that I'm a player, I'm almost always play a ranger, sometimes a paladin, but I never play spellcasters (as a player). As the DM running all the NPCs, I'm always running casters, so I know how and can do it well, but I just don't prefer to play casters.

For the survey, the 5e Paladin and the 5e Ranger are "spellcasters" too. Part-casters, they are magical character concepts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Grow up and get over it.

Mod Note:

That’s unnecessarily confrontational. Be better going forward.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Open accusations of “bad faith” are not conducive to civil discourse. Don’t do that, please. Instead, simply report behavior/posting patterns you believe are inappropriate or provocative and let the mods decide.

Likewise, openly mocking someone’s position can be seen as personally disrespectful and thus, also disruptive. Let’s keep that to a minimum as well, and ideally, take some effort to minimize the sting.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

For example, the AIM Martial classes compare to 5e classes, such as Sneak Attack, Extra Attack, and "Mortal Wound" damage-multiplying.

Meanwhile, the "Scholar" paralleling the 5e Wizard gets − instead of Wish − for its level 17 class feature, a limited form of telepathy that somewhat compares to a level 1 character in 5e, plus an extra hitpoint. LOL! The other features for the AIM quasi-spellcaster classes are similarly designed to be inferior to the Martial class features. There is no pretense at class balance. AIM is designed so that Martial characters will dominate.

That depends on what you mean by “balance” doesn’t it? It seems like you are focusing on combat, where, IIRC, AiM has other systems that the classes interact with, like the journey rules and the shadow (or whatever it is called).

Also, the scholar is not a wizard replacement. There are no wizards, or really any magic users, in AiM IIRC

And you didn’t really answer my question, so I assume you haven’t actually played AiM, is that correct? It looks to me like you have only read it.

 

[HammerMan]

There is no pretense at class balance. AIM is designed so that Martial characters will dominate.

I mean as it stands when one class is brought down to another it may seem that way.

I just broke out my copy and am reading through it now.

 

[Charlaquin]

No "jab". You and other forumers − and when I thought about it I too − dont see the "nonmagical warrior" in play.



Many discussions about Fighter and Wizard (and similar warrior versus caster discussions) are characterized as if "nonmagical" versus "magicaĺ".

What is eye-opening, a significant segment of D&D players never see a "nonmagical" Fighter. It isnt the game that they are playing. Often the Fighter oneself is a magical character concept.

Your poll doesn’t demonstrate that, because of the limited time window and level requirement. My games see non magical fighters, but under the parameters of the poll I would have to say that I don’t, because we have been unable to play very much this year, and the whole party in the current campaign (which does include a nonmagical fighter) is still 3rd level.

 

[gamerprinter]

For the survey, the 5e Paladin and the 5e Ranger are "spellcasters" too. Part-casters, they are magical character concepts.

I never play full casters. I know Rangers and Paladins count as part casters, but I put the separation between full and part...