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

[Remathilis]

My friend is playing a giff battlemaster rifleman. Only 5th level, but no feats or magical abilities beyond his race. He did just get a +1 pistol though.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I didn't answer the poll because it doesn't apply to my "Brotherhood of Rangers" game, which is the only D&D I've run in years. It's 3.5e instead of 5th edition, and the players are all gestalt-rangers and thus blessed/tainted with those class abilities. That said, the two fighter-ranger gestalts in the party do hold their own. One did require some character optimization & archery specialization instead of trying to be both a supreme bowman and a supreme swordsman, while the other was a melee combat guy from the first - but his player is really bad at dealing with even the basic crunch; the rest of the players (and me) have to keep reminding him "Now add your Greatsword bonus to that D20 roll..."

It turned out that the party wizard being a gestalt wizard-ranger helps the party dynamics too. He isn't under the usual pressure to "go nova-spells or go home" as he can competently do things with his ranger abilities, with occasional chances to shine when he does cast a spell. And similarly with the party cleric.

 

[Mistwell]

I didn’t say anyone is unethical or a bad person if they are fine with the game’s balance the way it is. Heck, people could want the game to be massively unbalanced and it wouldn’t make them unethical or bad people. I was just expressing why people who really like casters might perceive a game like AiME as being “designed for martials to dominate.”

You described them as people of privilege who couldn't see they were privileged and were unjustly complaining about equity. Those terms are, at least in part, about ethics.

 

[Charlaquin]

You described them as people of privilege who couldn't see they were privileged and were unjustly complaining about equity. Those terms are, at least in part, about ethics.

No, no. I used an analogy to compare spellcasters to people in privilege. Spellcasters have historically enjoyed the privilege of greater combat power than other characters, and still have the privilege of greater ability to influence the narrative outside of combat. To someone who is accustomed to that state of affairs, limiting caster utility or increasing martial utility could feel like casters were being oppressed. That doesn’t mean someone who feels that way is a bad person (nor do I believe that to be the case).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Howzabout we NOT veer into argument forms that eerily echo RW political disagreements?

 

[tetrasodium]

.

 

[Starfox]

I replied 1 fighter.

I have one regular, veteran player that plays fighters in whatever game he is playing. He is not currently playing in my 5E game.

I have another veteran player that is playing a fighter now in my 5E game.

Both are playing champions in their forays into 5E.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

While I disagree with the narrow definition of what a "fighter" is in this thread. (I'm on board for ruling out Eldritch Knight but frankly every other subclass I would argue should be present.

Though to answer the question we've had a number of straight class fighters, many of whom has made it past 8th level. To my memory we've had a champion, two battlemasters, two samurai, a cavalier, a banneret/purple dragon knight, two echo knights, an arcane archer, and a rune knight. While the poll does not care, I've also had no less than 3 eldritch knights. Frankly I don't think I've ever had or been in a party that doesn't have at least one fighter, with several of them having two within the same party. All of except for the eldritch knights were made by veteran players whom had played at least two or more characters before they created the fighter, albeit not all of them were what I'd label as an optimizer or min/maxer.

I feel like there are a number of people on these forums that seem to forget that there is a sizable amount of players out there who simply do not care for either optimizing or character complexity on a mechanical sense. The majority of the players for the 4 different groups I am in vastly prefer characters focused on roleplaying rather than combat. And honestly for myself? If I were ever forced to only play one class for the rest of my time with 5e it would be the fighter hands down, despite them getting largely no mechanical abilities for out of combat and preferring roleplaying myself. I like that I can just focus on my character and not just keeping track of things like spell slots or figuring out which situational ability to use where.

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, it's not about optimization. That's the fallacy. That it's only optimizers that are playing casters. It's not. When you've got a pretty solid third of groups out there that aren't seeing ANY single classed fighters, it's just too many for it to be simply an optimization thing.

 

[Mistwell]

Thing is, it's not about optimization. That's the fallacy. That it's only optimizers that are playing casters. It's not. When you've got a pretty solid third of groups out there that aren't seeing ANY single classed fighters, it's just too many for it to be simply an optimization thing.

First, it's not a third. It's less than a third (ten percent less than a third).

Second, list the total number of subclasses in the game and count how many qualify for "single classed non-casting fighter" and how many do not. You will find it's not odd at all, if simply subclasses are roughly evenly spread, that in the 10th year you'd have 30%.

I agree it's not an optimization thing. I disagree that it's because people don't like single-classed non-casting fighters. At this late stage of the edition, simply multiclassing to try out some new subclass they've never tried which has some magical element of some kind is not a matter of spellcasters dominating or a ding on non-casting fighters. It's just am odds thing built into the sheer quantity of subclasses which have a magical element, many of which were published later in the edition cycle.