Testing a theory

[haakon1]

My theory is, people who worry about 15 minute adventuring day and Angel Summoner + BMX Bandit issues aren't actually people who LIKE playing Fighter types.

My theory comes from Fighter types being my favorite, and never having felt they were "broken" or weak.

Let's test it, shall we?

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Never once played a fighter, have played a ranger once, but the guys that I played with weren't into the 15-min day style.

I have primarily played spellcasters, and the 15-min workday does concern me a lot. The fact that 5E allows for it and lays the responsibility of preventing it on the DM rather than the rules themselves worries me as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My theory is, people who worry about 15 minute adventuring day and Angel Summoner + BMX Bandit issues aren't actually people who LIKE playing Fighter types.

Well, obviously, if you're aware of the issues with casters, playing a fighter in an imbalanced game - no matter how much you may prefer the archetype - is going to be frustrating.

My theory comes from Fighter types being my favorite, and never having felt they were "broken" or weak.

Let's test it, shall we?

Fighters were my favorite class in 3.x and second to Warlords (and about tied with Wizards) in 4e. I have never felt that fighters were 'broken' or 'weak' - rather, prior to 4e, casters were wildly broken and tended to wreck the game with their one-and-done, constantly-resting ineffectiveness at 1st level, and horrifically overpowered abilities at higher levels.

The 15MWD and class imbalance are problem endemic to classic D&D and 3e, and they are problems with the casters, not the fighter.

 

[TwoSix]

Nope. Always preferred fighter-types (good armor class, good melee attacks, right up in the front). It was the lack of versatility that always bugged me, and the fact that planning at higher levels usually amounted to waiting for other people to buy new scrolls.
It's why I usually played divine casters, I could be upfront but still have lots of options. Playing a gish build in late 3.5, as well as a ToB warblade, convinced me that there was nothing preventing warriors from also having nice things besides tradition.

 

[Grydan]

I prefer to play fighter types.

I currently play in two campaigns, while DMing another.

In both campaigns, I play a version of the Fighter.

In the higher level campaign, my previous character (now deceased) was a fighter.

I have two back-up characters prepared for that campaign. Both of them are fighters.

I have also played another fighter across two different campaigns with two different DMs. It was my very first D&D character. I wanted to play a fighter before I wanted to play anything else, and my reasons for doing so had absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the fighter was a good "simple, basic, starter class".

I don't worry about the 15 minute adventuring day or Angel-Summoner/BMX Bandit issues in those campaigns because I play 4th Edition, the edition where (nearly) all classes have daily resources, and where level rather than class selection is the primary determiner of how powerful your character is.

I do worry about those issues in DDN, as the designers seem to have given little to no thought so far as to how to disincentivize the 15 minute day, or truly balance the classes in the event that it occurs, or make it that the fighter player has interesting and meaningful choices in and out of combat.

 

[GSHamster]

I usually DM, and I worry about caster balance. In my experience, the presence/absence of the caster player makes a *massive* difference whether my adventure is viable. If the caster isn't there, suddenly whole swaths of challenges become impossible. If she is there, another huge set of challenges become trivial.

In my experience, non-casters don't display this swing. Rogue isn't there, well, a bit less sneaking and bit more bashing. Fighter isn't there, a little less bashing, and a little more sneaking/evading.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Heh, I'm always the DM, but I can tell you that all the players in my group would be hard pressed to vote in this poll. Universally, they like to play all kinds of characters, don't like a lot imbalance, but don't worry about it. Instead, they expect me to worry about it so that they don't need to. They don't care how it gets solved--DM manipulation, house rules, switching systems, etc--as long as it does get solved.

When I'm successful, they don't even think about it--the same way you don't drive down the road in your new car worrying about each and every part in the engine failing on you.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is the best option for... "I usually either rangers, survivalist clerics and wizards, and tough rogues who usually can escape and sneak past enemies but worry about the 15 minute workday as my renewable resources run dry very fast."

 

[Dark Mistress]

I don't worry about it and the classes I like to play(when I get to play I GM more than I play) the most starting at the top.

Rogue
Other (Witches, Ranger, Inquis from Pathfinder)
Fighter
Arcane - Wizards and Sorc
Divine - Druid and Cleric.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I really like playing a fighter. And playing a fighter is nice except for the fact that the average D&D game ist not only "I'm standing here hitting things". Fighters had nearly no skillpoints in 3E and could basically just stupidly stand there and hit things and even for doing that they needed a crapton of magical items.

Wizards and Clerics had there sheer unlimited spell lists and could engage and contribute in a meaningful way in pretty much any and all activities.

And since I know about this problem I'm concerned with it as a DM.

OTOH, I enjoy playing a wizard or a cleric as well or a nice gish build. That does not mean that I don't see a problem with the system, it means only that for once I can enjoy it.

The reintroduction of Vancian casting in 5E will again (past exp.) put those casters in an advantageous position and I hope therefore, that all other classes get nice compensation.