D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Oofta]

Then you are falling into a trap of assuming D&D attempts to simulate some kind of reality.

It doesn't.

It simulates a heroic narrative. And in a heroic narrative a farm boy can pick up a sword and discover he is awesome. Indeed, that is the default storyline.

Backgrounds are as important or as inconsequential as you want them to be. They can be a simple mechanical boon or a part of the story depending on campaign, player and DM.

The narrative of how Bob the Peasant became Bob the Fighter probably doesn't really matter in most games. I've just stated my preference. I like a logical beginning to my character and in most fiction the peasant hero either joins the army or finds a wise old mentor. Even in movies with their accelerated timeframe there's a training montage.

But again, it's such a minor part of the overall story arc of the PC that most people ignore it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Finding a mentor is an important point in a hero's journey. But most mentors give little or no specific combat training. Joining the army? Not so much.

Training Montage = levelling up.

 

[Blue]

And I never said you can't be whatever background you want. But you don't just turn around and DECIDE to be a class on a whim (unless it's Warlock ). My point is the transition between 'Urchin' for exemple and 'Lv 1 Fighter' isn't a sudden one. You don't suddenly become a Fighter, it takes time and training. Your background is only a part of your life, it's why you don't level up as a Guild Artisan or whatever.

Becoming an adventurer isn't a sudden thing that happens over night is what I'm saying, even if your background is modest, even if your Fighter never went to Fighter School, they still went Fighter-ing for a while before getting to level 1.

I think here is where there is a gap that we can't cover.

I say that D&D supports 1st level characters as someone who is both trained/experienced in their class as well as the "blacksmith with a hammer" or others who push through with natural aptitude, talent and the like. My understanding of your position is the rules only support the former, that there must be some direct training or experience in your class to reach 1st level.

I think we both have honest, strongly held beliefs, and feel that the rules say different things on this in different places.

We can agree to disagree. Alternately, if you're interested we an put up a poll to see what others think - if that's of value.

Anyway, thanks for a civil disagreement, even when we've both been passionate.

 

[Oofta]

I think here is where there is a gap that we can't cover.

I say that D&D supports 1st level characters as someone who is both trained/experienced in their class as well as the "blacksmith with a hammer" or others who push through with natural aptitude, talent and the like. My understanding of your position is the rules only support the former, that there must be some direct training or experience in your class to reach 1st level.

I think we both have honest, strongly held beliefs, and feel that the rules say different things on this in different places.

We can agree to disagree. Alternately, if you're interested we an put up a poll to see what others think - if that's of value.

Anyway, thanks for a civil disagreement, even when we've both been passionate.

Just so I don't have to repeat myself every other sentence, the following only applies to games that I personally DM. Whether you and your group consider the class fluff rules or just general guidelines is pretty arbitrary.

In D&D it takes proficiency to wear heavy armor and to use martial weapons. Barring an unusual past that training has to come from somewhere. If that blacksmith is a variant human who is a master at pole arm fighting someone had to teach them. They at least had someone they sparred with.

On the other hand if that blacksmith that becomes a fighter only ever uses a hammer and maybe the dueling style or great weapon fighter (depending on whether they pick up a war hammer or a sledge) for a little extra damage. After all they've been using hammers forever. It even makes sense that they may know more about armor than the average Joe because they test their own wares.

Of course as with all things D&D, if we look at things too closely they don't really make a lot of sense. Yes, your dude is a fighter that's good with a hammer. Why does that suddenly make them competent with a long bow or a rapier? It's just one of those things that I accept (like HP) because it's easy and good enough for it to not be completely ridiculous.

 

[Blue]

Just so I don't have to repeat myself every other sentence, the following only applies to games that I personally DM. Whether you and your group consider the class fluff rules or just general guidelines is pretty arbitrary.

In D&D it takes proficiency to wear heavy armor and to use martial weapons. Barring an unusual past that training has to come from somewhere. If that blacksmith is a variant human who is a master at pole arm fighting someone had to teach them. They at least had someone they sparred with.

On the other hand if that blacksmith that becomes a fighter only ever uses a hammer and maybe the dueling style or great weapon fighter (depending on whether they pick up a war hammer or a sledge) for a little extra damage. After all they've been using hammers forever. It even makes sense that they may know more about armor than the average Joe because they test their own wares.

Of course as with all things D&D, if we look at things too closely they don't really make a lot of sense. Yes, your dude is a fighter that's good with a hammer. Why does that suddenly make them competent with a long bow or a rapier? It's just one of those things that I accept (like HP) because it's easy and good enough for it to not be completely ridiculous.

By the same token, someone in an army won't be trained with every weapon, just the few the army focuses on. A Roman army might be spears, javelins, gladius (short sword), shields and a few others. But "all" weapon profs includes whips and mauls and all sorts of things.

Which makes you think it's a more general "how to be dangerous with weapons" trait - which is something you can get elsewhere.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In D&D it takes proficiency to wear heavy armor and to use martial weapons. Barring an unusual past that training has to come from somewhere.

Inherent aptitude. Divine gift.

If that blacksmith is a variant human who is a master at pole arm fighting someone had to teach them. They at least had someone they sparred with.

Not necessarily. Sometimes, even in the real world, you can just pick something up and find you have a knack for it. And that is far more common in stories. And more common still when gods are proactive.

But if you live in a pseudo-medieval world, you would expect peasants to do some basic weapons training. There is little or no law to protect you from bandits.

It's just one of those things that I accept (like HP) because it's easy and good enough for it to not be completely ridiculous.

D&D isn't a reality simulation.

 

[Garthanos]

Finding a mentor is an important point in a hero's journey. But most mentors give little or no specific combat training. Joining the army? Not so much.

Training Montage = levelling up.

Gaining a feat might make the frequency a bit less jarring or even just passing between tiers...

 

[Undrave]

Based on the original post. Sounds like fighter class with Soldier background. Done.

History covers all the military training. Survival covers all the survival training. The fact that they have the Soldier background covers everything else.

5E is based on the old school style of play where a character's background and narrative means something and it is not necessary to apply a mechanical rule to every little aspect of a character.

The player and DM should reach an agreement that the Soldier background grants the level of competence it would logically expect. If you want to look to old school you need look no further than the Background.

Backgrounds in 5E are one of the most old school elements of the game. They, literally, let you make a character that has a scope beyond the pure mechanical. If you only look at Backgrounds only in terms of their mechanics (skill picks, etc) you are doing it wrong.

The character's background is a literal narrative background that provides all the elements that would imply.

Again: Everybody has backgrounds! That's the default, the baseline. The fact that some classes pile stuff on top while others DON'T is a problem!

Skill checks are also the baseline. Everybody gets to do them, but some classes have ways to mitigate the effect of randomness on the result. Interesting crunchy ways. The Fighter doesn't. That is also a problem.

Furthermore, I'm sorry, but I can't accept handwaving mechanical issues with some "DM may I" principle like 'backstory' because all games are different.

When I joined a game that was underway I eventually had a chance to change my character and I went out of my way to pick the Hermit background and integrate its 'discovery' feature into the lore that had been developed for the game so far. My DM never did anything with it. Ever. All it did for me was give me a useless Religion proficiency... so excuse me for being dubious of this kind of 'patch'.

I think here is where there is a gap that we can't cover.

I say that D&D supports 1st level characters as someone who is both trained/experienced in their class as well as the "blacksmith with a hammer" or others who push through with natural aptitude, talent and the like. My understanding of your position is the rules only support the former, that there must be some direct training or experience in your class to reach 1st level.

I think we both have honest, strongly held beliefs, and feel that the rules say different things on this in different places.

We can agree to disagree. Alternately, if you're interested we an put up a poll to see what others think - if that's of value.

Anyway, thanks for a civil disagreement, even when we've both been passionate.

I don't think D&D doesn't support it, but I would argue that the default fluff, which in turns informs the design of the mechanics, is not that. It doesn't meant that it's not supported, only that when building, say a new subclass, you can't forget the default fluff. Fluff is mutable in your own game but I think a solid basic concept need to exist for the classes when designing them.

Oofta's idea about the Blacksmith who then only uses hammers as a Fighter is pretty neat. I think that sort of integration is probably key to transition from 'no class' to 'level 1'.

I actually think a poll would be interesting to see what everybody interprets as the basic fluff. Maybe specifically just the fighter?

In any case, nothing says your character can't receive class training WHILE they are a farmer or a blacksmith or whatever day job they have. Rather, it seems to be expected in some of the more obvious class+background combinations (like Acolyte + Cleric/Paladin, Soldier + Fighter, Criminal + Rogue, etc.). The idea is that you have a bunch of proficiency, skills and abilities at level 1 and those don't come out of nowhere just because your village was razed by goblins last week. Heck, maybe you've been level 1 for a long while and only now just decided to apply these skills to adventuring.

And as for the all weapons training thing, it's called out in the class description again:

Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike.

 

[Oofta]

By the same token, someone in an army won't be trained with every weapon, just the few the army focuses on. A Roman army might be spears, javelins, gladius (short sword), shields and a few others. But "all" weapon profs includes whips and mauls and all sorts of things.

Which makes you think it's a more general "how to be dangerous with weapons" trait - which is something you can get elsewhere.

Absolutely. But it's a question of how finicky/crunchy the rules should be and I don't think there's one right answer. I'm okay with simplified because it makes learning the system easier and it doesn't ever really seem to have much of an impact in the game.

 

[Oofta]

But if you live in a pseudo-medieval world, you would expect peasants to do some basic weapons training. There is little or no law to protect you from bandits.

If someone grew up in a dangerous area, they may well have had on the job training.

D&D isn't a reality simulation.

Of course not. Dragons aren't real. That doesn't mean it can't be a fantasy novel/movie simulator for a lot of people. It doesn't have to be for you.

I think there's good and there's "professional level good". Nobody picks up a violin and knows how to play it without practice and training of some sort. Even child prodigies don't sit down at a piano and just automatically hammer out a concerto.