D&D 5E What IS a level 1 Fighter?

[MGibster]

I don't understand why you think that? You object to a farm boy being a fighter because they haven't got training, but you also object to the farm boy being a fighter because they have special powers because they are the son of a god/Darth Vader/the rightful king/the Chosen One which stands instead of training?

In 5E terms that character is likely a Fighter with the Folk Hero background. Her or she may have started out as a humble farmer, but by the time we see them at 1st level they are a well trained Fighter. Maybe it wasn't formal training like the Knight received, rather it was informal on-the-job training. The use of backgrounds in D&D 5E indicates that even 1st level characters have some sort of past. They didn't just wake up this morning and find themselves 1st level adventurers.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Then you should have specified that. This is a 5e-tagged thread.

I disagree. I responded directly to a comment that made a blanket statement about all dnd. It was their comment actually too. Should have been implicit enough.

 

[Undrave]

I disagree. I responded directly to a comment that made a blanket statement about all dnd. It was their comment actually too. Should have been implicit enough.

This is a 5e thread, I shouldn't have to specify 5e everytime I say "DnD". THAT'S WHAT THE TAGS ARE FOR!

 

[Tony Vargas]

.
So, if you like you D&D grimdark, and characters to only have abilities that are "realistic", then that's fine.

No one really wants all D&D characters to have only "realistic abilities" - that would include casters!

 

[Son of the Serpent]

This is a 5e thread, I shouldn't have to specify 5e everytime I say "DnD". THAT'S WHAT THE TAGS ARE FOR!

I wasnt saying you should specify.

I was saying i thought you had. At least that was my perception. Sorry.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

No one really wants all D&D characters to have only "realistic abilities" - that would include casters!

Depends. Realism according to internal structure is a thing to. Noni domt mean verisimilitude. Related term. There is some overlap. Its not identical.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

No one really wants all D&D characters to have only "realistic abilities" - that would include casters!

Casting a 9th level spell with 0 experience for instance and no chance of dying horribly would harm that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Depends. Realism according to internal structure is a thing to.

No, it's not. It's just internal consistency.

Casting a 9th level spell with 0 experience for instance and no chance of dying horribly would harm that.

No spell in 5e carries an XP cost and wish is one of the few that carries any danger, at all.
And it doesn't have any other option for reaching to cast a spell normally beyond you at some risk, either.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

No, it's not. It's just internal consistency.

No. Its a little more restricted than "internal consistancy". Internal consistency doesnt mandate a logical component. But close.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The other thing to consider is it might go the other way - you could create a mercenary captain with ten years combat experience - and they are still a 1st level fighter.

Suspension of disbelief is required either way.