D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Fanaelialae]

To clarify. Mundane, without any support. Yes, a party of 4 Fighters with no magic gear or support, should get trampled over.

Smaug may have been killed by a Mundane action, but there was certainly plot armour involved yes?

I see. So you're okay with a party of fighters stabbing the Tarrasque in the toe until it dies, as long as they're armed with +1 swords? That seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, but to each their own.

No. That's not a use of plot armor that I've heard before, though I believe I follow your meaning. Smaug was killed by a highly skilled archer shooting it in the heart. I'd say it's no more an example of authorial heavy handedness than you'll find in plenty of classical works of fantasy. There are a multitude of situations where Conan shouldn't have realistically been successful, for example, but he was because failure in those moments wouldn't have made for as entertaining a story.

Similarly, if a campaign centers around a knightly order and it's draconic adversary, it would be an extremely lame end to the campaign for the DM to say, "sadly, because you're all just 20th level fighters and the dragon is 50' long, your attacks are utterly useless and it eats you; campaign over". D&D has traditionally supported such campaigns, so I don't see why it wouldn't continue to do so.

But it does speak to the idea that high level fighters aren't really all that mundane. Those who prefer the fighter to be mundane seem to sometimes internalize those not-so-mundane aspects (the effects of high HP, being able to slay monsters the size of a 747, etc) to a degree where they just ignore it, while decrying anything new that would surpass the limits of what a well trained mall cop should be able to do.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's never missed and is always returned? Seems pretty magical to me.

I'll allow never failed might mean 'never missed', though that's probably more down to Bard Bowman being pretty good at the shooty, shooty bit.

And it doesn't 'always return', he always recovers it. Like it was some sort of well made metal arrow that doesn't break when it hits and is easy to find because it's a honking huge black metal arrow.

 

[Scribe]

I see. So you're okay with a party of fighters stabbing the Tarrasque in the toe until it dies, as long as they're armed with +1 swords? That seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, but to each their own.

It would take far more than +1 swords, but if we extrapolate to the point of where a Fighter should be standing up against such a beast with the relevant Magic items that they should have? Sure.

No. That's not a use of plot armor that I've heard before, though I believe I follow your meaning. Smaug was killed by a highly skilled archer shooting it in the heart. I'd say it's no more an example of authorial heavy handedness than you'll find in plenty of classical works of fantasy. There are a multitude of situations where Conan shouldn't have realistically been successful, for example, but he was because failure in those moments wouldn't have made for as entertaining a story.

Its been a long time since I read the book, but in the movie it was.

1. A very specific type of ammo.
2. Already a weakened area.
Plot armour by any definition.

Similarly, if a campaign centers around a knightly order and it's draconic adversary, it would be an extremely lame end to the campaign for the DM to say, "sadly, because you're all just 20th level fighters and the dragon is 50' long, your attacks are utterly useless and it eats you; campaign over". D&D has traditionally supported such campaigns, so I don't see why it wouldn't continue to do so.

"Your all Fighters" should have lead to a TPK far before level 20 in my view. Just as 4 Wizards should fail, or 4 anything. The game would be improved if there was deliberate design and expectation of party diversity and roles.

Those who prefer the fighter to be mundane seem to sometimes internalize those not-so-mundane aspects (the effects of high HP, being able to slay monsters the size of a 747, etc) to a degree where they just ignore it, while decrying anything new that would surpass the limits of what a well trained mall cop should be able to do.

Yes, a well trained mall cop is exactly what we are going for.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think you missed something. I said that the black arrow is magical but that I don't think it was an arrow of slaying (or at least there's no evidence to suggest that it was). Smaug was killed by a called shot to the heart. Had Bard opted to shoot Smaug in the big toe, it seems unlikely that the black arrow would have been any more effective than a regular arrow.

I didn't miss it. The text in the story that I quoted specifically calls out how the arrow never misses. That seems to be pretty significant. More than just a simple magic item. That is, that arrow is what allowed him to make the shot where no other arrow would have been possible, called shot or no.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'll allow never failed might mean 'never missed', though that's probably more down to Bard Bowman being pretty good at the shooty, shooty bit.

If this were true, he wouldn't need to specifically call out "never misses" for that particular arrow, would he? Because if he's that good, then he'd never miss with other arrows as well. By saying it never misses, it directly infers that he does miss with normal arrows. There's a reason why it's pretty universally held that the black arrow is a special magical item among the fandom. It never misses, and Tolkien went to the effort to give it a backstory.

 

[Sacrosanct]

so two mundane high level fighters can slay a dragon, fair enough. and is Wiglaf a Party Member, a Hireling or a Class ability?

It should be noted that Wiglaf had Eanmund's sword. Once again, most of these stories of warriors defeating powerful monsters, they almost always have a significant magical weapon to help them.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If this were true, he wouldn't need to specifically call out "never misses" for that particular arrow, would he?

Which he actually doesn't. He says it never failed him.

Like I say my lucky silver dollar never fails me. Believe me, it's failed me time after time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. I think a lot about arrows. If it really took several arrows for a generic archer to take out even one medium threat like an orc or a hobgoblin, bows just would not be a practical weapon to carry round

Lower hit points across the board, like in the TSR days and in the current OSR, would go a long long way toward fixing the experience IMO.

 

[Baron Opal II]

IMO, if a group of fighters couldn't slay the Tarrasque or an Ancient Wyrm (without resorting to some extraordinary measures), that would definitely too mundane for high level D&D. The dragon slaying knight is iconic fantasy.

Well, there's some shades of grey there.

A dozen fighters can kill the Tarrasque, it's just going to get back up after a period of time. You need a team comprised of multiple talents for that one. I don't see that as a knock against or prohibition against wholly mundane fighters.

A dozen fighters could conceivably kill an ancient wyrm, but they're probably need some scorpions or ballistae in addition to their long swords and halberds. This is also not counting whatever magic items a high level fighter may possess. Earendil had some boss tier magic items and allies when he defeated Ancalagon the Black.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not too much, IDT, there can be more to combat than the race to 0hp, and hp are relative.
For instance, 4e fighters were defender role, and had class features to support that, while they might kill a monster in 4 rounds that an optimized striker could kill in 2, they could hold that monster's attention, keeping it off their allies, all 4 of those rounds, while the striker might bloody the same monster in one, and then it's past them, murdering an ally. Roles.
5e fighters do plenty of damage relative to other classes and to monster hp, particularly on the round they use Action Surge and at the levels they get a new Extra Attack, like 5 and 11, they're like the 4e strikers that way - and also in that it's about all they do.

It would be interesting to see the average increase in hp for common monster types across various types and power levels of monster across editions. Unfortunately I lack the time to undertake such a task.

TBF, in 3e, you could add warrior (or other class) levels to any humanoid monster to beef it up to whatever hp total you felt like, tho it also upped their BAB &c...
Also, TBF, in 4e there were Goblins, Gnolls, Ogres - and most other humanoids, and many other monsters - that had 1 hp.

There can be more, but nothing's more reliable than the race to 0 hit points. "The best status condition to inflict is dead" and all that.