Hiawatha, an actual person who lived, conflated with Hercules...
Yeesh, and thats just the first one in that section thats super off the mark.
D&D (2024) Do you see Fighter players at your own table?
Hiawatha, an actual person who lived, conflated with Hercules...
Yeesh, and thats just the first one in that section thats super off the mark.
kilpatds
Explorer
I've been a a number of AL tables since our local gaming group started back up... out of about 20 PCs I've played with in that time across multiple tiers and adventure series, two have had fighter levels, and both were multiclassed with casters. At most tables recently, my Paladin2/Bard N(14+) has been the only designated warrior of the party. (Warlock, druid, bard, wizard, me)
Lots of people who have actually lived have phenomenal feats attributed to them.
Chaosmancer
Legend
Yeah, Hiawatha may have been a real person, but he was also a nation founder, and so the legend did what all such legends did and grew. His great enemy Tadodaho was said to have living snakes in his hair and snake eyes that peered from beneath his fingertips. And in a suprisingly similar bit of synchronity with Heracles, Tadodaho is said to have killed Hiawatha's wife and children with magic, driving him to a maddening grief, and he went on a journey to overcome this grief.
Sure, a real life person we have records of, but discounting him would be like discounting Achilles, who was probably also a real life person whose legend grew out of proportion with reality. Legendary heroes, demi-gods, god-heroes. For many cultures, they were one and the same.
I mean, St. Nicholas, probably real, probably didn't really bring three dismembered and pickled children back to life. But that's the story we have.
Lots of real people became folk heroes and had tall tales told about them. Think of that scene in Braveheart, when Mel is like "yes, William Wallace is 7 feet tall, shoots lightning from his eyes and fire from his arse". I've heard George Washington was immune to bullets, Andrew Jackson was so intimidating even guns misfired rather than risk annoying him in some way, and so on. Mystique and legends can surround anything, making them larger than life.
Hussar
Legend
Not in 5th edition. No. Wait, 4+ players? No, I never had a group with 4+ levels with a single classed fighter.
Not sure why that would undermine my point that "5e D&D is very high magic, akin to Potterverse" and the reason no one plays high level fighters is because they get left so far behind.
But, as usual, no one who questions this will ever actually do the work. Actually track damage results. It's all "Well, my players don't complain so everythign is good".
I think my current group is a bit underpowered. Having found a pair of magic daggers, the Ranger's attack routine is now d4+5 x3. The one time he used Hunter's Mark, he got attacked and instantly lost concentration, so he thinks it's a carp spell now.
Our Monk just took a Fighter level, despite my warning him that you kind of really want more Monk levels. He has also not raised his Dex above 16, and for magic, he has a light hammer that instantly returns to his hand after being thrown, but adds no bonuses. So...all the damage of a level 4 Monk with 16 Dex.
The Cleric has a 16 Strength and a +1 warhammer and has figured out the wonders of Spirit Guardians, but he rolls terrible damage for it.
If my Wizard is dealing damage, my idea of a good turn is something like 11 damage, but I did use my first fireball ever on some trolls for 37 damage, so that was neat.
Our Bard is still MIA, and we've been kind of getting our butts handed to us in every session. But with the number of creatures we run into that are resistant to nonmagical b/p/s damage, I don't blame people for using whatever magic weapons they could find. The DM tells me that we're actually a little behind where the adventure thinks we should be on levels, and he actually gave us full xp for an encounter with a lich we avoided completely, so I'm not sure what we could have missed.
I guess it goes to show how campaign-dependent these sorts of questions are. Like when we fought trolls, our options for fire damage was me or torches, and to prep for the fireball, I gave everyone oil flasks to throw. This has proved to be the kind of campaign that's just miserable for a pure martial, and I couldn't imagine an all-martial party surviving the first few sessions, while an all-caster party might have had an easier time of it.
But the one encounter we had with goblins, I barely did anything, because after the first round where the Ranger got shot full of crossbow bolts (and I heroically bandaged him up with Healer), everything died so fast I think I used my own crossbow and that was that!
Our Monk just took a Fighter level, despite my warning him that you kind of really want more Monk levels. He has also not raised his Dex above 16, and for magic, he has a light hammer that instantly returns to his hand after being thrown, but adds no bonuses. So...all the damage of a level 4 Monk with 16 Dex.
The Cleric has a 16 Strength and a +1 warhammer and has figured out the wonders of Spirit Guardians, but he rolls terrible damage for it.
If my Wizard is dealing damage, my idea of a good turn is something like 11 damage, but I did use my first fireball ever on some trolls for 37 damage, so that was neat.
Our Bard is still MIA, and we've been kind of getting our butts handed to us in every session. But with the number of creatures we run into that are resistant to nonmagical b/p/s damage, I don't blame people for using whatever magic weapons they could find. The DM tells me that we're actually a little behind where the adventure thinks we should be on levels, and he actually gave us full xp for an encounter with a lich we avoided completely, so I'm not sure what we could have missed.
I guess it goes to show how campaign-dependent these sorts of questions are. Like when we fought trolls, our options for fire damage was me or torches, and to prep for the fireball, I gave everyone oil flasks to throw. This has proved to be the kind of campaign that's just miserable for a pure martial, and I couldn't imagine an all-martial party surviving the first few sessions, while an all-caster party might have had an easier time of it.
But the one encounter we had with goblins, I barely did anything, because after the first round where the Ranger got shot full of crossbow bolts (and I heroically bandaged him up with Healer), everything died so fast I think I used my own crossbow and that was that!
TheSword
Legend
I guess my point (in a more respectful way) would be that to properly evaluate the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness it would be useful to see it in the field so to speak.Not in 5th edition. No. Wait, 4+ players? No, I never had a group with 4+ levels with a single classed fighter.
Not sure why that would undermine my point that "5e D&D is very high magic, akin to Potterverse" and the reason no one plays high level fighters is because they get left so far behind.
But, as usual, no one who questions this will ever actually do the work. Actually track damage results. It's all "Well, my players don't complain so everythign is good".
One of the joys of non-magical classes is how they are pret-a-manger from the start of the first round of combat. They don’t need buffs, multiple bonus actions to activate powers etc. They can dive straight in start doing stuff. It’s very refreshing after having played wizards or even paladins where your bonus actions get used up activating powers and then a round later the combats over.
You wouldn’t necessarily pick up on this until you see them in the field and give them a go.
Tracking damage (and just as important - the ability to absorb damage) is useful, but again you’re trying to compare something that isn’t controllable. The variables are so enormous it’s almost impossible to measure it.
I think that’s why popularity is a useful benchmark for how well something is liked. In the absence of other comparisons.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Others have covered that. Besides, the point remains.
Similar Threads
