D&D (2024) Do you see Fighter players at your own table?

[HammerMan]

I never play full casters. I know Rangers and Paladins count as part casters, but I put the separation between full and part...

Paliden and Artificer (I will leave ranger out due to some issues) have a unique space where as a half caster with cool features so they can more or less keep up most times with full casters while not over loading the non casters anywhere near as much.

As much as I dislike the new warlock in the playtest as warlock, I think it would make a good wizard. Drop HD down to d6 and remove some prof. Take out the pact cantrip and give them a spell book.

 

[Yaarel]

Your poll doesn’t demonstrate that, because of the limited time window and level requirement. My games see non magical fighters, but under the parameters of the poll I would have to say that I don’t, because we have been unable to play very much this year, and the whole party in the current campaign (which does include a nonmagical fighter) is still 3rd level.

The level requirement focuses on serious players and intentional character concepts. (It avoids the randomness of newbies, casual players, and one-offs.)

The time window focuses on the D&D experience today. (It avoids the misremembering of players from 1980s or 2000s, who because they were familiar certain assumptions then, might mistake to assume these same assumptions are happening now.)

Of interest, D&D 5e is much more "magical" than previous editions. This is concerning when porting earlier incarnations of the Fighter class into 5e.

A self-selecting survey is never "proof". But it is proof of concept. The results warrant further investigation into whether the Fighter class needs to be "magical" or not. The Fighter subclasses can be spellcasters and otherwise magical. The investigation into how magical is somewhat urgent, when seeking ways to balance the Fighter versus other spellcaster classes, in the context of noncombat performance at the highest tiers.

 

[James Gasik]

The level requirement focuses on serious players and intentional character concepts. (It avoids the randomness of newbies, casual players, and one-offs.)

The time window focuses on the D&D experience today. (It avoids the misremembering of players from 1980s or 2000s, who because they were familiar certain assumptions then, might mistake to assume these same assumptions are happening now.)

Of interest, D&D 5e is much more "magical" than previous editions. This is concerning when porting earlier incarnations of the Fighter class into 5e.

A self-selecting survey is never "proof". But it is proof of concept. The results warrant further investigation into whether the Fighter class needs to be "magical" or not. The Fighter subclasses can be spellcasters and otherwise magical. The investigation into how magical is somewhat urgent, when seeking ways to balance the Fighter versus other spellcaster classes, in the context of noncombat performance at the highest tiers.

As an aside (not to detract from your point), I don't think 5e is more magical, exactly. I mean, there were far more hybrid magical classes in 3e, once you take into account hexblades, duskblades, beguilers, and the various gish prestige classes like eldritch knight, dragon disciple, spellsword, etc. etc..

And there was once a whole lot more magical items players were regularly assumed to interact with. Plus, the ceiling for magical spells used to be a lot higher.

What's actually changed is that what used to be options shoved into splatbooks are front and center. You want to blend magic with your Fighter or Rogue? Right in the PHB, baby! Ditto for Monk (even if the Five Elements Monk is considered a meme subclass by many).

Now as the game progressed, fantastical subclasses turned out to be a lot better than more grounded ones, sure, but we're a far cry from what previous editions had to offer when it comes to your characters being augmented by magic.

 

[Charlaquin]

The level requirement focuses on serious players and intentional character concepts. (It avoids the randomness of newbies, casual players, and one-offs.)

It may be intended to do so, but combined with the one-year time limit it also rules out intentional character concepts from serious players who for scheduling reasons haven’t been able to play very much this year.

 

[Yaarel]

It may be intended to do so, but combined with the one-year time limit it also rules out intentional character concepts from serious players who for scheduling reasons haven’t been able to play very much this year.

Yes, and the same applies to everyone equally. The serious players who intended to build a magical Fighter, might also have been unable to play it because of scheduling reasons.

Among those groups that are committed, active, and long term, the survey represents what the players did play in the last year and half.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, and the same applies to everyone equally. The serious players who intended to build a magical Fighter, might also have been unable to play it because of scheduling reasons.

Among those groups that are committed, active, and long term, the survey represents what the players did play in the last year and half.

Sure, and “what groups that are committed, active, and long term did play in the last year and half” does not indicate that “a significant segment of D&D players never see a ‘nonmagical’ Fighter.” Nor does it counter-indicate it. It doesn’t say much of anything about what a significant segment of D&D players ever see; it only says anything about what a small portion of D&D players have seen in the last year and a half.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean as it stands when one class is brought down to another it may seem that way.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

 

[HammerMan]

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Oh. Good one. I don’t normally thing of that with games but that is a great use.

 

[Mistwell]

I actually feel it is unethical to design imbalanced classes.

Because it ultimately affects the power dynamics among reallife players.

Meanwhile, reallife players get "punished" because they like a flavor that happened to get less "privileged" in the game.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Gettin a little judgmental in here fellas. People's preferences over balance issues (and game designers are people too) in an RPG are not serious ethical issues. People can disagree with your preferences without being ethical bad people for doing so.

 

[Charlaquin]

Gettin a little judgmental in here fellas. People's preferences over balance issues (and game designers are people too) in an RPG are not serious ethical issues. People can disagree with your preferences without being ethical bad people for doing so.

I didn’t say anyone is unethical or a bad person if they are fine with the game’s balance the way it is. Heck, people could want the game to be massively unbalanced and it wouldn’t make them unethical or bad people. I was just expressing why people who really like casters might perceive a game like AiME as being “designed for martials to dominate.”