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

[TheSword]

Thing is, it's not about optimization. That's the fallacy. That it's only optimizers that are playing casters. It's not. When you've got a pretty solid third of groups out there that aren't seeing ANY single classed fighters, it's just too many for it to be simply an optimization thing.

Fighter is only one class in 14 and you’re surprised that only two thirds of tables have had one?

…Then look at the fact that it’s only above level 8.

… Then look and see that to qualify they can’t have any magic at all, not even Magical Initiate or racial magical abilities like Drow or High Elves.

I’m amazed there is more than 10% based on how these threads read. Let alone 67%+

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

First, it's not a third. It's less than a third (ten percent less than a third).

how is 32.5% not 1/3 I would say anything from 30-40% can be summed up by 1/3

 

[Mistwell]

how is 32.5% not 1/3 I would say anything from 30-40% can be summed up by 1/3

Maybe it has changed since I last saw it but I know when he and I first started to discuss this topic it was 30%, and he told me anything over 50% was only "technically" a majority but 30% was "a third".

 

[Hussar]

Maybe it has changed since I last saw it but I know when he and I first started to discuss this topic it was 30%, and he told me anything over 50% was only "technically" a majority but 30% was "a third".

You keep forgetting that you said less than 50% was “most”. That’s what I quibbled with.

In the other thread just shy of 60% (or “most” according to you) tables have three or more single classed full casters.

If it was multiclassing that was skewing results, why so many single classes casters? Shouldn’t it be roughly the same? Yet we see less than ten percent of tables have no single classed casters.

Huh. Funny that.

 

[TheSword]

You keep forgetting that you said less than 50% was “most”. That’s what I quibbled with.

In the other thread just shy of 60% (or “most” according to you) tables have three or more single classed full casters.

If it was multiclassing that was skewing results, why so many single classes casters? Shouldn’t it be roughly the same? Yet we see less than ten percent of tables have no single classed casters.

Huh. Funny that.

Wait a minute…

Your comparing a single version of a single class, the Fighter.

To ‘casters’ with no limiting qualifications that are 6 classes (Wizard, sorcerer, bard, cleric, druid and warlock)

Why do you think it is significant that there wouldn’t be at least one of those in a group? It’s a third of the classes in the game.

On the flip side the idea that a very narrowly defined version of a single class like a completely non-magical fighter would be so common is irrelevant to you?

It’s like asking how many of us drive a grey Ford Transit van - with a 2017 plate, and a Diesel engine, on a Tuesday? vs How many of you have ever driven a car?

 

[Hussar]

Wait a minute…

Your comparing a single version of a single class, the Fighter.

To ‘casters’ with no limiting qualifications that are 6 classes (Wizard, sorcerer, bard, cleric, druid and warlock)

Why do you think it is significant that there wouldn’t be at least one of those in a group? It’s a third of the classes in the game.

On the flip side the idea that a very narrowly defined version of a single class like a completely non-magical fighter would be so common is irrelevant to you?

It’s like asking how many of us drive a grey Ford Transit van - with a 2017 plate, and a Diesel engine, on a Tuesday? vs How many of you have ever driven a car?

No. It's not "at least one". It's three or more at about 60 percent of tables. At least one is over 90% of tables.

I polled something like this about six years ago: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-for-pcs-with-4-or-more-levels-in-a-class.592445/ and, in that poll it did show that fighters were top with four or more levels. So, sure, there is definitely room for interpretations here. Another poll I did but I cannot find it now, showed that multiclass fighters were really, really common. But, that's my memory, so, until I can do a better google dumpster dive, I'm not sure.

Context matters. The point of this and the other thread were spawned by the idea that there's no need for any changes to the fighter because the fighter is so popular. The argument is that the fighter is the most popular class, therefore it's perfect and should never be changed.

The problem with that, IMO, is that people don't play higher level D&D and when people do play higher level D&D, they don't play single classed fighters. They might dip into fighter, or play some sort of gish. But, a single classed fighter at higher levels, while common, is FAR less common than a single classed caster. Which, to me, is evidence that high levels fighters are lacking.

 

[Yaarel]

No. It's not "at least one". It's three or more at about 60 percent of tables. At least one is over 90% of tables.

I polled something like this about six years ago: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-for-pcs-with-4-or-more-levels-in-a-class.592445/ and, in that poll it did show that fighters were top with four or more levels. So, sure, there is definitely room for interpretations here. Another poll I did but I cannot find it now, showed that multiclass fighters were really, really common. But, that's my memory, so, until I can do a better google dumpster dive, I'm not sure.

Context matters. The point of this and the other thread were spawned by the idea that there's no need for any changes to the fighter because the fighter is so popular. The argument is that the fighter is the most popular class, therefore it's perfect and should never be changed.

The problem with that, IMO, is that people don't play higher level D&D and when people do play higher level D&D, they don't play single classed fighters. They might dip into fighter, or play some sort of gish. But, a single classed fighter at higher levels, while common, is FAR less common than a single classed caster. Which, to me, is evidence that high levels fighters are lacking.

Probably, about 30% of Fighters multiclass. But this percentage combines all tiers.

Your point that those Fighters that do multiclass might also tend to be the ones that reach the high tiers, seems reasonable suspicion. For example, the ones who make it to the highest tiers tend to be experienced players. Experienced players are more likely to multiclass.

 

[TheSword]

No. It's not "at least one". It's three or more at about 60 percent of tables. At least one is over 90% of tables.

I polled something like this about six years ago: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-for-pcs-with-4-or-more-levels-in-a-class.592445/ and, in that poll it did show that fighters were top with four or more levels. So, sure, there is definitely room for interpretations here. Another poll I did but I cannot find it now, showed that multiclass fighters were really, really common. But, that's my memory, so, until I can do a better google dumpster dive, I'm not sure.

Context matters. The point of this and the other thread were spawned by the idea that there's no need for any changes to the fighter because the fighter is so popular. The argument is that the fighter is the most popular class, therefore it's perfect and should never be changed.

The problem with that, IMO, is that people don't play higher level D&D and when people do play higher level D&D, they don't play single classed fighters. They might dip into fighter, or play some sort of gish. But, a single classed fighter at higher levels, while common, is FAR less common than a single classed caster. Which, to me, is evidence that high levels fighters are lacking.

Which poll is showing that single class fighters don’t reach high levels?

It’s all relative, but clearly this polling is showing that fighters over 7th are common. Now if you want to know how common fighters of 17th are you’ll have problems with sample size and the fact that many high level campaigns start high because the ground work to get there is too much effort.

I do think high level non-magic classes are more popular than people think though. Granted most of our campaigns max out at 13ish but there have been several in recent times that went to the very end. (Rise of the Runelords, Age of Worms, Way of the Wicked spring to mind). I’m DMing for a high level non-magical rogue player (currently 13) but she has given no indications of wanting to multi class or use magic. I just don’t think she finds that much fun.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The poll only counts the Fighter class, which is 1 out of 14.

Then only nonmagical subclasses, which are 5 out of 10, and most of the better ones are magical.

Adding in no multiclassing for common things like Rage, and only level 8 and above, I think 70ish% of parties having these Fighters is really high all things considered.

In my experience, with the power feats, they can contribute a lot of damage at high levels, but mostly that, really. Probably still better off than Barbarians, Monks and Rogues though.

 

[Aldarc]

No. It's not "at least one". It's three or more at about 60 percent of tables. At least one is over 90% of tables.

I polled something like this about six years ago: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-for-pcs-with-4-or-more-levels-in-a-class.592445/ and, in that poll it did show that fighters were top with four or more levels. So, sure, there is definitely room for interpretations here. Another poll I did but I cannot find it now, showed that multiclass fighters were really, really common. But, that's my memory, so, until I can do a better google dumpster dive, I'm not sure.

Context matters. The point of this and the other thread were spawned by the idea that there's no need for any changes to the fighter because the fighter is so popular. The argument is that the fighter is the most popular class, therefore it's perfect and should never be changed.

The problem with that, IMO, is that people don't play higher level D&D and when people do play higher level D&D, they don't play single classed fighters. They might dip into fighter, or play some sort of gish. But, a single classed fighter at higher levels, while common, is FAR less common than a single classed caster. Which, to me, is evidence that high levels fighters are lacking.

I think that the problem with the argument via popularity is that the popularity of a class does not necessarily reflect the quality or balance of its design. In many MMOs and other video games, there are popular classes that people are drawn to play because the archetype or class fantasy itself is the draw rather than the classes's power or balance in actual game play.