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

[nevin]

I've never ran a table with 4 or more players that didn't have a fighter. I've run games without rogues, druids,rangers,paladins,warlocks, usually every party has a fighter, and a sorcer or wizard, and a cleric. out of those 3 the cleric is the one most likely to be replaced by a multiclass or a something odd like a healing sorcerer.

 

[nevin]

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.

Both Western and Eastern Myths tend to glorify Warriors and Knights/samurai honor type warriors far more than wizards, clerics and rogues. I suspect that has a lot to do with it.

 

[Emberashh]

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.

In Runescape which of the 3 types of combat is considered top of the pyramid fluctuates over the years (though I believe currently its still Magic), but the other two are still very fun and even the objectively "weakest" one will still be played by tons of people. Namely because getting top gear in a top style is expensive AF, but even then.

Its also just worthwhile to switch to another style just because the other one, if technically the most powerful, just got stale to play with 24/7.

Id wager that same dynamic is generally true for DND. The highly contrasting style of play between a Caster and a Martial make them appealing for those who want to just play something different instead of whats "meta" or whatever.

That is also something I've been pursuing with my own game; every class should feel substantively different from the next, even within the same type grouping, and with 6 Archtypal types (rather than just 2), Ive already managed to get pretty far on thay goal.

 

[SteveC]

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.

You need to get that sweet Action Surge. Then you can go about your business with your other class and pretend you didn't have humble beginnings.

 

[nevin]

IME most players don't do meta anyway. They do what feels good to them. Only the over the top geeks like us and the min maxer/meta players care about who can do what. Everyone else just wants to play a game.

 

[nevin]

You need to get that sweet Action Surge. Then you can go about your business with your other class and pretend you didn't have humble beginnings.

I don't see many multiclass players. . I've got a few that are extreme min maxers they always multiclass everyone else tries it once or twice then goes back to thier favorite class. I think there is a lot of benefit to the non hardcore player in playing a simple class that doesn't have as many levers.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Agreed. And on top of that, TTRPGs are much less competitive than MMOs, which make concerns about efficacy and utility even less of a driver of people's choices.

The answer to the more detailed question "In 5e, are high-level spellcasters' contributions so useful that they trivialize a high-level noncaster's contributions" is pretty obviously a "Yes". I will definitely prefer the bladesinger who can send somone to Limbo with a touch and then attack with his ice golem simalcrum that's polymorphed into a dragon than the fighter who can attack with his hand crossbow 9 times.

Trying to determine if that truth stops people from playing noncasters at high levels doesn't make caster superiority less true. All the numbers show are that plenty of people are happy making nonstrategic choices, even at high levels, in the name of playing to a preferred concept. And given that it's impossible to "lose" a modern RPG, why wouldn't making the choice of concept over effectiveness be a common choice?

 

[Emberashh]

IME most players don't do meta anyway. They do what feels good to them. Only the over the top geeks like us and the min maxer/meta players care about who can do what. Everyone else just wants to play a game.

Well yeah thats the whole thing about this disparity that tends to get disregarded in these discussions; most people don't actually care unless a player is being toxic about it to begin with, at which point the design of the game is entirely immaterial.

 

[Emberashh]

And given that it's impossible to "lose" a modern RPG, why wouldn't making the choice of concept over effectiveness be a common choice?

You can lose if the only way you have to engage with the game is blank white rooms.

 

[tetrasodium]

5e doesn't really need a white room to make anything but a resounding success implausible.

It goes so far on that they you even have things like must take choices that are so far beyond any other choice that you don't really see much in the way of optimizing beyond those choices.
Edit:fixed link