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

[Larnievc]

Since some forumers mention that they generally dont see Fighter players at their own tables, I am curious.

Do you see Fighters at your table?

The players need to be experienced players, rather than newbies using an "easy class" to learn how to play.

The Fighter character needs to be a serious character that reaches level 8 or higher.

The Fighter character must be strictly nonmagical. No Eldritch Knight. No Psi Warrior. No magical feats including multiclass feats. Etc.

The Fighter character must be single-class Fighter. No multiclassing.

At both my tables there are fighters. In the past three campaigns I’ve run (over the past five or so years) there has been at least one fighter.

 

[DnD Warlord]

I don't see fighters as useless, and in the other thread I said that.

However to answer this I went through both roll20 and foundry for the last 5 years of play, I then looked at masterplan (my old 4e game holder for games I run I still used in 5e for plotting) and my answer is in 5 years of play/run games and 3 more of just ones I run I have 10+ (will do a full count if it will help)campaigns that went to 11 or more 1 that went to epic+.

in that I have not played a non multi classed fighter, and both of them are magical
I have not seen a single class fighter hit level 7... only 1 of those campaigns ended pre level 7 and we had no fighter in it.

 

[HammerMan]

I almost always see one or more fighters in my games, which is not surprising at all. A flat attack bonus across multiple attacks each providing a multiplicative slingshot to bit one but two mathematical element the system math assumes will never exist makes for an incredibly powerful character. Tack on good ac and high hp to fully cement that lead

I have to ask how is a sword bard war cleric or hexblade not a good bonus to melee good hp AND have spells of a level equal to half there level?

 

[billd91]

In the D&D campaigns I'm currently involved in, all into the teens as far as levels, all of them have single-class fighters in the groups.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I DMed a Storm King's Thunder game where one the players played a Fighter (Cavalier) into the teens. Was a good tank with Sentinel and the subclass abilities from what I remember. The only other fighter I've seen played that high probably doesn't qualify since they went Rune Knight as the subclass, and my own fighter that got past 8th dipped Barbarian, although I was completely non-magical.

 

[SteveC]

We have a seven player group and one of those players is interested in very basic characters, so he plays a fighter. He's a great weapon fighter with good AC and a lot of HP. That definitely helps the rest of the group out in a meat shield capacity.

 

[TwoSix]

Out of about 30 characters I can think of I've played with over the past 2 years, I've seen 2 that have taken fighter levels. Both were Echo Knights. One multiclassed after level 3, the other multiclassed after level 5.

Nonmystical warrior types are not popular at my tables. We generally see more gish types or martial clerics as our frontliners, and the occasional barbarian.

 

[Oofta]

I think you're defining fighter too narrowly for a game like D&D. I can kind of see not allowing eldritch knight (not that I've seen one played), but having just a bit of magic like rune knight does not mean they are not a fighter to me. Not sure what's left if you remove "all magic" other than champion and maybe samurai. Even cavalier has an unwavering mark which some would say is purely supernatural.

In any case, I've had a couple of champion fighters for new players.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I feel this entire thread is a JAB at the discussion started because I said when we as a group and a team put together our PCs having a melee tough full caster is better then a melee tough noncaster.

HOWEVER as @doctorbadwolf pointed out, no matter what number of people on here say they agree with the above, it is a statical anomaly even if everyone BUT that poster here on enworld said they agreed with my group, what % of D&D players does that represent?

 

[Blue]

Sorry to say this, but I suggest you redo your poll.

Considering 4-5 PCs in a group, having or not having a particular class in a campaign is not indicative of anything at all.

Limiting it by level, which may or may not be reached is absolutely arbitrary since it has nothing in the slightest to do with what classes are played, and more about the length of the campaign, the frequency of play, and the pace of advancement. This does NOT give you the goal of "only 'serious' characters".

Limiting it further by arbitrarily disallowing a number of subclassess and feats to meet your "non-magical" criteria that wasn't part of the "generally people don't see fighters" thesis further harms the data.

This poll is extremely flawed and any information from it would be more like harmful misinformation that anything useful. It can only lead to bad data, using it is actively detrimental to any discussion.