D&D 5E What IS a level 1 Fighter?

[Yaarel]

Officially they are "apprentices" at Level 1. That is the opposite of a "veteran".

Level 1 characters are exactly college-level apprentices.

 

[Undrave]

Officially they are "apprentices" at Level 1. That is the opposite of a "veteran".

Where does it say that? I think I missed it.

 

[Salthorae]

Yeah, but this is what a ‘normal’ Level 1 Fighter looks like. Terrifyingly fragile.

Player Characters are abnormal. Statistically far away from average.

Having 3x the HP of a commoner is "terrifyingly fragile"? Having a 16 AC which is going to get missed by most things that run around commonly in a game world when you're not delving into ruins or into goblin warrens is Terribly Fragile?

If you look at the suggested equipment for the Fighter, the Level 1 Fighter gets EITHER chain armor OR a martial weapon. This stuff is expensive. Most Level 1 Fighters can never afford such things that cost so much gold.

And yet you can start with them. That presumes that you've had someone buy them for you or gift them to you. Like after serving in the army and they want to keep a ready militia so you get to keep your armor when you muster out.

Or you've earned that coin doing soldiering or mercenary work to buy it.

The default assumes you're a professional X at 1st level and have years of training (wherever you got it).

Officially they are "apprentices" at Level 1. That is the opposite of a "veteran".

Level 1 characters are exactly college-level apprentices.

Officially they are "Effectively Apprentice Adventurers", not apprentice X class.

 

[Yaarel]

Where does it say that? I think I missed it.

In the 5e Players Handbook, in the Tiers of Play section (page 15):

"
In the first tier (leveIs 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers.

"

Apprentice adventurers. An apt description of a college student.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

In the 5e Players Handbook, in the Tiers of Play section (page 15):

"
In the first tier (leveIs 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers.

"

Apprentice adventurers. An apt description of a college student.

Apprentice adventurers.

Most people aren't adventurers. D&D adventurers tend to occupy a tier above the regular folk, even those in military careers.

 

[Salthorae]

Where does it say that? I think I missed it.

He's referring to this line in the PHB on Tier's of Play

In the first tier (levels 1–4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers.

And I always point out that it says "effectively" and "apprentice adventurers", not "apprentices of class X"

PHB also says this that you seem to ignore or haven't see @Yaarel :

A 1st-level character is inexperienced in the adventuring world, although he or she might have been a soldier or a pirate and done dangerous things before.

Starting off at 1st level marks your character’s entry into the adventuring life.

Again, emphasis added as they continually reference "adventuring" which is different from "normal life where they learned their skills"

 

[BigBadDM]

Again, it's not about which backstory you can or can't have. It's about what is the first concept that comes to your mind AND which one you think should be used as the basis to build the mechanical components of the class.

I am still not certain why you insist on separating things. The world is not black and white.

Fighter -> Good at using weapons
What I 'first' envision the basic build/mechanical component-> ANY character concept that involves using weapons
What I envision as a backstory -> ANY 'flavor' concept that got me to Level1

What is the insistence on the pigeonhole... your character concept has to equal a mechanical component?

The question here is: do you want to play a person who is good at using weapons. Then be a fighter. Create a backstory to determine how you entered the world of fighter-dom.

It is obvious that any 1st level character has 'training' of sort in their chosen field (at least mechanically). They are not experts, they are level 1 after all. It is up to the player to determine how they entered that field. The mechanical rules are: good with weapons. The class is based around this.

Any "first concept" that the player wants is acceptable. Play the bumbling 'green' fighter if they want. Play the 'learned sword play' from a father. Play the 'never picked up a sword in my life'. Play the 'retired drunken general'. The concept should never dictate the mechanics except you keep insisting it so.

 

[ad_hoc]

Again, it's not about which backstory you can or can't have. It's about what is the first concept that comes to your mind AND which one you think should be used as the basis to build the mechanical components of the class.

This gets into the main problem with the Fighter and the one Mike Mearls has regretted.

Unlike the other classes it doesn't have a specific place in the narrative. Only the Eldritch Knight has something of an identity. Newer subclasses have tried to rectify it.

So as written the identity of a Fighter is wide open.

 

[Yaarel]

Most apprentices arent adventurers, but these apprentices are ...

still apprentices.

 

[Yaarel]

The opposite of a veteran.