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

[Sacrosanct]

While technically a veteran is anyone who served in the military, those of us who were deployed like to call those who weren’t “prior service” instead of a veteran

 

[Undrave]

I see level 1 and 2 as the learn the game and mechanics levels. Your character doesn't actually start until level 3. There is no way you can justify why your character learns their level e abilities unless years have past between levels 2 - 3. 8bwould even argue just skipping the first 2 levels if you're starting a game with all veteran players. But if I were going to create a real world equivalent of a level 1 fighter, it would be someone who joined the Army or Marine Corp, completed their basic and infantry training and is now at their permanent duty station, but have not been in real combat yet.

A character can go from level 1 to fighting a young dragon is a little under a month of game time.

 

[Oofta]

In the D&D world, a first level fighter already knows quite a bit more than the average commoner. They're proficient with multiple weapons, they can wear armor and use shields effectively, they know a "trick" to increase their damage, protect others and so on.

Just to repeat what was on the other thread though, none of that necessarily requires specialized training. There are many options of how you got those skills

• You had someone who was a veteran train you. A parent, older sibling, close relative took you under their wing.
• You grew up somewhere dangerous. Pretty much everyone learns how to fight in your village on the edge of dangerous wilderness.
• You had access to a book on fighting styles with detailed instructions. You were fascinated by it and spent many of your off hours sparring with anyone available, or the tree in the back of your cottage.
• You were trained as a blacksmith and know your way around a hammer and it's the only weapon you really use at first level. Armor isn't really much different from the gear that protected you from the heat of the forge or you tested armor by wearing it.

When it comes to fiction while I'm certain there are exceptions, most novels I've read about a farmer that picked up a sword the conversion to a fighter wasn't overnight. If they can be skilled at combat (and even a level 1 fighter is skilled) then you're falling into Mary/Marty Sue territory.

 

[Oofta]

Related to my other post, I have had games where everyone starts out at level 0. Part of the story we tell is how people gain their training, why they risk their lives adventuring and so on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

.

• You had access to a book on fighting styles with detailed instructions. You were fascinated by it and spent many of your off hours sparring with anyone available, or the tree in the back of your cottage.

.

I’m sorry, but this gave me an image of the kid who read Bruce lee “learn kung fu “ books in his bedroom, and then showed up to the dojo thinking they knew how to fight

 

[Tonguez]

I’ve always gone on the assumption that even the peasant with a sword has had training in the village militia and so knows how to fight effectively with their weapon of choice but just needs a bit more experience. Afterall these people live in a world of raiding orcs and hungry monsters and a little Peter the shepherd boy is going to face more than just a stray wolf when he’s out in the hills.

So Lvl 1 Fighter has had experience in the town militia, he may have battled goblins or dire wolves, other Fighters might be Knights-Errant recently released from service as Squires to the local Baron and now setting out and yet others might be ex-soldiers returning from some foreign war

a farmer with a sword is a Commoner not a Fighter

 

[neogod22]

A character can go from level 1 to fighting a young dragon is a little under a month of game time.

The difference between level 1 and 3, is at 3 you choose your profession. Once can argue a Champion don't need any additional training, but every other subclass requires years of training. It wouldn't make sense that someone learning how to fight and cast spells forget that they know how to cast spells their 1st few adventures and then be like "oh yeah, I know magic missile, shield, a few cantrips, and I can bond my weapon and summon it to me from anywhere in the world."

 

[Tony Vargas]

My question was more related to class design I guess. What is the default assumption that informed the design of the Fighter's level 1 and 2 class features (and suite of proficiencies)

That's really getting into the whole point of 5e, which was, very briefly/30k-ft-view, to be D&D again.

For the fighter, that meant being unambiguously "Best At Fighting!!! (...with weapons...) (...and without magic)." Of course, "best" doesn't mean better than everyone else - that'd be unbalanced, and we're not doing niche protection anymore - just that no one else is better at fighting when measured before magic gets into it, and while they're each using weapons for the comparison. So the monk can be better at fighting without weapons, and the Paladin can be better at fighter with weapons & magic (Smite!) together, and full casters can be more versatile and powerful in and out of combat when using spells, all without intruding on that Best At Fighting! mandate.

The fighter's first two levels, indeed, the whole class, reflect that mandate. It's a very solid design, that way, really. You start with proficiency all armor (though you'll only wear one kind at a time, obviously) and all weapons (virtually all) and a Combat Style, so you can be Best At Fighting (with (a particular sort of) weapon (so you'll want to pick up the best one of that sort of weapon you can and use it more or less exclusively (so what are all those other proficiencies for? (emergencies?))), and Second Wind, which, at first level, makes you terribly resilient, potentially all but doubling your available hit points in one encounter between short rests, and then hardly scales at all thereafter (which is not really Best At Fighting, but it's a limited-use ability so you can't complain the fighter doesn't have any, and it nicely evokes the fighter's greater toughness & general superiority at 1st level in the classic game, in a way that, as in the classic game, rapidly becomes less & less relevant). Then there's Action Surge, which establishes the Fighter at Best At Fighting in the sense of having competitive DPR just from attacking (with weapons, without magic), by the simple expedient of attacking more often, without having to actually be any better at attacking than anyone else focused on being good at that sort of thing (which, once you factor in attacking without weapons, and with magic, is, well, everyone).

So, yeah, the class design really had little to do with modeling an archetype in the fiction, it mostly had to do with compromising among various past editions of the game. The 1e fighter was a simple badass with more STR bonuses, more Con bonuses, strictly superior armor & weapons, and superior attack & save progressions. The 2e fighter was a laser-focused specialist with superior hit/damage & attack progression with one weapon, usually used in pairs, or perhaps a single bow, for obscene damage throughput. The 3e fighter was a highly-customizable collection of bonus feats (more than twice the baseline feats, more feats than any other class), and, well class-tier 5. The 4e fighter was a very effective defender (arguably "first among equals" in that primary role), who enjoyed resource parity with casters, and had more exploits (maneuvers in 5e parlance, or 'powers' for comparison to the spells et al of other classes) to choose from than any other class (until Essential when the wizard just kept getting more and more new spells and pulled ahead in the net power count, FWIW).

The compromise among those prior incarnation is the 5e fighter. Bonus feats & combat style evoke the 3e fighter, Extra Attack, (poorly) Indomitable & (tenuously) Second Wind the 1e, Extra Attack & Combat Style the 2e, and Second Wind & Action Surge the 4e. Similarly, the Champion reflects the 1e & 2e fighter, the BM the 3e & 4e fighter (and, poorly*, the 4e Warlord and non-casting Ranger), and the EK the classic 1e Elven Fighter/magic-user.






* though, really, for a single sub-class with 16 maneuvers trying to cover all the bases of three full classes with like over a thousand among them, does so better than we've any right to expect

 

[Undrave]

The difference between level 1 and 3, is at 3 you choose your profession. Once can argue a Champion don't need any additional training, but every other subclass requires years of training. It wouldn't make sense that someone learning how to fight and cast spells forget that they know how to cast spells their 1st few adventures and then be like "oh yeah, I know magic missile, shield, a few cantrips, and I can bond my weapon and summon it to me from anywhere in the world."

Oh I totally agree that everyone should choose their subclass at level 1.

I guess you could hand wave it as you were practicing these spells and magical effect on your spare time all along and they just NOW start to work.

 

[Oofta]

I’m sorry, but this gave me an image of the kid who read Bruce lee “learn kung fu “ books in his bedroom, and then showed up to the dojo thinking they knew how to fight

I agree it's probably the weakest justification, but a 1st level fighter is hardly a black belt.