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

[Undrave]

Now I’m picturing a 0 level Fighter learning the ropes as an intern in an army, gladiatorial arena, or as a bouncer for the baker’s guild.

Why does the Baker's Guild need a bouncer?!

 

[Salthorae]

Why does the Baker's Guild need a bouncer?!

You read "Baker's Guild", I read "baker's" guild, run by a one Walter Whit, Esq.

They bake something anyway

 

[MGibster]

Why does the Baker's Guild need a bouncer?!

We’re not talking about bread shops where the upper crust go. We’re talking about shops where the kneady go. You try to keep things calm but when things go a rye you need someone to take care of customers going against the grain.

 

[NotAYakk]

A level 1 fighter is Odysseus, Achilles or Paris when they are starting out the hero thing.

Maybe they have fought in some skirmishes before hand, lots of training, etc; but nothing really heroic. Not yet.

They are already a cut above other soldiers or guards, but only a cut. They seem to have a natural talent for this stuff. And you can just see potential dripping out of them.

Maybe they are a farmhand picking up a sword, but the sword moves like it was part of their arm. Maybe they are a veteran of 3 wars where they saw their companions die, and are now sick of being a tool of their stupid officers. Maybe they are a noble squire, trained since birth, whose master was struck down by a zombie horde; they fled in terror, and have decided they will never do it again.

But they are gifted at this stuff.

 

[Undrave]

By the way, I want to thank everyone for participating in this thread. It's been interesting seeing everyone share their perspective, offer insight into how they came to their conclusions and debate on relatively friendly terms.

I think it's good to, sometimes, examine the assumptions that have been with us for years, especially when we move from one edition to another.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

ALL of this stuff is part of D&D, new and old. You are leaning very close to saying that Grimdark is superior, and people who like anything else are wrong.

No. The problem is how you are defining "grimdark". It appears that everything from Moorcock and Howard to Martin and Jemisin, is for you "grimdark", possibly including stuff like Jordan and Hobb. And let's be clear - Moorcock and Howard are indeed even darker and more cynical than Martin or Jemisin, but that's a patently ludicrous definition, akin so saying anyone to the right of Marx is a "far-right extremist" or something (and yes there are people who say that). The vast majority of fantasy literature, including much (most?) of Appendix N falls into "grimdark" by your definition. So I'm not saying it's "superior" but I am saying the vast majority of D&D influences, especially the most major ones, fall under your "grimdark" category. There's a reason Good and Evil came after Law and Chaos, years later. So it follows that as what you arbitrarily and rather unfairly define as "grimdark" (ludicrous when juxtaposed with the actual grimdark of Warhammer) is more important to D&D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Howard and Moorcock are very far from Grimdark. The main point of Grimdark is that it is anti-heroic. - that doesn't refer to morality of the characters, it refers to "plot armor". In Game of Thrones any character can die like a punk, and the person who wins the fight is the best fighter. Conan (and Elric, etc) is completely different. They cannot die. They will always win, no matter how powerful or skilled their opponent is. If you tried to ambush Conan at the Red Wedding he would have been the last man standing. That is because they are "heroic". Not because they are nice people, but because of the type of story they inhabit.

And there is plenty of modern fantasy that you prefer to ignore because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions - Terry Pratchett, J. K. Rowling, Neil Gaiman, Phillip Pullman, David Eddings, Raymond Fiest, Terry Brooks etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, when it comes to the Fighter, thank goodness for 5e backgrounds.

Yep. If all classes felt that way, it"d be a symptom the game might be in danger of achieving a modicum of class balance.

". In Game of Thrones any character can die like a punk, and the person who wins the fight is the best fighter.

The best fighter will usually win the tourney, anyway - then die like a punk.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Howard and Moorcock are very far from Grimdark. The main point of Grimdark is that it is anti-heroic. - that doesn't refer to morality of the characters, it refers to "plot armor". In Game of Thrones any character can die like a punk, and the person who wins the fight is the best fighter. Conan (and Elric, etc) is completely different. They cannot die. They will always win, no matter how powerful or skilled their opponent is. If you tried to ambush Conan at the Red Wedding he would have been the last man standing. That is because they are "heroic". Not because they are nice people, but because of the type of story they inhabit.
Brooks etc.

I had not thought of it this way. Would you consider The First Law Trilogy to be Grimdark since the Bloody Nine is nigh unconquerable?

 

[Nebulous]

We’re not talking about bread shops where the upper crust go. We’re talking about shops where the kneady go. You try to keep things calm but when things go a rye you need someone to take care of customers going against the grain.

Clever girl