Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[FrogReaver]

How can you possibly know that. They are both fictional characters (well our interpretation of Achilles is fictional) with many variations in their representation in literature, screen and media.

Trying to put them in a hierarchy is utterly futile. As futile as people who argue about which comic book character would beat the other.

That's the most absurd position i've ever heard.

 

[TheSword]

That's the most absurd position i've ever heard.

Ok

 

[Minigiant]

How can you possibly know that. They are both fictional characters (well our interpretation of Achilles is fictional) with many variations in their representation in literature, screen and media.

Trying to put them in a hierarchy is utterly futile. As futile as people who argue about which comic book character would beat the other.

page 37of the DMG. Tier of Play.

It defines how powerful a character is at a certain tiers of play.

Now is King Arthur in most interpretations a local power, kingdom power, world power, or planar power?
What about John Wick, Robin Hood, or Achilles?

 

[TheSword]

page 37of the DMG. Tier of Play.

It defines how powerful a character is at a certain tiers of play.

Now is King Arthur in most interpretations a local power, kingdom power, world power, or planar power?
What about John Wick, Robin Hood, or Achilles?

I have no problem placing a version of King Arthur tier 17-20 based on those guidelines. He certainly affected the fate of millions, fought great supernatural foes (depending on the version) and travelled to otherworldly realms, where he waits for us still.

Incidentally 17-20 is described as a world power not a planar power.

Though to be clear they are guidelines for adventure design not requirements for character design.

The futility of this argument to try an pin down a nebulous fictional character to a specific set of character levels is plain.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have no problem placing a version of King Arthur tier 17-20 based on those guidelines. He certainly affected the fate of millions, fought great supernatural foes (depending on the version) and travelled to otherworldly realms, where he waits for us still.

Incidentally 17-20 is described as a world power not a planar power.

Though to be clear they are guidelines for adventure design not requirements for character design.

The futility of this argument to try an pin down a nebulous fictional character to a specific set of character levels is plain.

I’m not sure why you find it so difficult. I do it all the time.

actually I do know why you find it difficult. Because you are using this to try and invalidate the point being made.

 

[Minigiant]

have no problem placing a version of King Arthur tier 17-20 based on those guidelines. He certainly affected the fate of millions, fought great supernatural foes (depending on the version) and travelled to otherworldly realms, where he waits for us still.

Incidentally 17-20 is described as a world power not a planar power.

Though to be clear they are guidelines for adventure design not requirements for character design.

The futility of this argument to try an pin down a nebulous fictional character to a specific set of character levels is plain.

The point is that King Arthur affected the world via his title not his combat prowess. His tittle attracts followers. He and his followers face the threats.

Much how Batman and Superman are both members of the Justice League but Batman's contribution is mostly mental and monetary.

 

[TheSword]

The point is that King Arthur affected the world via his title not his combat prowess. His tittle attracts followers. He and his followers face the threats.

Much how Batman and Superman are both members of the Justice League but Batman's contribution is mostly mental and monetary.

I’m not interested in debating comic book dogma. Or any media to be bonest. There are plenty of versions I’ve seen whether Arthur led by example. If you want to view him as a bum on a seat that’s your business.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Again I think this issue in not magic itself warps everthing and more that the community won't sit down and discuss high level D&D.

So magic spells and crazy monsters become the only thing that exist there.

Again few have the onus to describe what a high level fighter, rogue, ranger, bard, or monk looks like. So huge holes are in high level play, the same ideas are ported over, and only magic spells exist as solutions.

I think this is a fair point.

But also, people want to insist on staying non-magical at high levels when that just does not work.


I mean, one of the most impressive feats of combat always mentioned (and that I would love to include) is the fighter who meets his match and the two battle for three days. Well, that is over 43,000 rounds of combat. No one can run that. It is literally impossible to do that in DnD, so how could you represent it?

Or, Achilles taking on an entire army single-handedly. Amazing stuff, great for a high level warrior.... until you realize casters can already do that.

I don’t feel like this is the same as finding a magic sword, being made ruler of a keep, or gaining followers. All of which any character should be able to do with time, patience, role playing or luck.

This idea crystallized for me when playing
Adventures in Middle Earth. There is one subclass who’s ability is to convince an enemy to parley with you. The suggestion that you should make a subclasses main ability something that any reasonable DM would allow was extremely frustrating. There were other similar abilities for instance spy on an enemy for 10 rounds to learn a weakness. These things should not require a class ability!

It’s one of the reasons I’m glad the alternate class feature ranger isn’t about collecting food in the forest!

But that is exactly the problem. Anyone can do that.

IF being a high-level Fighter means being King Arthur then I just need an artifact sword and a kingdom. A wizard can do that. So can a Cleric, in fact, a war Cleric or a Hexblade warlock is more powerful than a fighter in that situation.

So the fighter's big advantage is.... having something anyone can get. That doesn't help anything.

Please see my earlier point about how do you judge a fighting class is high level when attacks, AC and hp are abstract concepts.

Don't you think that being able to represent the same character with 30 hp and 1 attack, or 200 hp and 4 attack (when by the way, within the system of the game, one is clearly superior to the other) is a problem rather than a benefit?

If you high level fighter is identical to your low-level fighter, then that is a problem.

The futility of this argument to try an pin down a nebulous fictional character to a specific set of character levels is plain.

Then why did you try and pin down a nebulous fictional character as being a high level fighter?

I mean, no one twisted your arm, you are the one who said high level fighters are easy to identify. And gave the example of Robin Hood, King Arthur, John Wick, and Achilles.

By the way, I can immediately prove that these guys are different power levels.

Achilles strode out of his tent and took on an entire army of enemy soldiers single-handedly. No cover, not gimmicks, no guns. Just a sword.

Robin Hood was constantly fleeing and tricking the local constabulary of Nottingham. If the castle sent out a squad of soldiers (a squad, not an army) Robin Hood had to fight them with trickery, traps, and superior terrain.

John Wick can take on, maybe three men in hand to hand combat? Beyond that he is usually relying on positioning, surprise, and constant movement to make sure that he isn't facing more than that at any one time.


So, it seems fairly clear that there is a hiearchy between Robin Hood -> John Wick -> Achilles

 

[Garthanos]

I have no problem placing a version of King Arthur tier 17-20 based on those guidelines. He certainly affected the fate of millions, fought great supernatural foes (depending on the version) and travelled to otherworldly realms, where he waits for us still.

That other world element is definitely there. In the earliest versions I have heard of the journey to get the goddesses cauldron I mean quest for the grail (he was accompanied by a an irishman who may have been Lugh)

 

[Minigiant]

I’m not interested in debating comic book dogma. Or any media to be bonest. There are plenty of versions I’ve seen whether Arthur led by example. If you want to view him as a bum on a seat that’s your business.

My point is that I'm never seen Arthur's fightiness being the aspect of him that changes the world. It is always his claim as king.
Is Arthur without his sword and his title still a level 17?

Arthur resembles a 1st edition fighter. A fighter that after a certain point stops progressing in combat ability. Instead he progresses in fame and stronghold.

It's kind of like RPGs where for get an Allies or Resources stat. At level 11, a Fighter-Lord adds their fighter level to his Stronghold score. So a fighter, wizard, and rogue might all have a base and followers, the fighter has the biggest one because he is adding +20 to it.

King Arthur is adding his fighter level to is Stronghold score.
Robin Hold is adding his fighter level to is Leadership score.
Achilles is adding his fighter level to is Divinity score