Ftr or War?

[RObiN-HoOD]

When should we use fighters and when warriors for npcs?

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is covered in the DMG on pages 36 and 39. Are there specific cases you're unsure of?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

CRGreathouse's reference is the correct rule for this.

FWIW, I think if the npc is serious about being an expert at combat, they should be a fighter. If they are someone who uses combat skills as a "job skill", they should be a warrior.

So just decide if being good at combat is the end or the means for the npc. The first is a fighter and the second a warrior.

 

[RObiN-HoOD]

This is covered in the DMG on pages 36 and 39. Are there specific cases you're unsure of?

Are guards, sentries and militia in a city/town fighters or warriors? or both? (not reasonable I think)

 

[Deadguy]

Are guards, sentries and militia in a city/town fighters or warriors? or both? (not reasonable I think)

Personally, I reckon most of them fit the mould of a Warrior, better than a Fighter. They are not first and foremost professional combatants so much as keepers-of-the-peace.

That said, when creating City Guards, I should also consider giving them levels in Rogue, either as a pure class or multi-class with Warrior. The Rogue develops many of the "city" skills you would expect of a professional guardsman like Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, even Search (for finding contraband) and Innuendo (for spotting those thieves in bars and crowds). These guys get into the sorts of scrapes that may not always be lethal, but involve a lot of people, so taking down opponents fast (flanking for Sneak Attack damage) represents training and experience. Try it, you might be surprised how well they fit with the role you expect them to fill (and PCs might respect them more, when four of them neutralise the party's fighter in one round!).

 

[drnuncheon]

Are guards, sentries and militia in a city/town fighters or warriors? or both? (not reasonable I think)

Why would 'both' not be reasonable?

I'd say that the average, generic guardsman would be a warrior.

Generic officers would be higher-level warriors.

The ones who are fighters are the ones who are 'something special' - the guys who you can tell are going to excel, even as novices - the ones who are gifted. Usually that's the important NPCs.

J

 

[Crothian]

I use the meta game version to determine. How important is this character in my game? Your average city gaurdsmen are not important so they are warriors. Hopever, the gaurds that gaurd the king and other important people are fighters.

 

[Fenris]

I construct my guards much like Crothian's with low level guards men being warriors and Captains of the Guard and Royal Guard being fighters. I like your idea Deadguy about the peacekeeping skills. I think I will consider a level of expert before rogue, but those skills would make more effective guards without more warrior levels. That said I do have one (and only one) culture IMC that has manditory military service and is so militaristic that every city guardsmen has a level of fighter.

 

[kreynolds]

Myself, I'd go with the Maid NPC class. Those chicks are deadly with a broom.

Anyways, I agree that your basic NPC "battle-type-guy" is a warrior and the elite are fighters.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Do they have a name or not?

If I can't be bothered to find a name and basic background story for an NPC, he certainly doesn't warrant being one of the adventuring classes.

As far as I'm concerned, all of the nameless guards, soldiers, NCOs and COs are either warriors or nobles by default. Only if I intend to use an NPC as more than a token bad guy or red shirt ally will I grant them an adventuring class.

Of course, the reverse isn't true; Just because an NPC is important enough to justify some background doesn't mean he has to be from one of the adventuring class if one of the NPC class fits better.