Question - Fighter/Warrior Levels to Military Ranks

[TheYeti1775]

Good point Mr. U.
Just frustration ranks supreme today for me.

Chatted with Funeris over the IM,
going with some time in service adjustments where each year will add skill points to certain skills which would be class skills.

Thanks again.
Yeti

 

[The Shaman]

*snip!*

Wow! Mine was much simpler:

- Enlisted ranks -
Man-at-arms or guard or marine
- Non-commisioned officers -
Corporal-at-arms
Sergeant-at-ams
- Officers -
Subaltern
Captain (commands a company)
Commander or Warden (commands a regiment)
Marshal (commands an army)

There is no direct correspondence between rank and class/level - as a general rule, rankers and non-coms were warriors or occasionally experts, officers were warriors or aristocrats. Heroic classes (fighters, rangers, paladins, &c.) were rare in all ranks.

 

[Vonlok The Bold]

Does anyone remember the titles each level of each class had in the 1st ed. AD&D? I really enjoyed those.

They had them for fighters, magic users, clerics etc.

I remember that a 1st level fighter was given the title veteran I believe. I was confused by that, but the massive amount of weapons the fighter is proficient in even at first level, it makes sense.

I loved the titles for the levels of all the classes.

 

[ptolemy18]

I can't break it down into specific ranks for you, but I like the description of armies used in Scott Bennie's TESTAMENT (from Green Ronin):

1st level - Green troops
2nd level - Trained troops
4th level - Veterans
8th level - "Elite", whatever that means

That's pretty much how I do it in my campaigns... a typical army would consist of somewhere between 2nd and 4th level troops, depending on their quality and experience... with the occasional super-awesome squadron of bad-asses going up to about 8th level. I think this might be a little more "low-power" than many people's campaigns, though.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

[/font][/color]

I disagree. Fighter feats are all about effective use of your own weapon, not effective command of a legion (or battalion, or whatever). There isn't a single fighter bonus feat that makes you a more effective leader, at any level of the organization.

Hmm... I just had an idea...

As written, the Warrior is a useless class that only NPCs would take. But what if the Warrior class granted access to particular feats (and skills) which only come into play in mass-scale battlefield combat? What if the warrior is, literally, a WARrior?

Of course, this presumes that your campaign actually uses specific feats (or skills) for mass battlefield combat, since D&D3.0/3.5 has no particular rules for battlefield combat. But there are several third-party supplements which have them, including TESTAMENT (which introduces several battlefield-specific feats) and FIELDS OF BLOOD (which has some battlefield-specific skills, if I'm not mistaken). Maybe warriors get bonus feats and skills chosen from this list? (I'm talking about feats like "Phalanx Fighting".)

Needless to say, this would require a lot of house-rules. (And the TESTAMENT and FIELDS OF BLOOD systems aren't compatible anyway, so you'd have to adapt the Warrior to one or the other, not both.) But I like the idea... perhaps Warriors DON'T completely suck, it's just that Fighters have the advantage over them in the typical D&D campaign where it's all small-scale combat.

Jason

 

[Ace]

In my campaign it works this way --

Levels are based on overcoming challenges. This is as per core rules but with the caveat that there are a lot of challenges in life. Going to University for 4 years (FREX) is worth XP as is everyday life or surviving a blizzard

What class a person has is determined by opportunity

Highly talented people are always PC classes people with an apptitude for combat or magic or whatver

-- people with no opportunities are commoners, people with more are expert, aristcrat, freeman or warrior depending on training

people hit level 1 by adulthood

Levels are gained at the rate of (level to be gained -1) starting at 15-18. Add 1 to the total level is a lot of challenges are faced subtract 1 for lazy people

FREX

Joe Bob joins army at Adulthood -- he is a warrior 1 --

After a year his is level 2 after two years he hits 3 and after three he hits 4 and so on. A ten year veteran is about level 5 -- 6 if he has seen combat

Rank is based on service criteria which may or may not include compotency -- While there are very few first level aristocrats who hold the rank of general there are many fairly low level types who hold high rank in some types armies

Examples (including some rounding)

A college trained Wizard is about 5th level (6 years training+ 1 bonus for difficulty)

A 20 year veteran Mage (less than 40BTW) might be 8th level

An old Warrior after 40 years service might be 10th level

That 80 year old codger is a 12th level commoner

 

[S'mon]

In my own game, I associate rank with level, but level does not guarrantee rank.

That's the way I do it, and for a GM assigning levels to NPCs, IMO that's the best way to do it. In a professional army higher enlisted ranks will often require experience, which in D&D = Levels; however experience does not mandate higher rank. So a private could be a 1st level Warrior or a 4th level Fighter, but a master sergeeant will not be a 1st level warrior unless you have very squished demographics where almost everyone is 1st level & only a few heroes are higher level.

I would like to emphasise that assigning levels to NPCs is a totally different kettle of fish from working out systems whereby PCs can advance in rank through a military, and the two should not be conflated. The GM can say "NPC Sergeants are at least 3rd level" without saying "3rd level military PCs are Sergeants". A PC in the game-world military may be much lower (or, rarely, higher) rank than their level would indicate. This doesn't detract at all from the value of assigning minimum or average levels to certain ranks.

 

[Steverooo]

E-1 Private
E-2 Private First Class
E-3 Lance Corporal
E-4 Corporal
E-5 Sergeant (Sgt)
E-6 Staff Sgt
E-7 Gunnery Sgt
E-8 Master Sgt / 1st Sgt
E-9 Master Gunnery Sgt / Sgt Major

I am basing my answer on several assumptions. First of all, back in 1e days, a Captain was seventh level! Secondly, based upon "life is a challenge", there will be no Humans of above ninth level (Dwarves & Elves are another story).

Thus, Captains are seventh level, and all enlisted/NCOs must be lower than that... Hence, I'd say:

E-1 Private....................Warrior 1
E-2 Private First Class.....Fighter 1/W.2
E-3 Lance Corporal.........F.2/W.3
E-4 Corporal..................F.2/W.3
E-5 Sergeant (Sgt).........F.3/W.4
E-6 Staff Sgt................." "
E-7 Gunnery Sgt............." "
E-8 Master Sgt / 1st Sgt..F.4/W.5
E-9 Master Gunnery Sgt / Sgt Major...F.5/W.6 (as a minimum).

IMHO. YMMV.

 

[S'mon]

Thus, Captains are seventh level, and all enlisted/NCOs must be lower than that...

Why should they be lower? If you have an "E9" type enlisted rank (like a Roman Legion's senior centurion) that may require far more experience than a junior commissioned officer rank.

Personally I think the 1e levels work ok for commissioned officers (lieutenants ca 2nd-4th Fighter, Captains 5th-8th Fighter) but there's no reason not to have higher-level enlisted ranks.

 

[SBMC]

[/font][/color]

I disagree. Fighter feats are all about effective use of your own weapon, not effective command of a legion (or battalion, or whatever). There isn't a single fighter bonus feat that makes you a more effective leader, at any level of the organization. Moreover, consider that intelligence and charisma are both common dump stats for fighters, but probably the two most important abilities for officers -- intelligence for strategy and tactics, charisma for command and leadership. A fighter with good officer skills could be developed, but the average fighter wouldn't make a good officer.

If fighters are part of a military organization, I'd see them as an elite squadron, used for special missions more than open battles. The ranks of the legions would be populated by warriors, probably commanded by an aristocrat (historically) or expert (modern army) with a few fighter levels.

I would disagree with this just for a couple of reasons - and agre with it for a couple moe reasons.

Disagree
1. As with the current military (been there BTW) what gets one promoted at the LOWER ranks is technical skill with a distant second being charisma. This holds far less true with Comissioned Officers however. This is what gets guys noticed. A low level warrior with great charisma is far less likely to attract notice from superiors than one that excels in battle itself.

2. Fighters, having access to more feats than anyone else can show greater technical abilities. Think about it - a first level fighter with Weapon Focus already makes him equal to a BAB one level higher (at first level that is huge) PLUS he can take another feat (and another if Human). For a solider say Endurance - now this guy can march harder than the rest, run harder, run longer, etc - impressive to low level guys. Now - as that works within the game mechanics; this whole point here may be lost! :\

3. A lower level leader does not require charisma (beleive me!) to lead line troopers; trained ones that is (not conscripts). Sure if you are going to roll the dice; but then again trained soldiers won't break and run on their own unless things get REAL bad.


Agree:
1. At higher levels in the rank structure you are quite right - I am wrong. Charisma (not intelligence - though some is needed - but I would think Wisdom wold be better) is important in order to affect many people whom you never actually spoke to in person. This is probably why Paladins make such good leaders.

2. When ineracting with higher level folks social type impressions woudl be important as well.