How different are Fighters from common soldiers/warriors?

[the Jester]

Well, the default scores are all 10-11's, right? If your PCs are better than that, they're better than average right?

See, I don't use the 'default' stats for npcs; I either pick stats based on the npc's role in the game (rarely) or roll (more commonly) or use a mix (ermmm, pretty uncommon, though I'll adjust stats I rolled to meet my needs for the npc).

 

[Ahnehnois]

See, I don't use the 'default' stats for npcs; I either pick stats based on the npc's role in the game (rarely) or roll (more commonly) or use a mix (ermmm, pretty uncommon, though I'll adjust stats I rolled to meet my needs for the npc).

Neither do I. The point is not that every one is all 10's, or even the non-heroic array; it's a point of reference. I figure that on average, someone has those stats, but because there are six ability scores and each is a bell curve, almost no one is exactly average.

But, to me, someone with more than 11 Strength is "strong", and is perceived as and behaves as such. Most blacksmiths are probably strong, because it's a physically intensive field.

 

[Cadence]

Neither do I. The point is not that every one is all 10's, or even the non-heroic array; it's a point of reference.

Definitely agree about wanting a point of reference.

I figure that on average, someone has those stats, but because there are six ability scores and each is a bell curve, almost no one is exactly average.

But, to me, someone with more than 11 Strength is "strong", and is perceived as and behaves as such. Most blacksmiths are probably strong, because it's a physically intensive field.

Ability scores seem a lot like level in that the baselines each GM chooses can really change things. Whether 1st level is an apprentice or a beginning journeyman or a veteran (who would be a serjeant in 1e) seems like a huge difference that should ripple down through the campaign world and affect how the characters act and are treated.

For ability scores, if stats did work as independent 3d6's, then the median array (median of the order statistics) is a 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 in some order and a full 16% of people would have a 14 or higher strength. Well over a 1/3rd of people would have a 12. (Although seems debatable that they should all be independent). Taking anything above 11 be "strong" seems like it gives a totally different world feel than saying an 11 is just in the top 37.5%. Or maybe 12 is high in the sense of being good enough to pursue a career based on that stat, but not high in the sense of people generally using that adjective to describe you.

I'm cool with whatever the GM wants to use, but I always like to know how the campaign world shakes out in those two areas so that I can picture how my character fits in among everyone else. I find it a bit boggling that the points of reference are generally buried somewhere late in the rules (in the chapter on NPCs?) and not discussed more right up front. (If it's too limiting to put it there, why isn't it too limiting to put in the NPC chapter?)

 

[Quickleaf]

Lets not forget the actual attack & save tables!!

Regular men use the "Normal man" values on the attack and saving throw matrix.

1st level fighters use the 1st-3rd values.

I'd forgotten about that! In that case, I would say BD&D gets the difference between fighters and common soldiers just about right.

The fighter has better attack and defenses.
The fighter is proficient is superior arms and armor.
The fighter has access to combat maneuvers (aka Western Martial Arts).
The fighter has the potential to found a stronghold and command an army.

 

[Cleon]

But in 1e and 2e, NPC soldiers were either fighters or level 0 commoners (and thus mechanically equal to the pig farmer).

Not quite.

In First Edition AD&D a 0-level mercenary soldier in has 4-7 hit points (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 30), while a commoner or bandit only has 1-6 hit points (Monster Manual, page 66-69).

So, a rank-and-file soldier in 1E AD&D has got significantly more "staying power" than a peasant. They both use the 0-level attack table, but the soldier can usually take a single blow from a club, arrow, or spear and keep on fighting.

In Second Edition, human mercenaries have 2-8 hit points, and both soldiers and commoners have 1-6 hit points (Monstrous Manual, page 196). They all have the same poor attack value (THAC0 20) but the trained warriors have Steady (10-12) morale, one better than the Average (8-10) morale of an ordinary human.

So, in 2E the difference is negligible - assuming that a peasant or merchant can wear armour like a soldier can. As there's no weapon & armour proficiencies listed for 2E peasants that's not necessarily a given.

This reminds me. There's a hilarious typo in the 2E Monstrous Compendium Volume One ('Men' entry) which lists human soldiers as having 1 hp each.

At least, I assume it's a typo. Either that or the evil overlords would be better off deploying legions of house cats...

 

[Obryn]

At least, I assume it's a typo. Either that or the evil overlords would be better off deploying legions of house cats...

I think that's from Chainmail. An historical artifact, if you will, of 1 hit doing 1 hit point.

 

[Cleon]

I think that's from Chainmail. An historical artifact, if you will, of 1 hit doing 1 hit point.

I doubt it. The MC1 is 2E AD&D and was published in 1989, so it's multiple editions after Chainmail, which was 1974, if I recall correctly.

Besides, the intervening editions - 'original' D&D and first edition AD&D - both give the equivalent of commoners a single six-sided dice for hit points.

EDIT: Besides, there are sixteen other entries in the Monstrous Compendium Volume One's "Men" entry which do have 1-6 hit points. The Soldiers entry is the only one with "1 hp" in the HIT DICE line.

Peasants and farmers are tougher than soldiers, according to their MC1 entries.