2nd Level Fighter = Military leader?

Paradoxish

First Post
In my current campaign I'm starting the PCs at level 2. One of my players has come up with a rough draft for his history. He wants to be a military commander from one of the small city-states in the western section of the region the campaign is set in. According to his background story he was one of the land's great leaders and heir to the throne, but went into self-imposed exile after a massive defeat that led to the deaths of many of his troops and may lead to his kingdom's downfall. His leaving was essentially an act of cowardice, he couldn't bear to bring the bad news to the King (his father) nor could he bear to see his homeland fall.

Anyway, does it makes sense that a 2nd level fighter could be a powerful military leader? Obviously the majority of soldiers in the army of level 1 warriors (or possibly just commoners), but there would have to be at least a few PC-levelled fighters/paladins/barbarians/whatever in the bunch, right? What do you guys think? Would it be too much of a stretch to allow this background or do you think it would make at least some logical sense?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I think level 2 is too low.

Just look a the high-level fighters in the average city for examples of what you'll find as military commanders. (DMG, the section on towns & cities)
 

Arwink, d'oh...

Sorry, I missed that. Just got through posting a long thread about my campaign on the plots board and didn't bother to read down the topics on the main page here.
 


The only part that's really bad is the "one of the land's great leaders" part, which CERTAINLY places him at higher than level 2.

I suppose he could be an "heir to the throne" that THINKS he's "one of the land's great leaders," and the event that drove him to exile proved otherwise! He "faked" knowing the job well enough because of his high Charisma (surely he isn't making his leadership claims without a high Charisma?!) and noble birth (ie: daddy got him the job), until things got too rough! At least 1 Aristocrat level is strongly recommended here... this NPC class isn't bad for the sorts of skills this character might possess... and PC's shouldn't be declaring themselves nobles or heirs without taking it as their first level.

So it can work, if you get the player to accept that some of his assertions about his background may be statements of intent rather than actual facts!
 
Last edited:

Leading armies is more about training in strategy and logistics than combat ability, so I think that a 2nd level Aristocrat with 5 ranks each in Diplomacy, Knowledge: War and Profession: General would do fine as a war leader.

That is, as long as this rather grandiose background will fit into your campaign!
 

Here are levels for military ranks as provided by the descriptions of Elves and Dwarves in the monster manual:

Sargeant: 3rd level
Lieutenant: 5th level
Captain: 7th level

So you could use those general levels as blueprints for deciding what level an average military officer might be. I would give military leaders the Battle skill from the Rokugan book, which is available to all the warrior classes and rogues. Knowledge: War is another good skill for them.
 

Dark Jezter said:
Here are levels for military ranks as provided by the descriptions of Elves and Dwarves in the monster manual:

Sargeant: 3rd level
Lieutenant: 5th level
Captain: 7th level
Personally I would not use lieutenant in a medieval world, I would do sargeant at 2nd-3rd level and captain at 5th-6th level.
 

It makes plenty of sense for a 2nd level character to be a former powerful military leader. . . who just happened to have been permanently drained of 7 to 9 levels by undead or dying repeatedly and being raised again. (Make it clear to the player that Greater Restoration will not work on the character if you go the level drain route). Otherwise it makes no sense.
 

Remove ads

Top