Any books with rules about hiring fighter-class mercenaries?

[malichai]

The DMG has a table for hiring mercenaries ( warrior class NPCs ), but are there any books that have rules for hiring fighter-class mercenaries, or wizards, etc?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I know that the Arms and Equipment Guide has more detailed Merc rules...but I don't remember the details of it.

 

[ajanders]

The DMG has a table for hiring mercenaries ( warrior class NPCs ), but are there any books that have rules for hiring fighter-class mercenaries, or wizards, etc?

According to standard D&D, most armies are made up of warrior-classed individuals: you can't go out and hire a squad of first level fighters.
A first level fighter is more likely to be hired as an individual champion or at the head of a small mercenary warband.
That said, there's no reason you can't break that rule. The D&D Arms and Equipment guide, as mentioned, has rules for hiring higher level fighters and warriors that scale well with standard d20 prices.
You will probably, however, find it better to use the mercenary prices from any mass combat system you are either going to use or have used in the past.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

AEG's Mercenaries. It's one of my most-used books.

 

[Olive]

In terms fo wizards, there are costs in the PHB for spell casting, and I'd imagine that most would work on a per spell basis!

 

[BASHMAN]

Personally, Warrior class should be abolished

Personally, I think that making warrior and fighter seperate classes was one of the dumb things 3rd edition did amongst a myriad of things they actually fixed. Just when you thought they got rid of 0th level humans, here comes the commoner class! Warrior is much better than that, but still sucks compared to fighter.

OD&D had it right: most soldiers in armies are 1st level fighters, with officers and NCOs usually at higher levels.

BUt third ed is at least better than AD&D that listed Kings being guarded by 0th level human fighters-- a.k.a. goblin meat.

Still, I think that as a GM, I would rule that there is no warrior class. Warriors are either fighters, barbarians, paladins, or rangers-- that is it.

The problem with that is that it would make the majority of humanoids listed in the MM use d10s instead of d8s for hit dice, and they would have more feats. Who cares? The PCs have such a ridiculous advantage as it is, they can take one better prepared enemies! Even the odds! OD&D parties have had to deal with this for decades. Heck, in OD&D, monsters were better off than fighters of the same hitdice because their Thac0s were better! And players still managed to come out on top.

 

[Uller]

Personally, I think that making warrior and fighter seperate classes was one of the dumb things 3rd edition did amongst a myriad of things they actually fixed.

I disagree. The Commoner/Warrior/Fighter set of classes gives the DM a range of difficulty for and NPCs at low levels. Personally, I don't see much of a point to Warriors beyond 1st level though.

For instance, in an adventure I'm planning, the PCs will wander into a goblin lair. Most of the goblins are your typical War1s. There are a few Rog1s, fewer still Rog2s and 3s, a couple Clr2s and 3s, a Ftr4 and a Rog3/Crl3 as the leader. My thinking is that a basic ("0-level") goblin is a War1 with average stats. The goblins that have potential to advance beyond being an average everyday goblin will have a level of some adventuring class (fighter, rogue or cleric mostly) instead of a level of warrior. From there they advance in that class.

The same goes for human populations. A troop of cavalry will be made up of War1s. The veterans will be Ftr1-3, Officers will be Ftr/Aristocrats of varying levels. To me, your basic soldier is a warrior1. A professional soldier is a fighter. Not that there is really much difference in a Fighter and a warrior that is 1 or two levels higher, at least from the perspective of a player in a brief encounter. Fighter 5: BAB +5, good fort save, heavy armor, about 32 hitpoints (without con bonus). Warrior 6 BAB +6/+1 (but fewer feats), good fort save, heavy armor, about 32 hitpoints (without con bonus). Same skills. So a player isn't going to be able to tell the difference anyway. It's not like I'm going to tell them "You meet a War5 Goblin."

To me, the usefulness is having a low level NPC that isn't quite as tough as a 1st level fighter, but isn't as weak as a commoner.

 

[CCamfield]

AEG's Mercenaries. It's one of my most-used books.

Do you feel that the hiring rates in Mercenaries are really on the ball? I thought they were way too high.

A 1st level fighter hiring himself out as a mercenary - let's say to a large company, so with 1/4 the listed salary - earns 20gp per day. That's 600gp in a month, 1200 in two. That's a TON of money (compared with the expected wealth of PCs, for instance).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Do you feel that the hiring rates in Mercenaries are really on the ball? I thought they were way too high.

I think the book is a tad off on a few points. For instance, the rates you cite would (in my mind) be related mostly to a short-term, high-risk assignment (as "roaming" mercenaries seems more the books focus despite having the soldier-styled Legionaire Class). I pretty much always go with a ratio of Ability + Term + Risk...

• You don't hire a high level Fighter to guard a door unless you know something big's going to come through it, but you don't send the King's daughter and her dowery on a long journey to her husband-to-be with a few Warrior-1 grunts to guard her.
• Long term assignments (i.e., guaranteed income over an extended period of time) is always going to pay less on a daily basis than a 1-3 day mission because you never know when the next mission will present itself (i.e., 20-60 gold isn't much if it's the only job you get in a month).
• Risk of assignment is always a factor; Maintaining watches and patrols at a far-lying outpost is far more comfortable than spear-heading a siege.

Also keep in mind the hiring-party's benefits for hiring mercenaries...

• They don't have to manage upkeep.
• They don't have to worry about family compensation.
• (Reputable) Mercenaries are usually free of personal military/political goals that can threaten an employer's/ruler's own objectives.

So, no, I don't think the prices are that far "off", they just need to viewed subjectively within the presentation of the book in-total, which does seem to have an emphasis on skirmishes and immediate-need assignments rather than long-term military duties.

Granted, a year from now I'll likely be plugging Black Company instead...

 

[Staffan]

Arms & Equipment Guide has some stuff about mercenaries. It doesn't really have fighters for hire as general grunts, but if the leader of a mercenary band is a fighter, he will probably demand a daily wage of 2 gp/level, or something like that.