In 4e, this is exactly correct! In 1e, 2e and 3e however, there was indeed that fluff - demographic info - putting almost all NPCs at 0th/1st. 4e does have its 'human rabble', but these can be used for untrained peasants. You certainly can run a 4e campaign where thousands of 7th level cavaliers clash against battalions of 3rd level guards, with 4th level wizards here and there, and that is entirely RAW. In 1e-3e it would be a significant deviation from RAW. 2e: "There are no armies of 4th level Fighters". 3e: "The great majority of soldiers are 1st level commoners or warriors".
Are military armies valid in 4e?
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
In 4e, this is exactly correct! In 1e, 2e and 3e however, there was indeed that fluff - demographic info - putting almost all NPCs at 0th/1st. 4e does have its 'human rabble', but these can be used for untrained peasants. You certainly can run a 4e campaign where thousands of 7th level cavaliers clash against battalions of 3rd level guards, with 4th level wizards here and there, and that is entirely RAW. In 1e-3e it would be a significant deviation from RAW. 2e: "There are no armies of 4th level Fighters". 3e: "The great majority of soldiers are 1st level commoners or warriors".
Amphimir Míriel
Explorer
No!
In a 4E campaign, a large scale battle or a war takes exactly as long to end as required by the story, because it is just a narrative element.
Only those characters that directly interact with the PCs need to be described in terms of level, role and stats.
The 4E ruleset assumes that the DM is describing his world and only using the rules to adjudicate conflict. It does not pre-suppose that the rules describe the world for him.
So, one more time, with feeling:
The "4E world" doesn't have armies composed of 80% 1st level minions, 19% 3 level guards, and 1% minibosses.
The 4E world, if such a thing exists, has armies clashing in the battlefield, trebuchets raining stones over battlements, maybe a dragon raining fire over screaming soldiers... This doesn't need rules to describe it.
Only when the DM wants to "zoom in" into the actions of the PCs, does the people in the battlefield who are directly interacting with the PCs acquire stats.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
It is worth noting though that especially in 2e and 3e, this sort of fluff was honored in the breach more than the observance.
In 2e FR for instance, there were virtually no armies of 1st level fighters. Most kingdoms fielded armies of 3rd or 4th level, and there are occasional references in the source material (for example Simbian cavalry unit IIRC) to armies of 6th level fighters.
In 2e Dark Sun, average people were similarly high level (requiring PC's to start at 3rd level).
In 3e, the needs of challenging mid to high level PCs consistantly outweighed in fluff text when it came to WotC's published modules, encounters, and campaigns. Leveled humanoids abound and its hard to find mere 1st level warriors except in the background or when the PC's are similarly low level. As soon as PC level increases, these 1st level warriors mysteriously fade away (presumably, 1st level warriors have 'detect high level PC' as an extraordinary ability).
This is the reason I've always had a hard time seeing those statements about demographics as 'rules', rather than simply guidelines. Given how frequently TSR/WotC have broken their own demographic guidelines, I'd have a good guffaw at anyone claiming that I'd broken the rules by having warbands of 2nd level goblin fighters (or some such).
Similar Threads
