From Warrior to Fighter?

[Dog Moon]

I was looking at a book [some adventure] and it gives stats for the common soldiers. They were either Warrior 1 or 2, the weaker soldier and the buffer soldier I guess. The way the army works is that you slowly climb up the ranks. The Captain in the book was a Fighter 3. If he had to be a soldier for a certain amount of time before becoming a Captain, how did he lose the Warrior levels and gain the Fighter levels? If he started as a Fighter instead, why don't ALL the soldiers start as Fighters?

This obviously isn't something gamebreaking, but it's something I noticed and thought was strange.

 

[shilsen]

Did the book say that all soldiers had to start as War1? Or is that something you are interpolating?

Anyway, it's not as if class levels have any correlation with military rank, even in a fantasy world. In fact, there would be greater verisimilitude (sorry, Mystery Man - couldn't resist ) if some commanders were lower level than some soldiers of lower rank. Heck, someone with the appropriate connections, say an Aristocrat 2, could end up leading a group of higher-lvl fighters.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I allow a small amount of class-level trading, based in part on the reducing LA rule in UA.

 

[Starglim]

It's a fair question. Some possibilities:

• The officer may be a feudal heir, trained from his youth to fight and lead troops, and may indeed have started off as Ftr1 as opposed to his roughly-trained militia.
• The more dedicated and competent soldiers may be Ftr1 but may not have taken feats that give them an advantage in the specific circumstances of the module. Thus, mechanically, it's easier to lump them in with the Warriors.
• There may well be a method, so far undescribed, for a Warrior progressing to Fighter to trade in levels, maybe at 2 for 1.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

I was looking at a book [some adventure] and it gives stats for the common soldiers. They were either Warrior 1 or 2, the weaker soldier and the buffer soldier I guess. The way the army works is that you slowly climb up the ranks. The Captain in the book was a Fighter 3. If he had to be a soldier for a certain amount of time before becoming a Captain, how did he lose the Warrior levels and gain the Fighter levels? If he started as a Fighter instead, why don't ALL the soldiers start as Fighters?

This obviously isn't something gamebreaking, but it's something I noticed and thought was strange.

Well, it's pretty easy to say, especially in a world of "cut above the rest" adventurer types, that a captain is cut from different cloth than a normal soldier, and indeed ended up as a captain specifically because he has that elusive "it" quality that separates heroes from ordinary folk.

 

[Ace]

Well, it's pretty easy to say, especially in a world of "cut above the rest" adventurer types, that a captain is cut from different cloth than a normal soldier, and indeed ended up as a captain specifically because he has that illusive "it" quality that separates heroes from ordinary folk.

Exactly

warriors are the day to day grunts that make up an army and keep it working -- Fighters are the guys that end up as Navy SEALS or other special ops guys

 

[Alzrius]

I agree with A.R.P. and Ace, the captain is a captain because he had those Fighter levels to begin with, not the other way around.

One thing that seems to be ignored a lot in terms of a character's early development is that there are no 0-level characters; even with 0 XP, you're still a 1st-level character. That means that character is essentially born with their first level. That captain has (due to designer perogative, not in-game predestination) had that Fighter level, and thus been a cut above the common soldiers, his entire life.

 

[nopantsyet]

I think Alzrius has hit the nail on the head...

That said, I wanted to start my current campaign with NPC levels as an interesting roleplaying device, but I didn't want my players to feel like they were being robbed a useful level for it. So at 300 XP I had them swap the NPC level for a PC level. It was cool because the campaign started with a period of non-violent encounters. The first was an underwater rescue. It used combat rules, but the danger was drowning, not getting stabbed. And on PC nearly died, and he has roleplayed a fear of water ever since. And that was kind of the point I was going for. So while I know that NPC classes are called "NPC" for a reason, it can be fun to bend the rules occasionally.

But in other situations, I'll stick with the explanation that some things you're just born with. And that can be money for the merchant's son, or street smarts for the criminal's son. The exceptional get class levels. Training and experience can come into play, but the quality of opportunity would be a significant factor, so the more NPC levels you have, the less likely you are to ever have the opportunity to gain PC levels, unless you're exceptionally determined. The captain who rose from low birth might have 3 Warrior levels before gaining Fighter levels. He's had to work harder than those who were trained from birth, which is reflected in the fact that he's got to have more character levels to reach equivalent power to his well-bred peers. It adds color.

 

[Mercule]

One of the recent Dragonshards had something about this (sorry, no linkee) that I rather liked.

The idea is that characters who take PC levels, especially from 1st level, have something inherently different about them. Good, bad, or otherwise, characters with PC classes stand out to those around them -- even as kids.

Anyway, the applicable point is that this commander was never a warrior. He was always a fighter. Even as a raw recruit, others probably assumed he'd go far and rise in rank. In fact, I could see that sort of "presence" allowing a 1st or 2nd level fighter out-ranking a 3rd or 4th (or higher) level warrior.

Or, put another way: You're looking at the equation backwards. He's not a fighter because he's a captain. He's a captian because he's a fighter.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Or, put another way: You're looking at the equation backwards. He's not a fighter because he's a captain. He's a captian because he's a fighter.

Or you could say he's represented as a fighter instead of a warrior because that class better represents the special training and dedication to his post that makes a captain what he is compared to a normal soldier.

With questions like that, I always try to remember that classes are just a way to describe the abilities of a certain character. Want a normal guy who has been drafted into the army and taught the very basics of sword, spear, armor and shield? Make him a warrior and give him a basic feat, like Toughness, to represent that kind of character. Want somebody who's gotten more training with weapons, and learned a special move or two on top of it? Make him a fighter. A class is only a package description of abilities and potential, at least for NPCs that only appear in one or two scenes. For those, you really don't need a development chart. All you need is a good description of their current abilities.

Of course, with an ongoing NPC, you might keep an eye on the character's class progression. But that's where multiclassing comes into play...or level exchange between an NPC class and a similar PC class.