How different are Fighters from common soldiers/warriors?

[Obryn]

Preferably, very different. Soldiers and mercenaries know how to use weapons. Fighters are consummate athletes and masters of the martial arts.

 

[Cadence]

As far back as the original game goes, a starting fighter was a veteran with all that this implies. He/she has been battle tested and seen action. Every level thereafter added to this capability over the ordinary man. A 4th level fighter was a hero because he/she could fight with the power of 4 ordinary men alone.

I love the old level titles. In 1e, the 2nd level fighter is back to just a "warrior", then they all use swords, as you note they're then upgraded to hero, then become merely swashbucklers.

First level for the other classes were Acolyte, Aspirant, Runner, Prestidigitator, Rogue (Apprentice) , Bravo (Apprentice), and Novice - which hardly sound experienced. Granted, looking at the chance 1st level thieves had to do anything makes apprentice seems right for them.

---

The 1e DMG has some rules under Mercenary Soldier in the Hireling section.

* A Captain is a 5th-8th level fighter (40% are 5th level, 30% 6th, 20% 7th, and 10% 8th) - they control up to a score of soldiers per level + one lieutenant per level (excluding the needed serjeants)
* A Lieutenant is a 2nd-3rd level fighter (70% 2nd level, 30% 3rd level) - they control up to 10 soldiers per level (adding to the total led by the captain, and excluding the needed serjeants) and have one extra serjeant per level beyond that that don't directly command troops
* A Serjeant is a 1st level fighter- they can control up to 10 soldiers each (sometimes as few as five)
* A standard soldier is a 0-level man-at-arms.

That means an "average" mercenary company at full strength (e.g. with every commander maxing out their command skills) has around:

1 - 6th level Fighter (Captain)
2 - 3rd level Fighters (Lieutenants)
4 - 2nd level Fighters (Lieutenants)
40 - 1st level Fighters (Serjeants)
260 - 0-level Men-at-Arms

So, roughly 0.3% are 5th-8th level, 2.0% are 2nd-3rd level, 13.0% are first level, and 84.7% are zero-level.

For some reason, none of them are allowed to advance in levels, so I'm not sure where they come from. Apparently 4th level Heroes aren't allowed to be mercenaries at all.

---

The 4e Monster Books seem to give a completely different impression with the CRs of the various types of humans - is a town guard 4, a gladiator 10, and a pirate captain 14 or something like that? (I never remember for each edition what the CR to level conversion is though.)

 

[doghead]

The 1e DMG has some rules under Mercenary Soldier in the Hireling section.

* A Captain is a 5th-8th level fighter (40% are 5th level, 30% 6th, 20% 7th, and 10% 8th) - they control up to a score of soldiers per level + one lieutenant per level (excluding the needed serjeants)
* A Lieutenant is a 2nd-3rd level fighter (70% 2nd level, 30% 3rd level) - they control up to 10 soldiers per level (adding to the total led by the captain, and excluding the needed serjeants) and have one extra serjeant per level beyond that that don't directly command troops
* A Serjeant is a 1st level fighter- they can control up to 10 soldiers each (sometimes as few as five)
* A standard soldier is a 0-level man-at-arms.

That means an "average" mercenary company at full strength (e.g. with every commander maxing out their command skills) has around:

1 - 6th level Fighter (Captain)
2 - 3rd level Fighters (Lieutenants)
4 - 2nd level Fighters (Lieutenants)
40 - 1st level Fighters (Serjeants)
260 - 0-level Men-at-Arms

I play E6, so this accords pretty closely to how I would have it. The exceptions being the Captain would more likely be 4th to 5th level, and both the Lieutenants and Sergeants being 3rd - 4th level. For me the difference is more about the nature of the role, Lieutenants are more the Captains advisors and companions, the Sergeants the enforcers. Its likely I would throw a senior Sergeant in there at a level around that of the Captain. Most of the levels would probably be Warrior, with some Expert to broaden the skill base. The QM would probably have as many Expert levels as Warrior levels, for example. The key personnel would probably have a PC level or two. The more seasoned or elite the company, the more PC levels. Standard soldiers would have at least a Warrior level. They are soldiers after all, and a tougher proposition than your average farmer or fishmonger.

thotd

 

[billd91]

How different should a first level fighter be from a common soldier?

Only modestly. I thought the 3e solution to the NPC issue is the best one I've seen so far.

 

[Lanefan]

In my eyes a Fighter (class) is simply a fighter (non-class) who kept at it long enough to get better at it. It's a logical progression from commoner (peasant, townsman, 1st-level magic-user) to 0th-level fighter (town guard, militia, squire, etc.) to 1st-level Fighter, and then on from there. A 1st-level Fighter should not be a guaranteed win against a militiaman one on one (assuming equal stats); though the odds should be in the Fighter's favour the base difference should not be that great.

That said, there's always been loads of empty design space to fill here, to somehow allow for people who - while not true Fighter class - have some significant skill in at least a weapon or two and some h.p. to go with it; without inventing one or more whole new classes just for this. There's also design space to fill with variances among "commoners" - a blacksmith might have more going for her than a simple merchant, who in turn might be able to outfight a librarian...in effect using negative level numbers for their fighting skill (the librarian might be a -2 level fighter for example).

Lanefan

 

[Quickleaf]

Preferably, very different. Soldiers and mercenaries know how to use weapons. Fighters are consummate athletes and masters of the martial arts.

[video=youtube;VSbfrDziiao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSbfrDziiao&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[delericho]

How different should a first level fighter be from a common soldier?

I generally take the view that attaining 1st level in a PC class is less a matter of training than one of choice. That is, Luke Skywalker becomes 1st level when he declares "I want to become a Jedi like my father," Samwise Gamgee when he takes his "one more step" to be the farthest he's ever been from home.

And, specifically for Fighters, what sets apart D'Artagnan from "Musketeer Bob" is that the former has chosen to seek adventure while the latter is 'just' a professional soldier.

In terms of mechanics, I generally feel that 1st level PCs (and NPCs with PC classes) should be notably "a cut above" the norm, but not hugely so - so 3e's approach where PCs got the equivalent of 25-point buy while NPCs got 15-points, and PCs got max hit points where NPCs didn't, and the Fighter got a bonus feat over and above the Warrior all felt about right.

(And I also agree with the post up-thread that said NPC classes should really be capped at about 5th level, except perhaps for the most exceptional of exceptions.)

 

[The Human Target]

I have zero interest in seeing NPCs with class levels back.

 

[Celebrim]

Fighters are often described as better than infantry, your rank-and-file soldiers.

This was true in 3e (which had the warrior NPC class) and 4e (which used different rules for NPCs giving PCs an edge). But in 1e and 2e, NPC soldiers were either fighters or level 0 commoners (and thus mechanically equal to the pig farmer).

How different should a first level fighter be from a common soldier?

The essential difference IMO is that fighters are trained and utilize some sort(s) of formal martial discipline/art, and warriors are untrained, self-taught, and unprofessional with duties that usually involve doing more than just fighting. Essentially, IMO, warriors are commoners that occasionally are forced to defend themselves or engage in low intensity seasonal raiding/theft and spend the rest of the year as subsistance hunters and farmers.

I rarely actually utilize the warrior class. When I do, it's for more primitive or more rural cultures where they tend to replace commoners on a nearly 1 to 1 basis in the demographics.

As far as I can tell, the warrior existed to provide backward compatibility with the concept of the 0th level fighting man and with humanoid leaders in 1st edition who had additonal HD but not class abilities. Since my 1e game had evolved to be little like that by the time I switched from 1e to 3e, I didn't feel the need for the backwards compatibility.

I agree with the idea that there doesn't seem to be much reason for warriors ever to be above about 5th level. If a character had so much experience in combat that they reach 5th level, you'd think at some point that progress beyond just being tough occasional combatants and become true fighters. This is especially true because there is no minimum entry requirements into a class in stock 3.X. The logical progression above 0th level fighter was first level fighter.

I don't agree this is necessarily true of the other NPC classes. I've used a 9th level commoner combined with 5's or less in STR, DEX, and CON to represent an elderly clan matriarch. Just last night I used a 12th level expert - assuredly one of the highest level characters in the entire region - to represent a craftsman of supernatural ability. For classes that represent ability without combat ability - non-adventuring types - it makes sense that a character could continue in his or her life path without necessarily picking up a lot of focused fighting skill. That being said, I have removed 'Aristocrat' and 'Adept' from my list of classes, and I'm working toward making Expert viable as a PC class. One of the things I liked about 3e is it removed the artificial distinction between an NPC and a PC. I don't mind if their a more natural distinction - PC's are 'just' extraordinary individuals - but I like that they play by the same rules. If I want a simple to run NPC, I'll just use a stock stat block with a simple spell list and/or easy to run feats.

Minion rules and other purely gamist elements just make me want to puke. I know why people want them, but I just can't suspend disbelief for that sort of thing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]
I agree that the idea of a high level warrior seems nonsensical. In a class/level approach, class is what you do and level is how good you are at it. Someone who specializes in fighting and is good at it should be a fighter, not a high level warrior.

The NPC classes simply weren't thought out enough, though they are a much more comprehensive approach than the patchwork rules we've seen in other editions.