How different are Fighters from common soldiers/warriors?

[Dungeoneer]

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?

Historically speaking, they are no different.

In chainmail a 'fighting man' was a soldier in your army. The fighting man was ported over pretty much as-written to oD&D, albeit with hit points instead of hits.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]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.

I don't think that the problem was lack of thought so much as the desire by the designers to show continuity with past editions (contrast 4th and 5th edition) trumping what might have been a more unified design.

There are lots of little things where they kludged the system simply to make it familiar, or included things just as a nod to the old ways of doing things. Since the old rules were patch work, the new rules had to be patchwork as well.

If they'd made a bunch of changes away from how people expected the game to be, there would have been a lot more complaints of 'Kobolds have 1/2 HD. This isn't real D&D'.

 

[the Jester]

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

Very. Different enough that a 1st level fighter against a 'common soldier'- whether a "0 level" npc, a level 1 warrior, or whatever- ought to have an edge.

As far back as the original game goes, a starting fighter was a veteran with all that this implies.

This. 1st level pcs are exceptional, imho.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This. 1st level pcs are exceptional, imho.

The way I look at it is they're exceptional because they have better ability scores, not for any other mechanical reason.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me, everything is centered around the story and the PC's place in it. I don't partake in the whole "top-down" view of world creation. So it's not so much that there's a difference between Fighters and common soldiers... it's that there's a difference between the Protagonists of our story (who might have levels of Fighter) and all the other non-Antagonists they run into.)

So for me... the game mechanics for these common soldiers are all based around what makes the most sense story-wise when put up against my Protagonists. If they are a group of thugs a PC is up against and meant to go through quickly to show off his derring-do... they might be level 1 Minions. If they are a part of an army in a large battlefield war... they might be several Swarms of like 100 men each. If it's a single guy who is wanting to be a henchman, perhaps he matches the PC's class but is several levels lower.

I don't have any need to try and put these non-Antagonists in a kind of objective "power chart" when compared to the other important players of the world (IE needing to make a 'Warrior' NPC class that is less powerful than a Fighter class so that common soldiers are "not as strong" than Fighter PCs.) All NPCs are only mechanically important to me as a reflection of what my PCs need to tell their story. So a Level 1 Brute Minion, a Level 5 Fighter, or a Level 15 Army Soldier Swarm are all exactly the same to me because of their place in the world narratively-- and not because of the numbers in their stat block.

 

[Obryn]

The way I look at it is they're exceptional because they have better ability scores, not for any other mechanical reason.

For me, that's only part of it.

Most of the world will never be an Olympic athlete. They may be good at their sports, but they lack the combination of drive, talent, training, and insight. Raw physical ability is only part of that.

Fighters are the Olympic athletes of martial arts.

 

[Cadence]

Fighters are the Olympic athletes of martial arts.

Potential future medalists anyway. At low levels I still want them to be able to be beaten by the cagey experienced person who might have plateaued out. A good judge of talent should be able to see who's clearly the better long-term investment though.

 

[Obryn]

Potential future medalists anyway. At low levels I still want them to be able to be beaten by the cagey experienced person who might have plateaued out. A good judge of talent should be able to see who's clearly the better long-term investment though.

Fair enough, yep! No argument here.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So for me... the game mechanics for these common soldiers are all based around what makes the most sense story-wise when put up against my Protagonists.

I think that's really the crux of the disagreement. Does the narrative, in itself, carry any weight? If so, then the class needs to carry a lot of the burden for what makes the PC better than the NPC. If the narrative doesn't carry any weight - if we're just trying to model some objective reality out there - then a low-level Fighter is sufficient for modeling someone who isn't as good at fighting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For me, that's only part of it.

Most of the world will never be an Olympic athlete. They may be good at their sports, but they lack the combination of drive, talent, training, and insight. Raw physical ability is only part of that.

Fighters are the Olympic athletes of martial arts.

That makes sense. But to me, it's a two-phase thing. First, the players get to play some of the world's most talented individuals (ability scores). Then, by virtue of their talent, they're able to excel and survive in a tough world (gain levels). An Olympic athlete is represented by someone with high ability scores and a high level.

What I don't think is necessary is a third metric for determining how good people are; i.e. the categorical PC class vs. NPC class distinction.