Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6269393" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification