The worst Warriors

[S'mon]

S'mon: I too tend to modify the stats of NPC humans (especially) - and to a lesser extent all PC races - ever so slightly, by taking a point from here and putting it there so that they are more suited to thier occupation. For instance, average city gaurds in my campaign can be expected to be something like STR 13, DEX 12, CON 13, INT 8, WIS 9, CHR 8. You can justify this by noting that the population of the PC races (humans in particular) is alot higher than the population of say, Hobgoblins. The average Hobgoblin warrior probably does represent the broad cross section of his race because a far greater proportion of his race (in most campaigns) is given over to warriors. On the other hand, maybe something less than 1:30 humans in a civilized area is a professional warrior so the humans can afford to be a little more choosy and specialized. And, even among Hobgoblins, I'm inclined to trade a few points around at times. For instance, I might make half the hobgoblins archers and shift points into Dex to give them an extra +1 bonus to dex (at the cost of perhaps strength), and maybe make some of them swordsmen and shift points into Str (at the cost of perhaps dex).

Good point - in most fantasy worlds, pretty much every hobgoblin (say) is a warrior, so arguably the Monster Manual hobgoblin is the equivalent of the human Commoner-1 farmer. This implies that human groups where all adult males are expected to fight - nomad and barbarian tribes, eg - should have mooks with average 10-11 stats, but city guards represent only 1% of the city population (according to DMG) so although most are still 1st level (according to DMG) it would be reasonable to slant their average stats away from the norm and towards those suited to physical combat. I'm thinking of using something like STR 12 IN 9 WIS 11 DEX 10 CON 11 CH 10 for city guards in future - still 'average' stats but a bit more effective.

Also on an unrelated note, anyone else think 3e hobgoblins got the shaft? How come orcs are suddenly so much more dangerous? Did Gruumsh secretly take over Hasbro?

 

[Celebrim]

I don't particularly think that Hobgoblins 'got the shaft', in terms of thier abilities: +2 dex, +2 con, +4 move silently is nice, and they don't have penalties to wis or int. I would consider playing a Hob character. I think that Hobgoblins seem less dangerous than Orcs for two reasons. First the designers min/maxed Orc fighting equipment, and gave the Hobs equipment that more or less min/maxed thier stealth. This is ok if you give the Hobs reasonable chances of surprising the party and let the Hobs have a tactical advantage (they are supposed to be cunning), but in a straight up fight you should give the Hobs more militant equipment.

I do think Goblins got the shaft, or at least that they were poorly converted from 1st edition.

If we give the Hobs scale mail and large shields, the AC of thier front line fighters rises to 17 (at the cost of making them clanky and unable to surprise). If we make 1/3rd of thier force archers with longbows (and better yet move a point of str over to dex and min/max the archers a little), suddenly the force becomes competitively dangerous.

The other reason is while the Hobgoblins stats are in line with traditional first edition abilities, the Orcs are not. Orcs never did extra damage on attacks due to strength. The reason that they do now, is that the designers wanted to justify the fact that a half-orc gets +2 str. This creates the odd situation that Orcs (tradiationally 1 HD creatures) now have better THAC0 than Hobgoblins (tradiationally 1+1 HD creatures use a better collumn on the table). One way to handle this would be assume that many if not most Hobgoblins (unlike thier less disciplined foes) are true Fighters, and give them 1 more h.p. and one Weapon Focus feat. This is in fact what I do, which returns Hobgoblins to the scariness that I feel they should have. However, many people have problems with making 'PC classes' common. I however make no real distinction between PC's and NPC's. All my NPC's are min/maxed within the limitations of thier attributes (an average NPC always has average attributes) and job profile (a merchant is min/maxed as a merchant unless I want him to be inept for some RP reason) and are played as cunningly as I think their intelligence warrants.

"...in most fantasy worlds, pretty much every hobgoblin (say) is a warrior, so arguably the Monster Manual hobgoblin is the equivalent of the human Commoner-1 farmer."

That's what I feel.

I'd like to point out here that I think that the DMG writer really dropped the ball in the class description of Commoners. He writes that in areas were commoners have to drive off regular attacks of Gnolls (or something like that) that they will have several levels (or something like that).

That's ubsurd. In areas were commoners have to drive off regular attacks of Gnolls, all the commoners are dead or fled as refugees a long time ago. In border areas, average humans are warriors just as average orcs and hobgoblins are warriors. So, in a border area, every male in the village (and maybe some of the women depending on the culture) is a War1 or War2 - just like the orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls across the border.

The same is true of nomads, and possibly barbarian tribes, though I'd like to think that the average members of barbarian tribes are well - barbarians.

Commoners only become the common class in sheltered areas were combat skills are of little real value.

Likewise, I feel that in civilized areas, the goverment is capable of fielding entire armies of well trained Ftr1's and Ftr2's. Warriors only exist in numbers in areas were literate sophisticated professional training is scarce. I don't think that NPC's don't take PC classes because they have some enherent quality that prevents it. I think that they don't take PC classes either because they don't have the oppurtunity or don't need them.

It is for this reason I think it ubsurd to suggest that there are commoners, warriors, adepts, and barbarians (the illiterate classes) in Grey Elven society, given that Grey Elven society ought to represent the pinical of literate sophistication in most campaigns (that have Grey Elves).

 

[mmadsen]

I don't particularly think that Hobgoblins 'got the shaft', in terms of thier abilities: +2 dex, +2 con, +4 move silently is nice, and they don't have penalties to wis or int.

Those are definitely good abilities. I have to wonder about the Move Silently bonus though. It doesn't fit the Hobgoblins' description or their Uruk-hai roots. (It does, of course, fit the "goblin" part of their name though.)

I do think Goblins got the shaft, or at least that they were poorly converted from 1st edition.

I'd love to see the typical Goblin done up as a 1st-level Rogue, not a 1st-level Warrior. Of course, the whole notion of a Warrior class is an excuse to give 1-HD humanoids 1d8 Hit Points and no Feats, just like 1E. If they're supposed to be inferior Fighters, the should be lower-level Fighters -- but the game doesn't go below 1st-level without some tweaking.

The other reason is while the Hobgoblins stats are in line with traditional first edition abilities, the Orcs are not. Orcs never did extra damage on attacks due to strength. The reason that they do now, is that the designers wanted to justify the fact that a half-orc gets +2 str. This creates the odd situation that Orcs (tradiationally 1 HD creatures) now have better THAC0 than Hobgoblins (tradiationally 1+1 HD creatures use a better collumn on the table).

Good point.

However, many people have problems with making 'PC classes' common.

Well, any normal society should be full of people with normal jobs -- Experts and Commoners in D&D terms -- not wild adventurers, but I don't see why career soldiers shouldn't be Fighters.

I'd like to point out here that I think that the DMG writer really dropped the ball in the class description of Commoners. He writes that in areas were commoners have to drive off regular attacks of Gnolls (or something like that) that they will have several levels (or something like that).

That's ubsurd. In areas were commoners have to drive off regular attacks of Gnolls, all the commoners are dead or fled as refugees a long time ago. In border areas, average humans are warriors just as average orcs and hobgoblins are warriors. So, in a border area, every male in the village (and maybe some of the women depending on the culture) is a War1 or War2 - just like the orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls across the border.

Ideally a militiaman would be Com1/Ftr1, or something like that, but a 1st-level 3E character is already a fully-realized adult, and we can't divvy up that single level without special apprentice (0-level) rules.

It is for this reason I think it ubsurd to suggest that there are commoners, warriors, adepts, and barbarians (the illiterate classes) in Grey Elven society, given that Grey Elven society ought to represent the pinical of literate sophistication in most campaigns (that have Grey Elves).

I think I'd go even one step further and suggest a Technical Fighter (or Martial Artist) class for fencing instructors, martial hobbiests, and centuries-old High-Elf soldiers. It would have even more Feats than the Fighter (one per level), but a smaller Hit Die (1d6) to reflect that lack of actual combat. (Unfortunately, such a class is strictly inferior to the Fighter for the first two levels.)

 

[mmadsen]

From testing them out in practice, I think I've found that the worst warriors are Gray Elves. Having both a -2 Str and -2 Con make them really stink in a stand-up fight.

Does this surprise you?

I've also discovered that Toughness feat is really pretty good for human warriors to choose for their free human bonus feat. That extra 3 hit points let's them hold up longer.

Toughness is great at low levels; it's only worthless once you get past those lower levels.

 

[DrSkull]

Re: Re: The worst Warriors

Does this surprise you?

Toughness is great at low levels; it's only worthless once you get past those lower levels.

It didn't surprise me that they were less than the best, but I thought perhaps their AC bonus (and I even gave them better armor than humans and halflings too) would make up for a good deal of the shortfall, but I was mistaken. Gray Elves got chopped up like cardboard things by a cardboard cutting-thing.

 

[mmadsen]

It didn't surprise me that they were less than the best, but I thought perhaps their AC bonus (and I even gave them better armor than humans and halflings too) would make up for a good deal of the shortfall, but I was mistaken.

I didn't realize you gave them better armor. Anyway, the -2 Str means -1 to hit and -1 damage. Obviously a -1 to hit offsets a +1 AC. The -2 Con means -1 hp/level, which means 3 hp, not 4, per level. To make up for that, they'd have to get hit just three fourths as often, and +1 AC won't do that unless you're already only getting hit on a natural 17 or better. (And if we ignore their -1 to-hit for a moment, since it gives their opponents +1 AC, effectively.)

 

[mmadsen]

My point was that if in fact they are far inferior to other races as warriors, then they will probably never (or almost never) be warriors. Instead of fielding armies of war1's, they are almost certainly fielding armies that are almost entirely composed of wizards. Otherwise, they would have gone extinct - with no chance of surviving even the first Orc invasion.

Should a typical long-lived Gray Elf be 1st level? Or should he be Exp3/Wiz1/Ftr1? (Of course, the extra Hit Dice, even for non-combatant levels, make that awkward. Should a long, peaceful life make you hard to kill?)

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Re: Whew!

I was getting worried there. I saw the thread name, and I figured it was another rant on how much monks suck.

By the way, I tend to give even NPC warriors +2 to Str, Dex, and Con -- or at least Str. You'd expect soldiers to be a little above average on those stats, methinks.

Not necesarrily. Most midevil armies, ESPECIALLY the front line guys, were usually conscripts and the like. Just your average joe farmer. He may be used to hard work, but with his living conditions this would not necesarily translate to better STR or CON. The less fantasy and more realistic you go, the more the opposite would be true. You've got to have someone soak up those arrows and cavalry charges. Knights were exspensive.

Of course, with the leadership feat, it would probably be easier to get better soldiers, but that is not going to work for standing armies. For large cities, you would probably find the best warriors either training, or as the city watch.

As for grey elves, imagine a group of Warriors with good DEX, Rapid Shot, and Improved Crtitical. Or any combo of bow feats. Their range ability would mean that they could get in several attack rounds before you get in range. If you charge, they just hit you easier. Grey elves are scary in their own right.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Whew!

As for grey elves, imagine a group of Warriors with good DEX, Rapid Shot, and Improved Crtitical. Or any combo of bow feats.

Warriors with Improved Critical? I don't know how many 8th-level Warriors there are out there -- aren't they supposed to be Fighters at that point? -- but anything less isn't good enough for Improved Critical. The prereqs: proficiency with the weapon and BAB +8 or higher.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

My fault on that one. I was just trying to show a strength that the grey elves would have. If they took Weapon Focus and Rapid shot, they would have two attacks with no penalty, taking their +2 DEX into account. Even better if they had a beter DEX, cought their foes flat footed, ect.