A soldier caste system based on weaponry(4e, but fluff is universal :D)

[DragonBaneDM]

In my Villians Campaign, the party is making their way across a valley with several towns and cities in it, softening up the defenses along the way for their boss, an evil overlord, to come in and take the place over.

The next city they're going to is Rorn, a very Sparta-esque town based around and led by the military. I've figured out a pretty unique way to organize the ranks, though. Since Rorn's military is by no means a one trick pony, I'm making each citizen's place in the caste system relative to their weapon of choice.

Two dilemmas are therefore presented to me:

1. How many should I make? I know I want a Blademaster, Sheildbearer, Axewielder, Archer, and Spearmaster caste, but am I overlooking anything?

2. How should they be ranked? By how much damage the weapon does? It makes sense that the Rornians would rank their caste's by the effectiveness of the weapon. What's a good order for this and why?

[Hashmir]

Well, they don't have to be ranked, with one on top of another. Instead, the culture could have very rigidly defined roles for each type of person.

They could have some sort of ritual when children are very young, where they "test" the child for proficiency. The details can be up to you, but the point is that this is what determines the child's path. From that point on, society drills an expected set of physical and personality traits into them:

Shieldbearers are trained to be large and fearless, and signs of "intellectual" pursuits are punished
Blademasters are expected to be swift and sneaky, and must brave a gauntlet of swinging blade traps to get their food
Spearmasters are forced to hunt to survive, and are raised to be emotionally as well as physically distant from others

You get the idea. It's not so much that any are better than the others, just different. Make the fluff whatever you want, and consider looking into the stats required for each weapon; whether a weapon requires wisdom, dexterity, or constitution might suggest what is valued in those people.

Also keep in mind that it doesn't have to make real sense. Obviously, being emotionally detached isn't required to effectively use a halberd, but it might be reasonable for an ancient society to think so. You might also consider whether actual classes or monster roles are a factor. If spearmasters are in training to become Taclords, then they'll need a sense of community or paternalism instilled in them, and so on.

[Thane of Fife]

Hmm. Here is my suggestion:

1. The first caste rules pretty much everything. They are nominally in charge of the army, but have to spend much of their time governing the city. As such, they get a weapon that shows their status, but not one which requires exceptional training. The sword or axe makes a good fit here. Since these guys run the show, we might give them some choice in the matter.

2. The second caste is basically the military caste. Though the subordinates of the first caste, these guys can spend all of their time training, and so have more complex weapons. If 4e has exotic weapons, then I'd pick one of those for this caste. These might be your shieldbearers.

3. The third caste comprises most of the populace - the craftsmen, farmers, and such. These guys train with a spear or halberd or other polearm, and fight as a unit.

4. The fourth caste is where the teenagers go. They fight with shortswords or knives and have the task of killing hurt enemies.

Archers might be in the third caste. Personally, I'd probably say that 3rd caste women use bows, because such is nominally safer, and if the city loses all of its women, bad things will happen. You might prefer to have archers be a variant of the 3rd caste open to anybody.

If you want to rank by weapon, rather than weapon by rank, then I'd suggest considering:

1. Ease of learning. Somebody who learns a difficult weapon may be more highly respected than someone who learns an easy one.

2. Usefulness to the Group. People with reach weapons may be more highly regarded than those without.

3. Safety. Those who need to close and fight in melee may be more highly respected than those who shoot from the outskirts.

Economically speaking, the value of the weapon to the group should be about equal to the value of the stuff being given up to use it. If a crossbowman trains less often than a swordsman and is in a less dangerous position, then we'll have more crossbowmen than swordmen unless the swordsmen get some sort of benefit. The more of a benefit is given, the more people who will want to be swordsmen. We need to set the benefit to cost ratio such that we get about the right number of crossbowmen and swordsmen.

[AtwasAwamps]

I’d actually suggest that you have separate ranks within each group, equivalent to one another. Have a sort of friendly rivalry between each part of the military, then they work together as a cohesive unit in battle.

Something like this for each “type” exists in my head:

Soldier (rank and file, lowest member, formidable warrior, but really just a soldier)
Master of 10 (Commands 10 soldiers as a single fighting unit)
Master of 100 (oversees 10 Mo10s and their men as a larger fighting unit)
Master of 1000 (oversees 10 Mo100s and their men as a major fighting unit)
Grand Warlord (2nd in command)
Grand Master (General in command of this type of troop)

Each of these orders could have these ranks and all of them could answer to, say, three commanding generals, who answer directly to the king. For an example, the Blademasters order would be:

Aaron Edgedancer, Lord High Blademaster (Grand Master)
Cressia Annata, Blademaster Tactician (Grand Warlord)
5 Bonedeep Commanders (Masters of 1000)
50 Bloodblade Commanders (Masters of 100)
500 Blademaster Sergeants (Masters of 10)
5000 Blade Soldiers (soldiers)

This is just random gibbering off the top of my head. Not sure its interesting or viable at all, though. It's more sort of a building block army.

[Mando Knight]

I'd rank 'em by the price of their gear: swords are always expensive, so the Blademasters are top dog. Shieldbearers are next, since they need both a weapon and a stout shield... unless they've got similar swords to the Blademasters, in which case they swap places. Then Axe men, since they have more brutal weaponry than the other remaining three and require more weapon maintenance. The bottom rung are the Archers and the Spearmen, who are outfitted with weapons that have a minimal amount of worked metal, which makes them easier to be used as the rank and file of the army.

With the exceptions of pikes vs cavalry and a well-trained archer vs almost anything, this is also roughly analogous to the effectiveness of the weapons.

[DragonBaneDM]

Actually. The interesting thing I'm doing with the Shieldbearers is that I'm giving them JUST a sheild.

Now, for a PC, that's ridiculous, but for a monster, it works really well.

It'll be called a GreatShield. It's a big two-handed shield that covers everything but the head, BIG old chunka metal...

Anyway, they focus around bashing and swinging this thing around as a weapon, as well as protecting their allies.

I'm thinking Blademasters on top, followed by Axes, then Shields, then Archers, then Spears, cause I see the point that most peasant levies in the Middle Ages used them.

[LibraryOgre]

I would go with a modified price structure.

Top dog should probably be Swordbearers. Swords require a fair bit of practice and, more importantly, have no purpose other than war... you don't have hunting swords or work swords, generally.

Second rank should be Shieldbearers. These are the lieutenants and trusted allies of the Swordbearers... their job is to protect the Swordbearer, so he can continue to command.

The vast majority would be spearbearers. Spears are cheap and relatively easy to use, so your majority can be expected to keep them around and train with them.

To the side should be the Archers and the Axebearers. These are specialist troops... Axebearers are shock troopers, capable of great damage at the expense of themselves (i.e. two-handed weapons, charging, etc.). Archers are specialists in precision. Their lower ranks may use crossbows.

I might also throw in a "Nightmaster" caste, also to the side. Ostensibly members of the spearchuckers, they're really specialists in infiltration and assassination.

[Mando Knight]

In that case, yeah, axes are going to be on top of shields, if only because the shields lack anything that isn't a gigantic target to the axe.

It probably wouldn't be entirely metal, though. If it's a sufficiently large shield that it's your primary weapon, it's too large to make entirely out of iron. Hides stretched over wood with iron bands around the edges and a spike or something in the center are far more practical, with functional fully metal shields probably being the right and privilege of high-ranking Shieldbearers.