What makes an NPC a warrior instead of a fighter or barbarian?

[Yora]

This is something that often bothers me. What really is the in-universe difference between a fighter and a warrior? I see that it's an easier way to quickly stat up and run NPC opponents that are of no real relevance to the adventure and just faceless masses to be killed quickly.

But once you get to higher levels, what reasons do people use to decide whether to make a 6th level warrior or a 5th level fighter?

I think the adept class is almost never used anywhere since any NPC that is worth to be given spellcasting is important enough to be given levels in cleric or sorcerer. Now expert and aristocrat have some justification because of how they handle skills, and adepts are easily kicked without a second glance.
But if I run a game where you essentially have viking clans, orc hordes, and Indian tribes and everyone is supposed to be somewhat badass, I am not sure who would be justified to get fighter and barbarian levels and who has to stay a lowly warrior.

[MukkTB]

The meta reason for someone being a bad NPC class is the DM wanting them not be so badass for narrative purposes.

The best in world reason I can give for NPC classes is that the NPCs were not exposed to the quality of training that PCs get or they didn't work as hard with what they had. In a few cases the PCs are special because they inherited dragon blood or something - like the Sorcerer.

When I DM, most notable (named) NPCs are not in an NPC class. However, guard #24 is probably a warrior. Bob the Barbarian, leader of the Northern Horde is probably a Barbarian. His elite cadre of fighters are probably Barbarians. He might have a Cleric around. Then most of Bob's lower down followers are warriors. On the other hand, Prince John, never really tried that hard at anything. He never expected to be in an adventuring party. His preferred lifestyle is attending social gatherings, drinking, sports, and flirting with noblewomen. His class is aristocrat. His father King Lional was a much more hands on guy. He was knowledgeable and skilled at governance, having taken the class rogue so as to have lots of skillpoints.

[HurinTheCursed]

Maybe because the best teachers are asking too much for them ? Because these fighter guys get most dangerous jobs and some people prefer not being wounded every day/week/month ?
If they can't go to the prestious fighter school, they might pick a warrior school because it's better than failing and being a commoner ?

From the individual prospect, not everyone can get the best formation available, some people lack talent, some lack money or have to get jobs when trained...
From a nation's prospect, it needn't train 10000s parachutists / marines / seals / legion etrangere fighters when they need 1000 but 10000s local police / night guardians

[JusticeZero]

I can't see much point behind there being more than one level of Warrior.
Personally, I just give Fighter 1 to trained soldiers. If they need to still be cannonfoddery, they just don't get more levels. I can see a level of Warrior as being a template to add to a peasant to show "minor combat training", but if they get more experience, upgrade them to Fighter.

[HowlingWolf]

Hiya,

All in all, there area many different ways to look and approach the topic. On one hand, the fighter can be used to represent elite warriors, special forces,
etc--while the warrior would be used to represent the greater bulk of the rank-and-file. It can also reflect the level of quality, time, and effort put into
it. Also, the NPC class warrior is often used to represent common soldiers,
rank-and-file, and the typical sword or axe-swinger. I believe it is mainly done this way to ensure that the PC's are the "Cream of the crop" and maintain an hero-esque appearance. I'm sure there are very few people whom want to play a character whom swings a sword, but little else.

[Spiryt]

Basically, it's nPC classes are good tool to give someone quite a few traits/numbers one wants, while still keeping that at rather low 'power'.

So ordinary tribesman/townsfolk who can bounce, kick some weaker folk around, been in battle or two, but cannot really wield any weapon masterfully, cannot fly in inhuman rage, cannot face deathly threats in calculated manner, doesn't have almost unnatural ('Uncanny') reflexes, and so on, an so on .

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I mostly use the NPC classes to divide characters between the common and the 'heroic' ones. While most high level NPCs are actually 'heroic' ones, there are some exceptions, in the campaign I'm DMing.

One such example is Sir Alder, who was a squire who followed and helped Sir Cedric Lionheart, a PC knight. After surviving a difficult battle against a Chuul (he actually saved the group by succeeding in an near impossible grapple check to free the knight), he got enough experience to go up more than one level, and he became important enough in-game. Even so, he was still just a soldier from the militia who had been promoted to a squire. Thus, he started getting levels in Warrior until level 5, when he was knighted and started receiving training from the kingsguard. His next level was a Fighter level and he retrained one of his Warrior levels, making him a Warrior 4/Fighter 2.

The point is: in my case, I use the NPC classes whenever the character is not exactly a hero. This can be altered, as the case above shows. Ah, and I actually use adepts in many cases. Clerics are not simply servants of the gods. They are chosen by them, in a way that enables them to perform real miracles. Adepts are those with enough faith to channel the power of the gods, but they were not chosen for greatness. Many preachers in the campaign are actually experts.

[StreamOfTheSky]

According to Complete Warrior, warriors are supposed to be the normal soldiers in an army that make up the bulk of the corps while as fighters are the officers, elite knights, etc...

Warrior basically exists so that fighters don't have to represent all the thousands of troops in an army and thus look kind of weak and unspecial compared to other PC classes, like say... wizard.

[Keld Denar]

Warrior is kinda nice because it's lower CR than a Fighter with equal HD. That means that a Warrior 6 has somewhere between 6-8 more HP than a Fighter 6 while only being CR5. It also has a 2nd attack.

I like to add a level of Warrior onto a lot of things because it doesn't change the CR. I was running "A Night Below" for my family, and it has grells in it. There are normal grells, grell "champions", and then the grell casters. I made the grell champions Grell Warrior1s because it bumps them to the elite array, gives them more HP, and bumps them to 6 HD so they get an extra feat with no increase in CR. It makes the fight a little tougher, but only a little.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I normally make low-level priests at a temple, or young students at a mages' academy adepts instead of clerics or wizards. I also normally readjust their spell list/class features a bit, but keep the idea of them having decent amounts of health but not that much power.

For warriors, I normally have them play the role of city/town guard. The sheriff or captain is the fighter, and the standard cop is a warrior. They aren't the professional soldier like the captain is, they're just a pretty strong dude who knows how to use a sword and can wear armor.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Warrior is kinda nice because it's lower CR than a Fighter with equal HD. That means that a Warrior 6 has somewhere between 6-8 more HP than a Fighter 6 while only being CR5. It also has a 2nd attack.

I like to add a level of Warrior onto a lot of things because it doesn't change the CR. I was running "A Night Below" for my family, and it has grells in it. There are normal grells, grell "champions", and then the grell casters. I made the grell champions Grell Warrior1s because it bumps them to the elite array, gives them more HP, and bumps them to 6 HD so they get an extra feat with no increase in CR. It makes the fight a little tougher, but only a little.

Yeah, this is more about how wrong the CR system is than anything else. There is not much appreciable difference between a Fighter 10 and Warrior 10, they should be the same CR, about. On the other hand, a Wizard 10 should not be the same CR as a Fighter 10.

[ericgrau]

Quite simply PCs are special, most NPCs are not. Warriors should usually also have the following array for ability scores: 13,12,11,10,9,8. And they should use the treasure tables for equipment rather than NPC WBL. Between ability scores, equipment and, yes, feats, all put together it does make a big difference.

If you want a rule of thumb, if it has a name and background it's a fighter, if it doesn't have a name it's a warrior.

That does make a warrior 6 a bit of a self-contradiction, for an ordinary person to get so far, but it can happen.

[Rhynn]

I shamelessly decide based on story importance and the CR and toughness I want them to have. Generally, I make "rank and file" warriors, and they're almost never of a high level (even 5-6). Officers, knights, elites, etc. are fighters.


I made the grell champions Grell Warrior1s because it bumps them to the elite array

This is a horrible nitpick, but it actually gives them the 13 12 11 10 9 8 array. :smallredface: Still, that can be useful too - most monsters have 2+ ability scores they don't need.

ericgrau's post implies this, but I wanted to connect these points.

[RogueDM]

I've always used Warriors, even those higher than lvl 1, for burlier bust less skilled fighters. Less capable or strategic, but with more HD to pose at least some slight challenge (at least en masse). The in universe difference is that the PCs are exceptional, even says so in the Abilities section of the PHB.

If we take Gygax's Living Fantasy as any sort of guideline he approximated that in a given population 1% of the population was distinctly Good or Evil, and of those only 1% were truly heroic or villainous, worthy of significant levels of a PC Class. Of course as a DM you have to escalate to challenge your party, but this was a good rule-of-wrist for the average demographic.

But, to answer the OP's question in the simplest terms: Warriors are mostly just dumb or less skilled fighters. Compare your properly trained soldier or Police Officer to Mall Security. Skinned the same, but no matter how long you're Mall Security you probably wont compare with a Soldier of similar experience where combat prowess in concerned. Unless, of course, there's multi-classing involved.

An aside, I would certainly hope a Fighter and Warrior of comparable levels wouldn't fall under the same CR. If memory serves the major difference is the plethora of Feats, which should factor in here.

[Yora]

I think one guideline that also could work well is to have fighters be full-time soldiers, while warriors only train some times of the year and don't see battle on a regular basis. The peasants in an army would be warriors, the knights would be fighters. Or the soldiers who hang around the jarls castle all day would be fighters, while all the farmers and craftsmen who take up arms for a raid would be warriors.

More strictly, such characters would probably be multiclass commoner/warriors and expert/warrior, but for simplicity they just get the one class that is the most important for them.

[Flickerdart]

High-level NPCs should never be Warriors, because there's really no point. I can see the reasoning behind high-level Experts and Aristocrats, who actually have high skill DCs they need to hit and don't really go into battle that often, but beyond level 3 or so you should be either a Fighter or dead.

[Yora]

I think all the NPC classes should end after 4th or 6th level or so. After that, they don't make any sense anymore.

[TuggyNE]

According to Complete Warrior, warriors are supposed to be the normal soldiers in an army that make up the bulk of the corps while as fighters are the officers, elite knights, etc...

Warrior basically exists so that fighters don't have to represent all the thousands of troops in an army and thus look kind of weak and unspecial compared to other PC classes, like say... wizard.

<obligatory "of course 3.x doesn't do that right" remark>

:smallamused:

Seriously, though, I agree that that was the intent, but it lacked somewhat in execution.

[Rhynn]

I think all the NPC classes should end after 4th or 6th level or so. After that, they don't make any sense anymore.

Pretty much agreed, and this is pretty much what I do. If the king is 15th-level, he's probably not a freaking Aristocrat, but has some actual abilities relevant to the D&D fantasy world.

[Spiryt]

Pretty much agreed, and this is pretty much what I do. If the king is 15th-level, he's probably not a freaking Aristocrat, but has some actual abilities relevant to the D&D fantasy world.

But why?

King doesn't have to do anything supernatural, that happens at 15th level, he just needs charisma, leading skills, personal authority, etc. probably administrations skills as well.

He doesn't have to do anything really well anyway, his whole point is that huge amount of people is going to do something really well in his name.

[Squirrel_Dude]

To be fair, a medieval fantasy king may be expected to also have some levels in fighter/knight or in some rarer cases, paladin or cleric.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Yora
I think one guideline that also could work well is to have fighters be full-time soldiers, while warriors only train some times of the year and don't see battle on a regular basis.

Exactly this. Not long ago I followed this approach for a seafaring scenario, in which a raiding-party from the Moonshaes attacked a larger ship passing through their waters. Most of the raiders on the drakkar's oars were fyrdmen, young guys fresh off the farm who were on their first cruise; these guys were warriors. A smaller cadre of more experienced raiders, the skjoldmen, were sword-and-board fighters.

The fyrdmen had lesser-quality armor and gear, and most of them would probably go back to farming off and on, alternating with raiding when they felt like it. The skjoldmen were tough, successful raiders with much better equipment and a harder, more focused attitude toward their enterprise. For me, these two groups fit naturally into the warrior/fighter paradigm that Yora describes.

[Duke of Urrel]

In the fantasy world that I manage as a DM, warriors are simply average fighter types with average rather than elite abilities. Fighters, barbarians, knights, monks, and so forth all have elite abilities. All of these elite classes are in the minority, outnumbered everywhere by warriors.

I also distinguish commoners and experts as follows: Commoners are all average, with average abilities, but experts have elite abilities. Experts in my world are simply elite commoners. Therefore, commoners are a majority and experts a minority.

Aristocrats in my world are both average and elite, and most are average. Blue blood has no real advantage.

[Urpriest]

But why?

King doesn't have to do anything supernatural, that happens at 15th level, he just needs charisma, leading skills, personal authority, etc. probably administrations skills as well.

He doesn't have to do anything really well anyway, his whole point is that huge amount of people is going to do something really well in his name.

I think the point is, such a King doesn't need to be 15th level. Most Kings won't be. A King who's 15th level is a king who can fight a Hamatula. He's not just an ordinary king.

[big teej]

I don't know if this will help at all but I feel it's worth mentioning....

I have never, Categorically Never, in my 5-ish years of DMing EVER used an NPC class instead of a PC class.

it an NPC is so negligibly important as to warrant an NPC class, they likely don't have a class at all, at least not one I've statted out.

Alternative answer: the fact that N is before PC in NPC

same principal as Wildcards in Savage Worlds.

[HurinTheCursed]

I find interesting to note that there are NPC class for martial class, for skill class but not for magic users. As if they would be totally insignificant at level 1 and would still own proper PC mundane class at level 20, even with nerfed spell access.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I find interesting to note that there are NPC class for martial class, for skill class but not for magic users. As if they would be totally insignificant at level 1 and would still own proper PC mundane class at level 20, even with nerfed spell access.

Umm, Adept...

[Yogibear41]

Pretty much agreed, and this is pretty much what I do. If the king is 15th-level, he's probably not a freaking Aristocrat, but has some actual abilities relevant to the D&D fantasy world.

Noble Class from dragonlance campaign setting the PC version of aristocrat.

Reminds me of a bard without spell casting.

[zlefin]

I suppose we could make NPC classes that aren't inferior to the PC classes; but are instead simply classes focused on different things than PCs are. But that doesn't seem like it really adds all that much.

[CRtwenty]

I primarily use the Warrior class to beef up cannon fodder type enemies like Orc Grunts or Kobolds so they still pose a small threat to higher level PCs. Basically the equivalent of advancing HD for monsters that advance by character level. Their saves and bab increase so they can still hit and don't get geeked out by low level magic, but they don't get much else (such as the bonus feats they'd get w/ Fighter levels) and essentially function like they did at low levels, only with higher numbers. I usually deflate their HP as well, so the party isn't fighting hordes of 80hp Orcs.

Fluff wise the difference is stated to be "training". A Warrior is somebody who has been given basic combat or military training and knows how to use a weapon. If he didn't have that he'd be a Peasant or Expert. A Fighter is somebody who has devoted himself to the art of fighting. Which is why he gets extra feats and stuff like Weapon Specialization. It'd be nice if Fighters got more but that's a subject that's been dealt with in other places.

[Kyberwulf]

Huh, as a DM, I never use the "NPC" only classes. I always use PC classes to make my NPCs of any importance. Most commoners I don't even bother stating up. I just give them 1d8 Hps.

[ArcturusV]

Well Zelfin I'd say that's what the Expert is a good chassis for myself. Something that just isn't really a PC thing, fully niche into providing specialties that a typical PC wouldn't necessarily be interested in.

But yeah. As mentioned above I see it as a division of background. Fighters have... something over just "Guy with a Sword". Their feats represent something. A well spring of natural talent in self taught fighters or someone who went to Fighter's Camp '86 and learned Zodiac Kenshido, etc.

And a Barbarian is something else from that trained/naturally talented fighter. Someone who taps into toughness and altered states of mind/body to power through.

A warrior though is someone who lacks the natural talent/specific training of the Fighter, or the savage talents of the Barbarian. It's the guy who was raised on a farm and got gang pressed into the town guard/King's Men. Drilled to be tougher than some mere commoner, sure. Familiar with weapons.

Levels though don't really change it. The guy who earns 5 levels by basically sitting by a gate all day, maybe rousing up some drunks at night, and hassling merchants just isn't going to go "Bing! I gained a level! I'll take Ranger 1/Fighter 1/Barbarian 1 on top of my 3 levels of Warrior!". They'll take another level of Warrior.

I tend to use organic leveling methods for my NPCs as well of course (And PCs I play), where the levels they take depend on what they gained experience doing. You don't just go "Okay, I started as a Warrior 1. Leveled to Warrior 2. Now I'm taking Sorcerer 1" without some explanation.

I don't necessarily hold my PCs to do. Or I REALLY let them stretch the "how" they picked up the skills in the new class they are taking. But I'm harder on NPCs.

[TuggyNE]

I suppose we could make NPC classes that aren't inferior to the PC classes; but are instead simply classes focused on different things than PCs are. But that doesn't seem like it really adds all that much.

Well, they certainly should be inferior to PC classes at PC sorts of things; as long as they have useful things to do, at which they are quite good, that the PCs are quite unlikely to want to do, it's fine.

[Qc Storm]

The way I see it :

People with Warriors levels are the "casual" combatants. They see a fight now and then. Maybe they really like drinking and starting brawls. Maybe they have once or twice defended the realm as militia. Or maybe a guard, who does just that, guard stuff. Not a whole happens in a guard's life when PCs aren't around.

Fighters are people who see fights every week. Either they seek them out, or troubles always seems to follow them. Full-time soldiers would fit in this. As do players. These people are more likely to fight alongside or against worthy foes, and learn from them, hence the bonus feats.

Example :

Bob Nugget is a level 2 warrior. Every now and then, he gets into a fight with alley cats. These cats are powerful encounters, but he has survived so far, and has gained Warrior levels out of it.

[Rhynn]

But why?

The king doesn't need to be 15th-level - he can be a 4th-level aristocrat just fine - but if he is 15th-level, he should probably be personally powerful. At least a fighter. He's King Arthur or Azoun of Cormyr or Gilgamesh or at least a D&D version of William the Conqueror.

[Yahzi]

I think the point is, such a King doesn't need to be 15th level. Most Kings won't be. A King who's 15th level is a king who can fight a Hamatula. He's not just an ordinary king.
I think it's the exact opposite - a King who isn't 15th level won't be king very long. He'll lose his job to the first monster/murder hobo that happens along.

Think in medieval terms: the king was not the king because he was born there, but because he was the best of all men.

The reason the Warrior class exists is so that the DM can spoon-feed the party. One of the worst aspects of D&D - making NPCs deliberately crippled so the party can shine. Ugh.

[Rhynn]

I think it's the exact opposite - a King who isn't 15th level won't be king very long. He'll lose his job to the first monster/murder hobo that happens along.

I don't really agree, no, although it absolutely is a great asset.


Think in medieval terms: the king was not the king because he was born there, but because he was the best of all men.

Not really. You were usually (in Europe) king because you had a claim by blood and support from enough vassals to field an army to support your succession. I wouldn't say John Lackland, for instance, was "the best of all men."

D&D doesn't really model leadership ability (other than the Leadership feat, which just doesn't cut it at all for modelling feudalism), either, so level doesn't quite correlate there.

The main thing about being a ruler is making good decisions, and level doesn't affect that directly.

[ArcturusV]

Actually I'd think the opposite. Medieval style, the King is the King because his Bloodline has Divine Mandate to rule, and it's the eldest surviving heir who takes the throne (in times of peace, foreign conquers or civil war being something else). The Monarchy wasn't a Meritocracy, except again, in times of Civil War where the councils of nobles would put forth who they thought was the best candidate, or the one able to grab up the most allegiances.

Least in broad strokes.

So by that logic the guy who is the DnD world King probably is a low level Aristocrat. Maybe Aristocrat/Expert mix.

It's more in terms of fictional worlds that the merit thing comes into play. Conan is so badass and heroic that he's made King. King Arthur is the best knight in the realm until Lancelot shows up much later, and even then is pretty much number 2. And so on, and so forth.

But unless your king is something like "Most powerful demigod who walks the earth", the rule by being mighty thing probably shouldn't apply to DnD worlds. The game is too geared towards Offense, it's a lot easier to beat someone up than prevent everyone from beating you up. So if the crown is based on "Most badass warrior in the land" they're not going to keep it for all that long.

If it's based on "Has the proper blessings from Tymora to rule, which is tied to the King's Bloodline", well... doesn't matter who kills who, or how powerful they are. Their right to rule is beyond that. Who cares if the King is only a first level Aristocrat? He has the bloodline. Skill ranks? Hell, that's what advisers are for. Killing the rampaging dragon? Just tell the heroes that you'll knight them if they bring proof of the kill.

Edit: And Rhynn snipes me out with a more succinct post.

[Yahzi]

Richard the Lion-heart was the ideal medieval king; John Lackland was presented as an example of corruption of the natural order.

Also, in the real world, the difference between a poor knight and a world-champion knight was like the difference between a college boxer and a world heavy weight boxer. Which is to say, 1st to 3rd level or so.

The disparity between 3rd and 15th, however, is simply too great. You may have noticed that players never respect kings who cannot personally threaten them; why would NPCs be any different? :smallbiggrin:

[Rhynn]

Richard the Lion-heart was the ideal medieval king; John Lackland was presented as an example of corruption of the natural order.

Well, that's the mythology, sure.

Richard was a French king of England who spent his reign in Outremer (and raiding and fighting other Christians) instead of ruling his land. He was also a rebel against his father during his reign.

John was the only one of Henry II's sons who didn't rebel against him, and he was left trying to hold together the realm and support Richard's war (they are expensive). He inherited the throne in perfectly natural order after Richard died. He wasn't a strong king, that much is true - he lost lands in France and lost two barons' revolts. But mostly he was a maligned king, including after his rule.

They were just... kings.


The disparity between 3rd and 15th, however, is simply too great. You may have noticed that players never respect kings who cannot personally threaten them; why would NPCs be any different? :smallbiggrin:

I haven't, at least since we came out of our teens; partly because if the PCs disrespect the ruler, the ruler will have all the powerful people who serve them (settling for a lot of wealth and power, rather than the most wealth and power, in exchange for having a fraction of the responsibility), like marshals, royal guards, court wizards, etc. deal with the PCs.

I don't disagree that you're likely to see high-level rulers; but I think those would almost all be self-made rulers, and the minority. (Or, of course, rulers of real divine heritage!) They're the Conans or the Gilgameshes, people who really came to power through their own strength and ability (rather than their own cunning, which you can do at low level). I think such rulers would come into power regularly, and it's definitely one of the ways dynasties are likely to change in a D&D world. But it's not a prerequisite to rulership, it's just one path.

Being able to kill the king (or even the king and all his bodyguards, court spellcasters, etc.) doesn't make you a king, anyway. All you'll do is create a period of turmoil and maybe a succession crisis if you are Evil and wipe out the king's entire line (including infant sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, as well as brothers, uncles, cousins, etc.). And then you'll have to either fight every other ruler in the realm and their armies, or convince them that you have the right and/or the ability to rule, which is not related to your level.

So, basically, I'm all for relatively high-level rulers, but not as the default. They should stand out even among such an august crowd as kings, queens, and other rulers.

[Yora]

The President of the United states does not grab a gun and starts shoting people in some desert. Unless it's a hollywood movie. Yet the office allowed the people who held it to destroy whole cities with a single word. Because they had people loyal to them who would do it.
In the same way, a king does not have to be a great warrior. He just needs other great warriors to do the fighting for him. And in a fantasy world, also a court mage who doubles as his anti-magic bodyguard.

[hamishspence]

John was the only one of Henry II's sons who didn't rebel against him, and he was left trying to hold together the realm and support Richard's war (they are expensive). He inherited the throne in perfectly natural order after Richard died. He wasn't a strong king, that much is true - he lost lands in France and lost two barons' revolts. But mostly he was a maligned king, including after his rule.

I recall reading that John's name topped the list of people Henry II was forced to pardon at the end of his reign, though- with this being a big "heartbreak" factor for Henry, since John was his favourite legitimate son.

There was another heir to the throne for much of Richard's reign- his nephew Arthur Duke of Brittany- son of John's older brother. Richard apparently designated John as his heir on his deathbed- leading to a war between Arthur and John. Which ended with Arthur's imprisonment and death in captivity.

[paladinofshojo]

The President of the United states does not grab a gun and starts shoting people in some desert. Unless it's a hollywood movie. Yet the office allowed the people who held it to destroy whole cities with a single word. Because they had people loyal to them who would do it.
In the same way, a king does not have to be a great warrior. He just needs other great warriors to do the fighting for him. And in a fantasy world, also a court mage who doubles as his anti-magic bodyguard.



In a modern setting that's true....in a medieval one.....not so much. Kings and warlords are expected to be good with a sword due to the fact that they are supposed to lead their armies personally. This has less to do with precedence and more to do with the fact that medieval kings weren't keen on the idea of giving away command of their military..... Let's not forget that it is a recent concept to separate politics from military. As from ancient Rome to the Mexico at the turn of the century... militaries had always been keen players in politics. It is only by virtue of our checks and balances system and the fact that we divvy up our government into separate branches that our military had not taken over our country. That being said, a king who isn't at least in-name commander of his armed forces is a rather weak king. Even in constitutional monarchies have kings holding some military muscle as proof of their ancient birthrights. History is full of generals who usurp their countries and make bids for political power. That is why monarchies tend to have their monarchs be the sole commander in chief of them to avoid this problem.


Actually I'd think the opposite. Medieval style, the King is the King because his Bloodline has Divine Mandate to rule, and it's the eldest surviving heir who takes the throne (in times of peace, foreign conquers or civil war being something else). The Monarchy wasn't a Meritocracy, except again, in times of Civil War where the councils of nobles would put forth who they thought was the best candidate, or the one able to grab up the most allegiances.


A King's bloodline is worth two hoots unless he can back it up with military might. Case in point, what happened to the "bloodline of Divine Mandate" to William the Conqueror? There had been Plantagenet, Tudors, Stuarts, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and finally the current Windsor. Each of these dynasties had little to no relation to the last and were merely the strongest, the smartest, or just lucky.

The Chinese philosophy of Mandate of Heaven actually seems to be more realistic. As their belief was that if a King was behaving in a manner that displeased the gods, fate and destiny will remove him and his bloodline. Case in point is the Hongwu Emperor, a man who was born a peasant but by rising through military leadership of insurgent forces, he ousted the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty and then established the Ming Dynasty. His bloodline would last for 300 years and the reason why people put up with a peasant is that they sincerely believed that monarchs are blessed by gods not by who their parents were. Which is my in my campaign stories I always have any king/queen be the PC's old characters, only usually epic levels. It's a great way to retire your PCs characters once they get too gamebreakingly powerful BTW.



The way I see it :

People with Warriors levels are the "casual" combatants. They see a fight now and then. Maybe they really like drinking and starting brawls. Maybe they have once or twice defended the realm as militia. Or maybe a guard, who does just that, guard stuff. Not a whole happens in a guard's life when PCs aren't around.

Fighters are people who see fights every week. Either they seek them out, or troubles always seems to follow them. Full-time soldiers would fit in this. As do players. These people are more likely to fight alongside or against worthy foes, and learn from them, hence the bonus feats.


Huh...me thinks that the Wizard had made an error when naming classes... As a warrior by definition is one who actively partakes in war whereas a fighter can mean a warrior, soldier, or even a boxer or UFC participant.... Oh well, not my place to criticize them.

[Yora]

A king may very well be a great warrior. But in that case he would have the combat training that all the knights recieve, justifying giving him fighter levels.
While the Aristocrat class does come with weapon and armor proficiency, I see it mostly as an administrative and diplomatic class. If the King has knight training in addition to that, an Aristocrat/Fighter would be the build I would use.

[Yahzi]

Well, that's the mythology, sure.
D&D is pretty much about the mythology. Anybody that wants to play the reality is playing GURPS. :smallbiggrin:


the ruler will have all the powerful people who serve them (settling for a lot of wealth and power, rather than the most wealth and power, in exchange for having a fraction of the responsibility),
So your nobles don't strive to seize the throne? And you thought my version was mythological! :smallbiggrin:

Yes, the king needs allies to rule; but why would anyone ally with someone who had no power? In the real world, wealth and reputation are the highest power one can have. In the D&D world, wealth and reputation are insignificant compared to 9th level spells or flying invulnerable swordsmen.


Being able to kill the king (or even the king and all his bodyguards, court spellcasters, etc.) doesn't make you a king, anyway.
Er... yes it does. You kill the king, order everyone else to call you king... and they do. Poof. You're the king.

If the other rulers in the realm were capable of destroying the king, they already would have. If they weren't, then they can't destroy you.


convince them that you have the right and/or the ability to rule, which is not related to your level.
The right to rule is defined by your power. In the real world that is measured in armies; in the D&D world it is measured in levels. A 1st level king with 1,000,000 1st level knights loses to the first 9th level of any class that wants his throne.

As for the ability to rule, that is so divorced from kingship that D&D doesn't even have a skill for it. You tell people what to do, and they do it. If you tell them dumb things, your kingdom suffers, but it's not like anybody is going replace you with a better guy. How would they?

[Flickerdart]

If the king is the greatest in the land and is expected to fight...why would he have 15 levels in Aristocrat, anyway? He'd have retrained into some PC classes the second he was important enough to have a name and a fancy chair.

[North_Ranger]

To be fair, a medieval fantasy king may be expected to also have some levels in fighter/knight or in some rarer cases, paladin or cleric.

Lord Shojo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html) might disagree :smallwink:

[RogueDM]

Rulers were selected by strength of arms prior to the ascension of the Middle Class, when you got ahead faster as a Courtier than you did as a Man-At-Arms. Henry IV was not a great warrior, and his son (Henry V) was known as a rarity for taking up the sword and even occasionally stood on the front line (Battle of Agincourt). But it was remarked as being unusual and even a bit surprising, even nobles who had fighting prowess were generally deemed to valuable to get into the thick of things.

Of course the concern wasn't them being killed in battle, but the extremely high cost of having to pay their ransom. Nobles, including knights, seldom intended on killing one another since their livelihood actually rested on capturing wealthy prisoners and ransoming them back to their family/vassals.

In the Low Middle Ages (The Dark Ages) most nobles gained that status by seizing it on the battle field, and later only the gentry could afford plate armor and a proper sword. This is clearly not the case in D&D as every goon on the street is strapped with a sword of some sort, and proper armor is abound. The advent of the middle class, the mercenary, and the professional soldier (not knight) meant that anyone with enough coin or influence could seize power from the safety of their own keep. Political and financial machinations began to trump individual strength of arms as early as the end of the second or third crusades.

Source: Sidney Painter's French Chivalry


All of that being said the Aristocrat is clearly meant to represent the genteel and educated aspects of nobility, as the name implies only being an "aristocrat" not "King", "Lord", "vassal", etc. It covers the aristocratic aspects of nobility, and in some campaign settings that is more than enough for even high ranking members of the aristocracy (beyond courtiers and other fops). However, yes, in many other settings this would need to be coupled with levels in Fighter or Knight (or even barbarian) to properly represent the ruler's path to power or means of maintaining it. Just as a Wizard-King who rules by magical power would, obviously, need at least a few levels in Wizard to complete that character.

It all depends on the Setting and the Character you're trying to portray.

[MukkTB]

I've always felt that Kings needed to be pretty strong guys in D&D, needing good use of strong (high tier) class features or magic items. Without that, its just a matter of time before someone like Emperor Tippy comes along and makes mincemeat out of them.

[Yora]

In the Low Middle Ages (The Dark Ages) most nobles gained that status by seizing it on the battle field, and later only the gentry could afford plate armor and a proper sword.
Which while these days, we would call these people warlords. In a similar period of Chinese history, they are actually called that.

Though while China also had the concept that a ruler is given his position by the supreme devine power (Tian, Heaven), it could also be revoked if the ruler is not living up the expectations. When someone gets into power, it must have been the will of heaven. When someone lost power, it must have been the will of heaven as well.
The absolutist king of Europe is a fairly late development. In earlier times, a king was just a tribal leader who forged a somewhat reliable alliance with his neighbors under his leadership. In Germany, and I think at least in early England, the local lords got their position from their father, but the supreme leader was elected from among their circle.

[Urpriest]

A King is, by definition, a hereditary monarch. In order for that to work, you need a setting where hereditary power is important, where one can hold on to power by the strength of one's armies and the weight of tradition.

This means that most Kings in D&D will be in lower-level areas of the setting, where the cities are smaller. The sort of asymmetrical warfare that characterizes high level combat means that areas of interest to high level characters (few of which will even be on the material plane) simply won't have Monarchic governments. They'll be run by strongmen, or they'll be religious organizations, or councils of competent peers, or the like. But if it's a king with a kingdom, it's low-ish level.

As to the actual thread topic, I use Warriors for characters who are untrained but still competent. A high level Warrior might be a savage thug or an experienced but unimaginative soldier. That said, I agree these don't come up all that often. Adepts are much more common, since they represent not just "Wizard but weaker", but rather have their own unique flavor, basically 3.5's answer to PF's Witch.

[DeltaEmil]

Look up in the 3.5 DMG II for the reason why the D&D world is ruled by a mundane king instead of a council of superwizards and clerics, as the rules would logically dictate.

Simple answer, because D&D is first and primarily a game (yes, even D&D 3.x says it's a game, just like its successor, D&D 4th edition, and just like that successor D&D Next will be a game, and so on), and having kings that reward player characters and need their abilities to deal with threats like dragons and demon lords is simply pure narrative escapism.

If you as a GM want the players to respect the king, you don't give the king some large numbers regarding stats and level (that would simply mean that the king might actually give some relevant xp when you kill him and take his kingdom), you make him behave in a way that does incite respect in the player character.

[TuggyNE]

In a modern setting that's true....in a medieval one.....not so much. Kings and warlords are expected to be good with a sword due to the fact that they are supposed to lead their armies personally. This has less to do with precedence and more to do with the fact that medieval kings weren't keen on the idea of giving away command of their military..... Let's not forget that it is a recent concept to separate politics from military. As from ancient Rome to the Mexico at the turn of the century... militaries had always been keen players in politics. It is only by virtue of our checks and balances system and the fact that we divvy up our government into separate branches that our military had not taken over our country. That being said, a king who isn't at least in-name commander of his armed forces is a rather weak king. Even in constitutional monarchies have kings holding some military muscle as proof of their ancient birthrights. History is full of generals who usurp their countries and make bids for political power. That is why monarchies tend to have their monarchs be the sole commander in chief of them to avoid this problem.

Your argument is undermined just a trifle by the minor fact that the President of the United States is also the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

[CRtwenty]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that the "Mandate of Heaven" in D&D is not an abstract thing, but a very real force. Kingdoms have orders of Clerics, Paladins, and other religious forces who have a vested interest in maintaining order and keeping the status quo. A group of PCs who burst in and assassinate the King really won't have done much to change things as the King will likely be resurrected and back on his throne within days, if not hours of their attack. In the meantime the PCs have now made enemies of whatever religious force protects the Kingdom, as well as whatever divine entity has been propping up that Government.

[Urpriest]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that the "Mandate of Heaven" in D&D is not an abstract thing, but a very real force. Kingdoms have orders of Clerics, Paladins, and other religious forces who have a vested interest in maintaining order and keeping the status quo. A group of PCs who burst in and assassinate the King really won't have done much to change things as the King will likely be resurrected and back on his throne within days, if not hours of their attack. In the meantime the PCs have now made enemies of whatever religious force protects the Kingdom, as well as whatever divine entity has been propping up that Government.

See, the problem here is that D&D deities very rarely have any interest in mortal governments. The gods in most D&D settings have thematic portfolios, they aren't tied to regions and in general are worshiped across national and race boundaries.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by RogueDM
[Henry V] was known as a rarity for taking up the sword and even occasionally stood on the front line (Battle of Agincourt).

Henry was in the thick of fighting long before Agincourt. Most notably, he and several thousand men were in a major battle at Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403, where they found themselves on the wrong end of a massive archery barrage:


"An arrow struck the sixteen-year-old prince full in the face but he refused to withdraw, fearing the effect it would have on his men. Instead he led the fierce hand-to-hand fighting that continued till nightfall, by which time...[the] rebellion was over."

This is from Juliet Barker's Agincourt (http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Henry-Battle-That-England/dp/0316015040). (Note that Henry fought until dark with an arrow lodged deeply to one side of his nose; it remained where it was until the king's surgeon, a pardoned counterfeiter, invented a unique set of adjustable tongs to extract the embedded shaft.)



And speaking of ransoms, that was hardly a guarantee of safety. Again from Agincourt:


"When a rebel chieftain was captured and offered to raise five hundred pounds within a fortnight for his ransom, Henry casually informed his father that 'we couldn't accept it, so we killed him.'"

And at Agincourt itself, supposedly for military reasons, Henry ordered a mass execution of wounded prisoners who could otherwise have been ransomed:


"Our other eyewitness...says that when the order was given, those who had taken prisoners did not wish to kill them--a reluctance that he, rather uncharitably, attributes to a desire not to lose their ransoms.... Faced with this insubordination, the king was compelled to appoint a single esquire and two hundred archers to perform the mass execution."

Note that these weren't common soldiers, but nobles whose surcoats advertised their eligibility for ransom--and they wouldn't have been wounded, and thus captured, if they hadn't been in the thick of things.

[HowlingWolf]

It's kind of like apples and oranges. Let's say you have two individuals, A and
B. Now, A dedicates more time and effort, but also has access to higher quality training, equipment, trainers, etc. He/she works hard at the training,
learning a more refined martial-art or marksmanship style. Now, B receives a more basic form of training, with good but standard equipment. He does not have access to the quality of training which A has, or for that matter the
time.

A, based upon a higher quality of training and equipment, as well as more time, would be a fighter.

b, based upon a more basic form of training, with good equipment, but less
time, would be a warrior.

It's kind of like comparing a man/woman well-trained in Krav-Maga to a man/woman well-trained in basic self-defense. The person with Krav-Maga has the better, more comprehensive training.

[Amnestic]

The President of the United states does not grab a gun and starts shoting people in some desert.

Of course not. He grabs his Mecha. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Wolf_Chaos) Or she, as the case may be. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_%28series%29#Liberation_Maiden) :smallamused:

[Gwendol]

The Adept is a good NPC class, the Warrior is not so special. I'd use the warrior to add HD to monsters that otherwise would make for a simple encounter.

[Flickerdart]

The Adept is a good NPC class, the Warrior is not so special. I'd use the warrior to add HD to monsters that otherwise would make for a simple encounter.
Or you can just advance it by RHD, which is how most monsters are supposed to be improved.

[Gwendol]

Sorry, I meant to write humanoid monsters. Advancing a bear, for example, as warrior is just strange.

[Haarkla]

The meta reason for someone being a bad NPC class is the DM wanting them not be so badass for narrative purposes.


IMO, the meta reason for someone being a Warrior rather than a Fighter is to simplify feat allocation. A 4th level human warrior has 4 feats, fighter 7.

Warrior also has the advantage of having less hit points (more realistic IMO) and giving the players less xp (level gain is too rapid in 3.5 imo).

[Flickerdart]

IMO, the meta reason for someone being a Warrior rather than a Fighter is to simplify feat allocation. A 4th level human warrior has 4 feats, fighter 7.

Warrior also has the advantage of having less hit points (more realistic IMO) and giving the players less xp (level gain is too rapid in 3.5 imo).
If you want fewer feats and to give less XP, you can also make the guy a lower level fighter.

[awa]

except a lower level fighter would have a harder time hitting the pcs ac and have less hit points.

[Flickerdart]

except a lower level fighter would have a harder time hitting the pcs ac and have less hit points.
"Have less hit points" was something Haarkla wanted, and it's not exactly hard to use the bonus feats (and all the other perks of having a PC class, such as Elite Array and more cash) to catch up.

[awa]

if your goal is to make a quick disposable minion lots of feats, and money just means more work just having bab is faster and easier.

[Flickerdart]

If your goal is to make a quick disposable minion, refluff a random bruiser from a Monster Manual.

[awa]

their arnt that many multiy hit die monster (4+) with low stats in the monster manual now im sure if you looked hard enough in some book there would be one but again your just making work for your self.


There is a place for the warrior in the game

[Seharvepernfan]

I never have npc classes go above 10th level, except maybe adept due to them actually being worse for taking a level of cleric instead of their next adept level. That's my not-quite-arbitrary line.

The line between 10th and 11th level in D&D is the line between legendary and non-legendary (according to a PHB spell). I agree with many posters that if somebody is going into their 11th level of warrior, something is wrong.

Anyway, the difference between a warrior and fighter isn't just the amount of training, it's also motivation. A warrior is somebody who either is expected to stand around and look tough/scary (and is expected to actually know how to use his gear and take a hit or two) or stand side-by-side with other warriors on the field of battle, whereas a fighter is someone who is expected to go into the toughest and most dangerous situations and come out alive. An in-game way of looking at that is; the warrior is a rank-n-file soldier, the fighter is the trench fighter. That's why he has a little extra HP, an extra feat, and tower shield proficiency. He's expected to not just swing a sword, but to control a battle.

One way of determining it is motivation; does a person seek out battle? or do they battle because they need to/were persuaded to? Fighters and barbarians seek it out (or at least train exclusively for it). When ToB came out, this distinction became very clear (look at how motivated crusaders and warblades are expected to be).

Sidenote: With some NPCs, I make them multiclassed between PHB classes and NPC classes. For instance, in a 1st level adventure I recently ran, the town sheriff was a dwarf Ftr 4/expert 1/commoner 2; he was originally trained to be a shock trooper, then became a bodyguard to a noble, then a sheriff in a small town. The expert level game him a better will save and perception checks (and also some craft), and the commoner levels gave him another ounce of bab (but very little HP and Fort) and some more perception and craft. He was 7th level, but not CR 7, because sometimes that distinction needs to exist.

Another was the town priest of pelor. He was a cleric 3, adept 4; strong will, plenty of ranks in relevant skills, plenty of spells per day, some decent ones too (scorching ray, for instance), but nothing all that powerful. 7th level, but not CR 7.

These guys can fight off bandits and deal with the problems that a town faces, but aren't really "heroes".

EDIT: Also, I want to link to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14567230&postcount=4) because it's fairly relevant.

In my opinion, a king can either be born one, or have become one through power and force. I think that one leads to the other in a cycle.

[Marthinwurer]

For my E6 campaigns, I generally use warriors as the soldiers who have made it through basic training. They know how to fight, and are relatively good at it, but they are not professionals. If they are veterans, they can get an extra level or two. The sergants, on the other hand, are professional soldiers. They, as professionals, get levels in fighter. Elite troops, like (to use a modern example) paratroopers or Marines would get levels in fighter as well. I'm not too sure about the other NPC classes. Commoners are your basic unskilled laborers, and experts are kinda equivalent to college graduates. I'm not too sure where adepts fit in, though. I mean, wizards in training and priests in training both having the same class? I'm not too sure about that.

[Seharvepernfan]

I'm not too sure where adepts fit in, though. I mean, wizards in training and priests in training both having the same class? I'm not too sure about that.

Wizards and priests would just be wizards and priests with less spells and class abilities.

Adepts are something else entirely.

[Marthinwurer]

Wizards and priests would just be wizards and priests with less spells and class abilities.

Adepts are something else entirely.

Yeah. That's what I tend to do. Most people that you could truly call wizards, rather than apprentices, are at least level 3, where they get 2nd level spells. For the just-barely-in-training types, I use commoners with magical training. A few cantrips and the same pitiful hit dice. I tend to liken the levels to education: NPC class for an associate's degree, of class for a bachelor's, 2nd level for a master's, and third for a doctorate. You could kinda do the same with fighter types: warrior for basic training, fighter for sergeants/experience/elite posting, fighter 2 for ranger school or something like that, and third for best-of-the-best groups like the navy seals. Commoner for conscripts, of course.

[Seharvepernfan]

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I see Army Rangers and Navy Seals as actual rangers and scouts. Fighters in the real world (IMO) would be boxers (minus the weapons and armor proficiency), perhaps SWAT members, marine seargents - strong/tough dudes who go head first into meat grinders and come out on top. Whereas Rangers and Seals are supposed to do a whole bunch of stuff, but aren't so focused on heavy, (relatively) close-quarters combat.

[Marthinwurer]

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I see Army Rangers and Navy Seals as actual rangers and scouts. Fighters in the real world (IMO) would be boxers (minus the weapons and armor proficiency), perhaps SWAT members, marine seargents - strong/tough dudes who go head first into meat grinders and come out on top. Whereas Rangers and Seals are supposed to do a whole bunch of stuff, but aren't so focused on heavy, (relatively) close-quarters combat.

Yeah, I guess I was really just trying to explain the connection between class/level and education.

[Seharvepernfan]

Yeah, I guess I was really just trying to explain the connection between class/level and education.

I'm not meaning to argue with you. I agree with what you were saying (just not your specific fighter examples).

[ArcturusV]

Adepts would likely be less like the Priests or Wizard NPCs, and more like the "Witch" NPCs.

Think of something like a small town, where everyone knows that if you have some problem you can take it to to the Old Hag who lives by the ravine, and she'll use her Arts to heal a broken leg, etc. Everyone knows she's not a real Priest, she doesn't worship the Burning Hate, or Ehlonna, Nature, or anything. And she's not a real wizard, being a nearly illiterate. And she's never claimed some bloodline like the Johnson Boy who spontaneously started burning stuff down when he hit his 15th winter, getting cursed by the fact that his Great Great Grandpa Johnson boinked a succubus back in his adventurer days...

Just a witch. No one knows how she does it. But she does, and is useful. She has no interest in taking apprentices, or preaching or the like.

Least that's what I'd use Adepts for.

[Clistenes]

Adepts would likely be less like the Priests or Wizard NPCs, and more like the "Witch" NPCs.

Think of something like a small town, where everyone knows that if you have some problem you can take it to to the Old Hag who lives by the ravine, and she'll use her Arts to heal a broken leg, etc. Everyone knows she's not a real Priest, she doesn't worship the Burning Hate, or Ehlonna, Nature, or anything. And she's not a real wizard, being a nearly illiterate. And she's never claimed some bloodline like the Johnson Boy who spontaneously started burning stuff down when he hit his 15th winter, getting cursed by the fact that his Great Great Grandpa Johnson boinked a succubus back in his adventurer days...

Just a witch. No one knows how she does it. But she does, and is useful. She has no interest in taking apprentices, or preaching or the like.

Least that's what I'd use Adepts for.

Damn, that has adventure hook all written over it. If I were a player of yours, I would try to learn were the witches' powers come from.

[Flickerdart]

Damn, that has adventure hook all written over it. If I were a player of yours, I would try to learn were the witches' powers come from.
Boffo, of course.

[Clistenes]

Boffo, of course.

Have you taken a look at the Adept spell list? It's limited, but it has some pretty sweet stuff. I want to know what is giving that old lady the power to cast Baleful Polymorph, Commune, True Seeing, Raise Dead, Invisibility, Polymorh, Lightning Bolt, Wall of Fire...etc.

[Flickerdart]

Have you taken a look at the Adept spell list? It's limited, but it has some pretty sweet stuff. I want to know what is giving that old lady the power to cast Baleful Polymorph, Commune, True Seeing, Raise Dead, Invisibility, Polymorh, Lightning Bolt, Wall of Fire...etc.
Never underestimate the power of headology.