Why are fighters tougher then soldiers?

[ribblle]

Explanations that don't work:

1. The rulebooks calls them veterans, but a CR 3 veteran can crush a lv 1.
2. Life-long training should mean they crush soldiers, but they're still a hard fight.

[Tvtyrant]

Because they are heroes/muderhobos, and soldiers are dudes that do some crunches everyday and then whine about their pay.

[Segev]

Soldiers are simplified but beefed-up fighters. Fewer fiddly special abilities, somewhat better hp.

[ribblle]

I ask strictly from a roleplaying perspective, at level 1 in particular.

[Tvtyrant]

Fighters are a mechanical construct, chances are your fighter doesn't think of themselves as that and has never met another one. It is like asking why Achilles is tougher then a hoplite; because he has a famous backstory unique to him.

Another way to think of it: There is no roleplay concept of a Fighter. The Fighter is in fact a Soldier, or a Knight, or a Samurai.

[Beleriphon]

Because the fighter class represents somebody that is already better at fighting than a common soldier.

Look at something like Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Alexios or Kasandra are a mercenary of no small skill at the start of the game, but they're only "level 1", and can quite thoroughly curb stomp most common enemies, including Spartan soldiers. In comparison a level 1 fighter in D&D is already a skilled combatant, but they don't have the levels yet to become extraordinary.

[Anderlith]

Explanations that don't work:

1. The rulebooks calls them veterans, but a CR 3 veteran can crush a lv 1.
2. Life-long training should mean they crush soldiers, but they're still a hard fight.

Compare young Teddy Roosevelt to any PFC. He could trounce all of them, while writing a speech.

Or Audie Murphy to a boot camp recruit or even a vet

[ribblle]

Look, if they started out as veterans i'd agree with you. But they begin a little above average. The player knows they can take the average soldier; i'd just like there to be a simple justification for the character being on the same page.

[MaxWilson]

Explanations that don't work:

1. The rulebooks calls them veterans, but a CR 3 veteran can crush a lv 1.
2. Life-long training should mean they crush soldiers, but they're still a hard fight.

I don't understand your question, especially since you contradict it right here in point #1.

High-level fighters are tougher than low-level fighters. CR 3 Veterans are about on par with low-to-mid-level fighters. Soldiers could be Fighters, Veterans, or something else entirely. What's the question?

If you're asking, "Why aren't game worlds filled with armies of soldiers who are all mid-level fighters?" I would answer "because that leaves no monsters for adventurers to kill, since the soldiers have already killed them." Unless those soldiers are all working for evil dudes and the adventurers are outlaws trying to survive in a world controlled by evil dudes, but then you're playing Shadowrun. :-P


Look, if they started out as veterans i'd agree with you. But they begin a little above average. The player knows they can take the average guy; i'd just like there to be a simple justification for the character being on the same page.

Let the soldiers start out as Guards or first-level Fighters, and the best of the best can be Veterans or mid-level Fighters.

[ribblle]

The assumption in d&d is that a Fighter is strictly better then a typical soldier. That's why level 1 fighter beats mook.

[MaxWilson]

The assumption in d&d is that a Fighter is strictly better then a typical soldier. That's why level 1 fighter beats mook.

What then is the dilemma you're trying to resolve?

[ribblle]

Why? Other then (boring) plot magic? How can we justify this?

[Segev]

Why? Other then (boring) plot magic?

Where do you get this assumption from? The one you think is contradicted by your two points in the OP.

You seem to either have a point or an objection, but you're not articulating your question or concern clearly. I don't recall reading "Level 1 fighters are better than soldiers!" or anything like it in the PHB.

[MaxWilson]

Why? Other then (boring) plot magic?

Why what? Are you asking for a gameworld explanation (why don't soldiers practice more) or a game design explanation (why is it boring when offscreen NPCs handle all the serious fighting)?

[Man_Over_Game]

Explanations that don't work:

1. The rulebooks calls them veterans, but a CR 3 veteran can crush a lv 1.
2. Life-long training should mean they crush soldiers, but they're still a hard fight.


Look, if they started out as veterans i'd agree with you. But they begin a little above average. The player knows they can take the average soilder; i'd just like there to be a simple justification for the character being on the same page.
I gotta be straight with you: I am very confused about your pronouns.

Are you talking about Fighters (The character class)? Soldiers? Veterans?

I think you're talking about Fighters in all of these, so I'm just going to assume you are. The rulebook calls Fighters "veterans", but that is relative. A level 1 Fighter is a veteran relative to a peasant. A level 20 Fighter is a veteran relative to a local hero.

A CR 3 creature is designed to be fought against four level 3 heroes.

So why can't a level 1 Fighter fight four level 3 Fighters?

Or, even more simply, why can't a level 1 Fighter fight a level 3 Fighter?

Because: Experience.

[Tvtyrant]

Why? Other then (boring) plot magic? How can we justify this?

Easily, a Fighter represents someone who is a better soldier. It isn't plot magic, they represent different things. A Fighter is the starting mechanics for someone like Achilles, a super-athelete who dominates the battlefield. A soldier is a role, you could represent the same level 1 Fighter as a CR5 Captain if you prefer.

The mechanics are not the actual world.

[Lupine]

I think that in the PHB, it says that they surpass other warriors in skill. Another way to look at this is that they're "Naturals" at weapon skills. While they don't have the skill of experience to match the average soldier, the sword feels more "normal" in their hand.

So, the reason that a CR3 veteran would destroy a lvl1 fighter is that the CR3 veteran simply has had more experience fighting. The lvl1 fighter quickly surpasses the veteran in skill though, due to natural athleticism, and a talent for fighting.

I'm not sure how many of you have read The ranger's apprentice books, but the difference is seen in the training fields, and how Horace is watched by the swordmasters. As they watch, he's pulling natural stunts and movements that are quite advanced, while everyone else is simply following motions. Horace is the fighter. Everyone else is the soldiers

(Please forgive the spelling errors. It's been years since I read those books)

[ribblle]

Ok, just to clear this up; i'm talking why fighters, the character class, start out better then average soldiers, as described in the monster manual.


A Fighter is the starting mechanics for someone like Achilles, a super-athelete who dominates the battlefield. A soldier is a role, you could represent the same level 1 Fighter as a CR5 Captain if you prefer.

The mechanics are not the actual world.

Look, this is the problem. Nobody knows they're going to be Achilles. You might know you're bigger then most guys, or have been in a couple more battles; but are you going to bet your life on that? Now if you have an unusual fighting style, or come from a village known for raiding, or were simply well trained; maybe then you'll be cocky. What i'm wondering is is if that's all a lv 1 fighter is. A guy with a edge. And not a big one. Because mechanically you can't justify anything more then that.

Side note, it's easy to see why fighters outclass soldiers later what with all the weird **** they do. I just dislike "protagonist is automatically better!" as a justification.

[Tvtyrant]

Ok, just to clear this up; i'm talking why fighters, the character class, start out better then average soldiers, as described in the monster manual.



Look, this is the problem. Nobody knows they're going to be Achilles. You might know you're bigger then most guys, or have been in a couple more battles; but are you going to bet your life on that? Now if you have an unusual fighting style, or come from a village known for raiding, or were simply well trained; maybe then you'll be cocky. What i'm wondering is if that's all a lv 1 fighter is. A guy with a edge. And not a big one. Because mechanically you can't justify anything more then that.

Side note, it's easy to see why fighters outclass soldiers later what with all the weird **** they do. I just dislike "protagonist is automatically better!" as a justification.

My high school football team had a kid who would later be a drafted NFL player on it. My brother and him were starters together, the other kid was the strongest kid, the fastest kid, and the toughest kid on any team in the state. Several of the other players were college athlete level, all over 6'3 and athletic. He was over 6'6 and better in every single way, despite being both dumb and lazy. That is who becomes a PC.

Yeah, a veteran is going to know more then him. The difference in talent would be apparent from across a battlefield, within a few years the PC is going to leave the normal person in the dust. It isn't plot armor, normal people can't become PCs because they would just die. The Wizard is a genius, the priest is a saint, the fighter is the archetypical athlete. Achilles was so good at killing people as a teenager we remember him three thousand years later,.

You can reduce their starting HP and stats, maybe make them play as commoners if you want, but the game is intended for you to play those kinds of people.

[dragoeniex]

Look, this is the problem. Nobody knows they're going to be Achilles. You might know you're bigger then most guys, or have been in a couple more battles; but are you going to bet your life on that? Now if you have an unusual fighting style, or come from a village known for raiding, or were simply well trained; maybe then you'll be cocky. What i'm wondering is is if that's all a lv 1 fighter is. A guy with a edge. And not a big one. Because mechanically you can't justify anything more then that.

Side note, it's easy to see why fighters outclass soldiers later what with all the weird **** they do. I just dislike "protagonist is automatically better!" as a justification.

Yeah, "someone with an edge" is pretty much it for any lv 1 adventurer. Characters are expected to come in with some background that contributes, though it can be minimal depending on player and group.

There's no clean answer for the question, I'm afraid. Fighter Bob is better because he worked as a bouncer at his aunt's tavern during teenage years. Fighter Eleanor is better because she comes from a respected line of bodyguards and wants to carry on that legacy. Fighter Terrance has this weird, glowy person who shows up in his dreams and chews him out whenever he tries to get into another profession. Fighter Marianne has been to war.

And then there's Fighter Clancy, who has no real formal training but has super reflexes and is still kinda trying to figure out more than just duck and chop. He's really good at duck-and-chop-- better than most! But the rest of the levels are going to be him figuring out how to get better at surviving more sophisticated combat.



It's the same as asking why a rogue can stab things harder than a soldier. It's assumed they've learned to read soft spots and openings, but why or how is up to the player.

[Trustypeaches]

Fighters are typically defined by their skill in battle. They are a cut above the rest. The specific reason why they are better than others can vary.

A Fighter may have better training than an average soldier, they may have more experience than an average soldier, or they may simply be more naturally talented than the average soldier.

They are thematically and narratively flexible, as is their purpose.

[Spriteless]

Possible in-universe explanations:
1. Soldiers are trained to work together. While a lv 1 fighter is better at individual or skirmish combat, a line of soldiers is an unbreakable wall of men. "Don't break phalanx!" (Phalanx rules not included.) :/

2. Soldiers are brave guys who defend their homes. PCs are braver, willing to go on adventures and brave evil on evil's own terms. :o

3. Hey your PC can take soldier as a background. You are more experienced than those guys, you used to be them! :)

4. All of the really good soldiers quit the low paying militia, became adventurers, and got killed already. :(

5.

6. Profit B)

[JNAProductions]

Could you, the OP, try to more clearly articulate your problem? I'm still confused as to what your issue is, and without that knowledge, there's no way to know how to resolve it.

[MaxWilson]

Ok, just to clear this up; i'm talking why fighters, the character class, start out better then average soldiers, as described in the monster manual.

Look, this is the problem. Nobody knows they're going to be Achilles. You might know you're bigger then most guys, or have been in a couple more battles; but are you going to bet your life on that? Now if you have an unusual fighting style, or come from a village known for raiding, or were simply well trained; maybe then you'll be cocky. What i'm wondering is is if that's all a lv 1 fighter is. A guy with a edge. And not a big one. Because mechanically you can't justify anything more then that.

Side note, it's easy to see why fighters outclass soldiers later what with all the weird **** they do. I just dislike "protagonist is automatically better!" as a justification.

Ah. If this bothers you, feel free to make many or all of the front-line soldiers in your campaign Fighters, ignoring the (optional) NPC stat blocks in the MM.

[Tiadoppler]

Fighters fight. They are warriors first and foremost. They have trained with every weapon and every type of armor. You shouldn't think of a level 1 Fighter as someone who's just picked up a sword. Just like the concept of level 1 Wizard, a first level Fighter has years of training, tutelage, and experience behind them. They may have other skills as well, but their focus is on combat.

Soldiers do not necessarily have that background. A soldier, especially a 'medieval' one was not trained by weaponmasters or in a well-established boot camp. Many of them were (grotesque exaggeration) handed a spear and shoved out onto a battlefield. The ones that survived became veterans. Even more relevant: in an organized army, most of a soldier's job is not fighting. A soldier's day-to-day life would consist of setting up and tearing down camps, digging trenches (and latrines), keeping watch, procuring food, sitting around being bored, and some weapon training.


To put it another way:
A Fighter is better in combat than the average soldier because they spend their lives training and focusing on that skillset, while fighting is simply one small aspect of a soldier's job.



That, or, Fate just magically gifts the Fighter the Talent necessary to fulfill The Prophecy, and handed a Sword of Power by a Mysterious Mentor, shortly before they're Tragically Murdered along with the rest of the Fighter's agrarian hometown. YMMV.

[Man_Over_Game]

Possible in-universe explanations:
1. Soldiers are trained to work together. While a lv 1 fighter is better at individual or skirmish combat, a line of soldiers is an unbreakable wall of men. "Don't break phalanx!" (Phalanx rules not included.) :/

On that note, Phalanx Rules: You have a bonus to your AC, your Strength Saving Throws, Strength Checks, and Dexterity Saving Throws equal to the number of allies adjacent to you with this ability. You are considered to not have this ability if you are prone, incapacitated, or not wearing a shield.

[ribblle]

Thanks guys. I consider this question answered. Just to correct a couple points;

Tiadolper; the inspiration for this thread is that exactly what you've said isn't actually mechanically supported, as far as i can tell. A lv 1 fighter simply isn't as badass as someone who has been training all their life.

Tvtyrant, that works up until you roll a fighter with low strength. I personally find D&D more interesting if you view humanity as simply having a (way) higher skill cap and adventurers tend to get to at the top of the curve (maybe with a heavy dose of magic radiation). How people view somebody who's above average when their definition of "great" is godly is a whole other argument (worth having!). Though i would be interested to hear about a campaign that played off high level characters with the same sense of uniqueness as you see in mythology.

[NecessaryWeevil]

You're not better because you're a Fighter. You're a Fighter because you're better. WHY are you better? That's an RP decision.

[Lunali]

On that note, Phalanx Rules: You have a bonus to your AC, your Strength Saving Throws, Strength Checks, and Dexterity Saving Throws equal to the number of allies adjacent to you with this ability. You are considered to not have this ability if you are prone, incapacitated, or not wearing a shield.

I'd disagree on that last line, rather I'd say "allies that are prone, incapacitated, or not wearing a shield do not count towards this bonus."

[Sigreid]

A veteran in the MM is an experienced soldier with several battles under his belt.

A first level fighter is a trained combatant with the potential to be a hero of legend. The potential to be one of the most resilient, adaptable and deadliest mortals to ever walk the land.

[Teaguethebean]

I would look at this in a purely mechanical way if you would like.
Gaurds: have about the same health as a lv 1 fighter before con 9 compared to 10. They have the same weapon and armor proficiencies but lack the raw skill (fighting style) and well of strength (second wind) that a fighter has.

Additionally we can ask the same question in a different wah. Why aren't all priests clerics?
It is purely set in the innate skill of an individual. Additionally this also brings up stats. A lv1 fighter with the same stats as a gaurd may very well lose against one but PCs are super human and will easily just innately be stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than any average gaurd.

[Constructman]

Tiadolper; the inspiration for this thread is that exactly what you've said isn't actually mechanically supported, as far as i can tell. A lv 1 fighter simply isn't as badass as someone who has been training all their life.

Not Tiadolper, but think of this as you being good, but not that good -- at least, not yet.

Think of it as a Wuxia serial novel, or a battle Shounen manga, or any other work of fiction that involves the protagonist rapidly rising in power. The protagonist usually starts a cut above the commoner in the field of martial arts; they may have already been training for a while, or they may have more talent for fighting than the regular person. This would be your Level 1 PC fighter vs your CR 1/8 Bandit; the Fighter should, if built correctly, be able to take down the Bandit with only a little bit of difficulty, much like a Protagonist starting out versus a mook.

Then you have those who walked down the martial path for longer than the Protagonist. Your CR 3 Veterans, your CR 5 Gladiators, and even your CR 12 Champions. These individuals are stronger than the Protagonist simply on the virtue of being more experienced. The Protagonist may be a prodigy, but he's still a rookie. He still has room to grow. He still has things he hasn't yet learned, which is why he loses.

The thing that sets them apart is not their growing stronger; it's how fast they grow. That CR 5 Gladiator trained his entire adult life and possibly even childhood to get to where he is now. A PC Fighter could eclipse him in a few month's time. In a few year's time, he could duel the CR 12 Champion and possibly win. In a few more years time the Fighter may very well have transcended the mortal realm of martial skill.

It's not how strong a Protagonist or a PC Fighter starts out that defines them as special. It's how fast they grow, and how far beyond the realm of the normal person they can go.

[Unoriginal]

Let's see what the common humanoid soldier mook is like, without touching the stats:

HP: 2d8, average rounded to 9

Proficiency bonus + 2

Proficiency: chain shirt, shield, spear, 1 skill, 1 language.


A lvl 1 Fighter, from their class alone, will have the same proficiency bonus, but they will be proficient in all the weapons and armors of the PHB, will have 10 HPs before CON mod, will have a Fighting Style that represent the specialization they got in training, will get one more skill proficiency, and will get Second Wind


So, the reason why a Fighter is better than a common soldier is that the Fighter trained or fought enough to be as proficient as the soldier on a wider array of capacities AND also has an advantage in one or several fields over the soldier thanks to specialization, as well as being more capable of shrugging off the weariness of the fight to get back in the fray.

And that's without going into how the Fighter get better material and generally has higher stats than the Guard NPC, or what they get from the Background or species.

There is no doubt that some soldiers are as tough as lvl 1 PCs or stronger, but those are not the common mook, because adventurers and those who match them are not common people: they need an edge in capacity over the common people in order to have a chance in an adventure, be it through training or through being born with it or imparted with it by various entities.

A Fighter PC with the Soldier background might be a veteran, even an officier. So would a Fighter who used the Xanathar's background tables to get a "battle experience" backstory. It doesn't matter if they don't match the Veteran NPC statblock, who is simply someone who also fought in battles but has done it much more than a lvl 1 would have.



I would look at this in a purely mechanical way if you would like.
Gaurds: have about the same health as a lv 1 fighter before con 9 compared to 10. They have the same weapon and armor proficiencies but lack the raw skill (fighting style) and well of strength (second wind) that a fighter has.

Additionally we can ask the same question in a different wah. Why aren't all priests clerics?
It is purely set in the innate skill of an individual.

Well, for this question, the answer is "gods choose their Clerics, and they don't have the strength to make every one of their worshipers a Chosen One"

[Gilrad]

I think the big disconnect here is what statblocks represent.

In the 3.5 era, a creature was derived from a stat block. Everything followed a system and from that system you could have demilich ogres with two levels of fighter. A sailor couldn't be a sailor unless they were capable of making sailing skillchecks without failing in normal circumstances.

In 5e stat blocks are more of an abstraction of what the creature's life was and will end up being. "Fighter" isn't who he is as much as the path of training this character is taking. Veteran guard represents the typical veteran guard - neither the ambitious soon-to-be-commander type or the lazy sleeps-when-nobody's-looking type, because as a baseline the DM can modify the stat block to represent either type of soldier they want him to be.

Think of it this way - if your level 1 Fighter is going to be hitting Demogorgon with his axe in three years' time, doesn't it make sense that with only two years of training he's already surpassed your average guard's lifetime of training?

[MaxWilson]

Well, for this question, the answer is "gods choose their Clerics, and they don't have the strength to make every one of their worshipers a Chosen One"

Alternately, "magical talent is rare, and religiously-inclined mages are also rare, so most priests do not become religious mages a.k.a. clerics." After all, clerical spells are still subject to the same rules as any other magic, including Dispel Magic.

[Spriteless]

On that note, Phalanx Rules: You have a bonus to your AC, your Strength Saving Throws, Strength Checks, and Dexterity Saving Throws equal to the number of allies adjacent to you with this ability. You are considered to not have this ability if you are prone, incapacitated, or not wearing a shield.
Wow, saving this post for my homebrew rules.

[Unoriginal]

In other words, some people got the Touch



https://youtu.be/B90pnnGhkfU

[djreynolds]

I feel their is ability and experience.

The veteran, who has 9 eight-sided hit die, a strength of 16, dex 13, and con 14, is clearly not a 9th level fighter but did not begin his career as a commoner with all 10's.

For fun let's assume he got 3 ability increases, maybe his strength started as a 14, and his dex an 11, and his con was 12. This person was clearly not born a commoner.

A PC, say a simple human fighter could begin his career with 15,15,15,11,11,11, could have by 9th level 18, 16, 16, 11,12,11 with an average of 85HP and +8 to hit, and 8dmg x3 if he duel wields short swords

PCs are born with more potential, its the easiest explanation I can think of

[Unoriginal]

NPC hit dices don't correlate with levels, this edition. A Veteran is closer to a lvl 5 Fighter, with less abilities.

[qube]

I just dislike "protagonist is automatically better!" as a justification.Don't forget:

Achiless isn't better because he's the protagonist. Achiless is the protagonist because he's better.

Just like car races. Race cars aren't fast because they enter a race; they enter a race because they are fast.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't forget:

Achiless isn't better because he's the protagonist. Achiless is the protagonist because he's better.

Just like car races. Race cars aren't fast because they enter a race; they enter a race because they are fast.

Right. The PCs are special, which is why we follow them and their actions. They're not special because we're following them. If they weren't special and doing heroic-level things, we'd follow someone who was instead.

[MaxWilson]

Don't forget:

Achiless isn't better because he's the protagonist. Achiless is the protagonist because he's better.

Well... Achilles is the protagonist because he's interesting.

There's no reason in principle why you can't play D&D with a PC who has low stats and a terrible class, e.g. Warrior, a degenerate Fighter with no special abilities except Extra Attack, letting you recreate the MM Veteran at 9th level after much monster-slaying--Warrior is objectively worse than Fighter but you could still play one if you want.

[Naanomi]

To be fair, some Fighters are Soldiers... it is a pretty archetypical background for them to select

[Wryte]

Think of it this way.

"Soldier" is a job. You get paid to put on armor, carry a weapon, and sometimes use it on something when your boss tells you to. You fight because you're paid to.

"Fighter" is a way of life. You put on armor and carry a weapon because you want to. You seek out battle of your own accord to test and improve yourself. You fight because you want to.

There is overlap. A soldier might become a fighter because they find they enjoy battle, or because they had to improve to survive in a war. A fighter might enlist as a soldier to get paid for what they enjoy anyway, or to find more challenges and opponents. But they are different things.

[Witty Username]

Explanations that don't work:

1. The rulebooks calls them veterans, but a CR 3 veteran can crush a lv 1.
2. Life-long training should mean they crush soldiers, but they're still a hard fight.

Fighter is a class that involves physical combat.
Soldier is a background that represents being part of a fighting unit(that can include things like combat medic, field mage, water boy, conscripted farm hand).
the average fighter will always be tougher than the average soldier because of this.

[djreynolds]

Pretend its the NFL

Everyone is on the team. You have rookies, stars, and veterans and second and third string and even practice squad

PCs are 1st round draft picks, a human could begin play with 15/15/15/11/11/11 and perhaps can become a star

It doesn't mean a commoner can't contribute as a veteran of many years or second string, but with all of their experience they lack the natural ability to become stars

[2D8HP]

Ok, just to clear this up; i'm talking why fighters, the character class, start out better then average soldiers, as described in the monster manual....


Because the game is "5e D&D" not "Oe D&D".

Originally a First level Fighter was a normal human:
.
Check out the 1974 Attack Matrix:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lC3ZGo6MEq4/Vjf5l0Upd0I/AAAAAAAAE7I/vnwO8h_6EJY/s280/20151102_185929.jpg

(Note: "Normal men equal 1st level Fighters", despite the level title being "Veteran".
Dirty Peasants of the world unite!)

And here's the AD&D one published in 1978, which was only a few years later than the original:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TQnzgXCADuc/TTcWINbQIxI/AAAAAAAAAXs/ZVHu7yKeQvg/s280/Attack+Matrix+fighters.jpg

(Note: the introduction of "0 level humans", so PC's can have people that they fight better than at first level)

The game changed from "zero to hero" to "hero to superhero" pretty early.

If you had the big stack of character record sheets of dead PC's that many of us who played "back in the day" did you'd know why.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Draw a circle labelled "soldiers". Draw another circle partially overlapping the first labelled "fighters". Draw a third circle partially overlapping the first two labelled "PCs". All sections of this Venn diagram can be populated.