Fighter vs Warrior: Who becomes what?

[calam]

I was thinking of the similarities between the fluff of the warrior and fighter (and to a lesser extent the adept and cleric) and I was wondering how do the people in the playground make this differentiation in their campaigns. Is there a fundamental difference between these two groups or does one group essentially have more "player character"ness to them than the other?

In my campaigns I tend to consider the NPC classes to be the PC classes without any sort of rigorous training that the PC class has. The warrior is a graduate of a military academy or martial arts dojo while a warrior would be a soldier that only knows how to fire arrows or stab spears in formation or is a sort of bouncer that relies on brute force in their jobs. Similarly adepts are those who learned purely as an act of faith or purely through reading rather than learning proper technique.


So how do you reason these differences?

[Clementx]

Warrior = I don't want to select all these Fighter feats, just make him a warrior with an extra level for 7hp and +1 Bab, Hopefully it will wash out to the same CR. Only half kidding.

If someone is so unimpressive I think they are a commoner, I don't even stat them out. An expert is a total noncombatant who is really skilled at something. Aristocrat is an expert in abusing peasants in an unfair caste system. Adept/magewright types are magic hobbyists/lack training and resources.

No one should get past lvl3 in the course of a mundane life an NPC class represents. If you get more xp than that, you did something heroic/villainous enough for class levels. If I want to make them less of an adventurer, I just use bad equipment or class/feat choices. A lvl 5 rogue that doesn't carry a weapon, own armor, and took Skill Focus three times isn't much different than an expert. You can use the bad npc class, or bad build of a PC class.

[Tvtyrant]

I was thinking of the similarities between the fluff of the warrior and fighter (and to a lesser extent the adept and cleric) and I was wondering how do the people in the playground make this differentiation in their campaigns. Is there a fundamental difference between these two groups or does one group essentially have more "player character"ness to them than the other?

In my campaigns I tend to consider the NPC classes to be the PC classes without any sort of rigorous training that the PC class has. The warrior is a graduate of a military academy or martial arts dojo while a warrior would be a soldier that only knows how to fire arrows or stab spears in formation or is a sort of bouncer that relies on brute force in their jobs. Similarly adepts are those who learned purely as an act of faith or purely through reading rather than learning proper technique.


So how do you reason these differences?

Warrior: A local guard, bouncer, etc. He or she has informal training and some experience, this experience is usually in the form of shooting arrows from a wall or one or two major battles.

Fighter: Professionally trained in the basics (think bootcamp), then gains experience through combat. A Fighter picks up a lot of tricks in the form of fighter feats from these experiences.

Warblade: Professionally trained by a sword master and given several books of techniques to memorize over their lifetime, inheritor of traditions combining hundreds of fighter types from the past.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Fighter: NPC.

Warrior: See fighter.

[Ignimortis]

I was thinking of the similarities between the fluff of the warrior and fighter (and to a lesser extent the adept and cleric) and I was wondering how do the people in the playground make this differentiation in their campaigns. Is there a fundamental difference between these two groups or does one group essentially have more "player character"ness to them than the other?

In my campaigns I tend to consider the NPC classes to be the PC classes without any sort of rigorous training that the PC class has. The warrior is a graduate of a military academy or martial arts dojo while a warrior would be a soldier that only knows how to fire arrows or stab spears in formation or is a sort of bouncer that relies on brute force in their jobs. Similarly adepts are those who learned purely as an act of faith or purely through reading rather than learning proper technique.

So how do you reason these differences?

Warrior: Someone who's had half a year of training, formal or informal. Anyone can be a warrior, if they're tough enough. Low-experience guards, street toughs, tavern brawlers. NPC, naturally.

Fighter: Someone who's had professional fighting training. Soldiers of all ranks, experienced guards, gang bruisers. I tend to give out Fighter gestalts to NPCs who have reasons to be well-trained in combat, and don't mind giving those gestalts to T4 or less PCs.

Warblade: Actual PC class. Weaponmasters, elite royal guards, that mysterious wanderer in beat-up armor and a greatsword slung across his back. Usually rare and regarded with awe if recognized.

I don't exactly present maneuvers as specific techniques you can read about in a book - it's mostly an amalgamation of superhuman fighting styles devised by several heroes ages ago. Since I justify HD and class levels as life-force strength, Fighters can usually become Warblades after level 5 or so, after they leave the realm of "IRL humanly possible". PCs can be Warblades straight away, of course, since they're PCs and thus probably have some innate talent or training under another Warblade.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Fighters are pretty horrible at most of the things they're supposed to be good at. No Spot or Listen means they're horrid at soldiering and guarding, no Knowledge skills mean they're terrible at sizing up opponents, and their near-complete lack of social skills means they're terrible at any kind of leadership role. Their skills might as well not exist, especially given their abysmal number of skill points, nigh useless skill list, and near-complete lack of impetus to have anything more than a 3 Int. (Feat prereqs, speech, and the restrictions on taking class levels are the only real reasons to have an Int score higher than 1, really.)

[Ignimortis]

Fighters are pretty horrible at most of the things they're supposed to be good at. No Spot or Listen means they're horrid at soldiering and guarding, no Knowledge skills mean they're terrible at sizing up opponents, and their near-complete lack of social skills means they're terrible at any kind of leadership role. Their skills might as well not exist, especially given their abysmal number of skill points, nigh useless skill list, and near-complete lack of impetus to have anything more than a 3 Int. (Feat prereqs, speech, and the restrictions on taking class levels are the only real reasons to have an Int score higher than 1, really.)

To be honest, one of the first houserules I ever made gave Fighters 4+Int or 6+Int (can't remember which, 6+Int might be a later version) skills and Perception (Spot+Listen+Search) as a class skill, as well as Diplomacy in addition to Intimidate which they already had. If you use them as gestalts for actual classes people have (so a good guard is a Fighter//Expert with skills related to guarding), then Fighter is a pretty good tag for "can fight well enough".

RAW PHB Fighters are an NPC class, but that's because 3.5 PHB sucks and is the most broken book out of all.

[Drowbane]

IMCs the vast majority of NPCs are either experts or warriors. Those meant to be any sort of reasonable challenge are of PC classes. I don't use adept, aristocrat, commoner, or mage-wright. Expert is perfect for most non-combatant roles. If an NPC is a caster, he is either a cleric, druid, psion or wizard.

In more direct response to the OP: Warriors are most of the armed forces of the world, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs, etc. Their captains or w/e tend to be Fighter or Barbarian. Some might be Warblades, Crusaders, or Swordsages. Some cultures get better classes as default, for example my "Drow Warrior" default is a Rogue 7+.


Warrior: A local guard, bouncer, etc. He or she has informal training and some experience, this experience is usually in the form of shooting arrows from a wall or one or two major battles.

Fighter: Professionally trained in the basics (think bootcamp), then gains experience through combat. A Fighter picks up a lot of tricks in the form of fighter feats from these experiences.

Warblade: Professionally trained by a sword master and given several books of techniques to memorize over their lifetime, inheritor of traditions combining hundreds of fighter types from the past.
Largely this.

[Maat Mons]

Long ago I toyed with a house rule that everyone started as Commoner 1, then "leveled up" into [any NPC class] 1, then "leveled up" into [any class] 1, and only after that started gaining actual levels.

I feel like it's weird to have Commoner / Other NPC Classes / PC Classes as a second power-scale alongside the more traditional power-scale of level. So I figured, "Why not fold Commoner and the other NPC classes into that same level power-scale, at the -1 and 0 positions?"

[liquidformat]

To be honest, one of the first houserules I ever made gave Fighters 4+Int or 6+Int (can't remember which, 6+Int might be a later version) skills and Perception (Spot+Listen+Search) as a class skill, as well as Diplomacy in addition to Intimidate which they already had. If you use them as gestalts for actual classes people have (so a good guard is a Fighter//Expert with skills related to guarding), then Fighter is a pretty good tag for "can fight well enough".

RAW PHB Fighters are an NPC class, but that's because 3.5 PHB sucks and is the most broken book out of all.

I went with 4+Int and stealing a page out of the Generalist Warrior class pick 7 skills to be class skills with minor exceptions like no UMD or Spellcraft. Even though that is a pretty minor change it definitely makes the Fighter a lot more useful as a Swiss Army Knife of a class along with the other changes I made.

Anyways I use warrior for random mooks like bar tough guys, village guards, drunken street fighter. Any NPC that has had actual combat training in my opinion should be a fighter if not something else. For example minute man militia would be warriors (maybe with a couple expert or aristocrats thrown in) whereas a standing army should be at least made up of fighters, IMO.

I also combined Aristocrat with Noble and added minor spell casting to make them feel more like a noble in a magical setting. I also normally use Humanoid RHD as commoner levels and reserve commoner for the once in a blue moon when you need to stat a child. Also I firmly believe NPC classes shouldn't be capable of going to level 20. I normally have Humanoid commoner and warrior only up to level 3, Expert up to level 5, and Aristocrat, Adept, Magewright somewhere between 7-10 max. Actual Commoner level is more of a placeholder before you get a class.


Long ago I toyed with a house rule that everyone started as Commoner 1, then "leveled up" into [any NPC class] 1, then "leveled up" into [any class] 1, and only after that started gaining actual levels.

I feel like it's weird to have Commoner / Other NPC Classes / PC Classes as a second power-scale alongside the more traditional power-scale of level. So I figured, "Why not fold Commoner and the other NPC classes into that same level power-scale, at the -1 and 0 positions?"

I played in a game like that before, it was a rather interesting idea but felt like I was jumping through hoops. The commoner level was replaced by NPC was replaced by PC class. I could see it working better in an E6 game maybe?

[Lucas Yew]

To be honest, one of the first houserules I ever made gave Fighters 4+Int or 6+Int (can't remember which, 6+Int might be a later version) skills and Perception (Spot+Listen+Search) as a class skill, as well as Diplomacy in addition to Intimidate which they already had. If you use them as gestalts for actual classes people have (so a good guard is a Fighter//Expert with skills related to guarding), then Fighter is a pretty good tag for "can fight well enough".

RAW PHB Fighters are an NPC class, but that's because 3.5 PHB sucks and is the most broken book out of all.

I would try giving PC classes' skill points before INT as follows:

Base 2+Int for being a d20 System creature.
Plus 2 for not having Int as a keystone of your class features.
Plus 2 for having no Spell Slot progression at all.
Plus 2 for being a skill usage focused class.

[Biggus]

I treat ordinary soldiers who've just had basic training as Warriors, and those who've had advanced training (elite units and leaders) as Fighters. Basically, what it says under Warrior in the DMG.


I would try giving PC classes' skill points before INT as follows:

Base 2+Int for being a d20 System creature.
Plus 2 for not having Int as a keystone of your class features.
Plus 2 for having no Spell Slot progression at all.
Plus 2 for being a skill usage focused class.

This is an interesting system. So if I've understood you right, Clerics, Paladins, Barbarians and Sorcerers would gain 2 skill points and Fighters 4? That seems to work pretty well, apart from the fact that it removes one of the few limiting factors on Clerics. Do you give Fighters and Barbarians extra class skills so they've got something worthwhile to spend their points on?

[liquidformat]

I treat ordinary soldiers who've just had basic training as Warriors, and those who've had advanced training (elite units and leaders) as Fighters. Basically, what it says under Warrior in the DMG.



This is an interesting system. So if I've understood you right, Clerics, Paladins, Barbarians and Sorcerers would gain 2 skill points and Fighters 4? That seems to work pretty well, apart from the fact that it removes one of the few limiting factors on Clerics. Do you give Fighters and Barbarians extra class skills so they've got something worthwhile to spend their points on?

It has interesting effect cloistered cleric and Beguiler. Beguiler drops to 4+int as it is skill focused class but int based and has spells. Whereas, Cloistered Cleric either drops to 4+Int or depedning on how we adjudicate 'being a skill usage focused class' it might still be 6+Int. It might actually drop Ranger to 4+Int depending on how we rule 'skill usage focused class'. Swashbuckler might go to 6+Int depending on how you rule 'not having Int as a keystone of your class features'.

All and all it is pretty cool way to give skill points.

[Conradine]

I think the difference is more in dedication than experience or formal training.
A warrior learns what is enough to get by, and can become quite strong but he lacks the "touch" of the fighter.
Fighters are people who devote most of their time becoming better and better at fighting. Like the spartan elite from 300.

[Biggus]

It has interesting effect cloistered cleric and Beguiler. Beguiler drops to 4+int as it is skill focused class but int based and has spells. Whereas, Cloistered Cleric either drops to 4+Int or depedning on how we adjudicate 'being a skill usage focused class' it might still be 6+Int. It might actually drop Ranger to 4+Int depending on how we rule 'skill usage focused class'. Swashbuckler might go to 6+Int depending on how you rule 'not having Int as a keystone of your class features'.

All and all it is pretty cool way to give skill points.

The Ranger has the 3rd-longest list of class skills among the core classes so I assumed they were being treated as a skill usage focused class. They do only have one more class skill than the Monk though, so it's debatable, but Rangers typically want at least five of their class skills maximised to be be functional (Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Survival) while Monks can perform their core functions without any of theirs except maybe Tumble.

Cloistered Cleric is more of an edge case though, I can see arguments either way.

[liquidformat]

I think the difference is more in dedication than experience or formal training.
A warrior learns what is enough to get by, and can become quite strong but he lacks the "touch" of the fighter.
Fighters are people who devote most of their time becoming better and better at fighting. Like the spartan elite from 300.

The spartan elite would be better represented by ToB classes than Fighter, maybe with some barbarian or other class mixed in. The idea behind the Fighter was someone who devoted themselves to fighting; however, due to the shortcomings of the class and lack of power from feats they fell far short of that benchmark. There is a reasonable argument for any 'world' based around tier 3 optimization that Fighter should be the NPC Warrior and the warrior class should just be scrapped.

[Lilapop]

stealing a page out of the Generalist Warrior class pick 7 skills to be class skills with minor exceptions like no UMD or Spellcraft.

This one really captures the essence of the Fighter class: build-your-own-class.

If a character identifies as something more specific than "some kinda combat guy, I guess?", he doesn't identify as "fighter, which is better than warrior". Instead, his identity is archer, dual wielder, tripper, shield basher, or whichever other combat style you can build out of feats.

Up to the individual party of tier 3+ players, or the individual DM, to decide if that is worth the party slot of what could be a Barbarian or Warblade, or the increased paperwork over an NPC class.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Needs actual (good) class features and non-fighter bonus feats every level. More skill points and the player's choice of skills.

[Lucas Yew]

This is an interesting system. So if I've understood you right, Clerics, Paladins, Barbarians and Sorcerers would gain 2 skill points and Fighters 4? That seems to work pretty well, apart from the fact that it removes one of the few limiting factors on Clerics. Do you give Fighters and Barbarians extra class skills so they've got something worthwhile to spend their points on?

And Monks gain 2 (or 4, if you actually count them as skill dependent, debatable though). Never forget Monks...

About skills, I believe all martial classes worth their salt must have at least Perception (PF-wise; was it Listen and Spot in 3.X?) to function, especially since real life martial arts emphasize actually detecting your opponent constantly. And all PC classes should add Sense Motive and Diplomacy into their class skills; martials, or even nerdy casters, should not be forced to be socially clueless jocks/introverts even if they not want to in the game world. And a sprinkle of various Knowledge skills for each class is always nice (I still think Fighters knowing about Engineering are quite rad).