Warrior or Fighter? [E6]

[AtlanteanTroll]

So, I'm thinking of starting up an E6 campaign, when it it appropiate for the enemy to be a fighter instead of a warrior? Is the commanding general a fighter or warrior? What about the calvary, or infantry?

[Crow]

I use fighters for people that are more dedicated to learning the arts of combat than your average "warrior" would be, or people who have had formal instruction from true masters.

If he's just a regular guy who chose to make his living as a soldier, then i use the Warrior class.

[Marnath]

Generally the divide is between career soliders and anyone else. So militia's and part time soldiers would be warriors, and the better ones will be fighter. Anyone over level two should probably be a fighter too, because more than that defeats the purpose of making the warriors the little guy.

[The Oakenshield]

I use Fighter for your average Joe shmucks, and Warblade or Crusader for dedicated, professional warriors, because I find the Fighter class isn't powerful enough.

[Crow]

Generally the divide is between career soliders and anyone else. So militia's and part time soldiers would be warriors, and the better ones will be fighter. Anyone over level two should probably be a fighter too, because more than that defeats the purpose of making the warriors the little guy.

Wouldn't militia or part-time soldiers mean that their primary profession is something else, i.e. Experts or Commoners? I mean, that's what a militia is.

[Mecharious]

I think it really only needs to be as simple as how tough do you want them to be? Warriors don't have any training beyond basic combat excercises and are usually low-rank soldiers or city guards. Higher level warriors would be the same grunts who have had more experience in battle, but never really devoted their time to becoming better at martial combat.

Fighters on the other hand have had significant training, whether self-taught or studied under a master. They actively try to improve their skills. A low level fighter would be well-trained, or impressively skilled, but not have much experience in actualy combat.

[Marnath]

Wouldn't militia or part-time soldiers mean that their primary profession is something else, i.e. Experts or Commoners? I mean, that's what a militia is.

Those are conscripts. Militia do usually have jobs, but they have a decent amount of training compared to average people but not comparing to real troops.

[snoopy13a]

Warriors and Fighters represent professional and experienced soldiers.

If you are working with a militia, you could have the army made up of experts, commoners, and aristocrats (for the cavalry) along with a sprinkling of warriors and fighters to represent the experienced militia soldiers.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Generally the divide is between career soliders and anyone else. So militia's and part time soldiers would be warriors, and the better ones will be fighter. Anyone over level two should probably be a fighter too, because more than that defeats the purpose of making the warriors the little guy.

So once you reach 2nd Level as a Warrior, you Multiclass into a 1st level fighter? Assuming it's an NPC. I kind of like that.

To give a better idea: What would you rule a Hopolite or a Spartan as?

[Marnath]

So once you reach 2nd Level as a Warrior, you Multiclass into a 1st level fighter? Assuming it's an NPC. I kind of like that.

To give a better idea: What would you rule a Hopolite or a Spartan as?

I was actually thinking retraining, since IIRC all that changes is you get more feats. But yeah, multiclassing could work for npc's. I'm working off the 3.0 Enemies&Allies book for these assumptions, by the way. It still seems relevant.

I don't know off hand what a hopolite is, but a Spartan, assuming we're talking the uber-bad asses from 300, is definately a soldier, no question about it. probably level 4-6.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I was actually thinking retraining, since IIRC all that changes is you get more feats. But yeah, multiclassing could work for npc's. I'm working off the 3.0 Enemies&Allies book for these assumptions, by the way. It still seems relevant.

Retraining? Sorrily, I don't own that book.

I don't know off hand what a hopolite is, but a Spartan, assuming we're talking the uber-bad asses from 300, is definately a soldier, no question about it. probably level 4-6.

I agree, (though 300 was exaggerated to say the least) but a Warrior or a Fighter?

[Marnath]

Retraining? Sorrily, I don't own that book.


I agree, (though 300 was exaggerated to say the least) but a Warrior or a Fighter?

You don't need rules to retrain, just say "you're a level 3 fighter now instead of a level 2 warrior!"

Omg, I totally meant to type fighter, not soldier.
Sorry.

[Tvtyrant]

A spartan would be a fighter. They stay in close ranks in heavy armor and behind large metal-fronted shields and stab at enemys with long spears. Nothing Barbarian about them, or any other fighter type. Just straight Fighters.

Feats would be things like shield mastery and Combat Reflexes for AoO.

[AtlanteanTroll]

You don't need rules to retrain, just say "you're a level 3 fighter now instead of a level 2 warrior!"

Does that mean they get the Bonus Feats that they didn't get?

[Marnath]

Does that mean they get the Bonus Feats that they didn't get?

Yeah. Usually Npc's don't level up though, so I don't think it'll matter much?

[TheMeMan]

A spartan would be a fighter. They stay in close ranks in heavy armor and behind large metal-fronted shields and stab at enemys with long spears. Nothing Barbarian about them, or any other fighter type. Just straight Fighters.

Feats would be things like shield mastery and Combat Reflexes for AoO.

Pretty much. I wouldn't even put the regulars at level 4-6 as has been stated.

Straight human fighter, with Shield Mastery and Combat Reflexes.

Level 2 or maybe 3 would probably be the rank and files of the army, with Toughness (or possibly Endurance) if you wanted to be accurate. Although they were good, they weren't that good, and were incredibly inflexible (Part of the reason they eventually declined). They were by no means gods among common men. That said, their entire society would be made up of level 2(Mostly) and 3(A bit less) fighters, with very few "commoners", really(Representing slaves, perhaps).

Regular hoplites would be about the same, methinks, only with less levels 3 distribution about it, possibly even represented by level 1-2. It doesn't take much to be a hoplite(In DND terms, anyway).

[AtlanteanTroll]

So, can I ask another question of you nice, nice GITPers? Well, I am anyway. Who would be a level 6 Fighter in a real world E6 campaign? Attila the Hun, Lao Tzu, Genghis Khan?

[Coidzor]

^: A level 6 fighter... pretty much the peak of human precision and prowess in mastering a school of fighting. Problem is, most of those guys were leaders of men more than they were personally powerful warriors. In an attempt to model them historically accurately, they would likely need more skills and skillpoints than fighter could provide.

And Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Te Ching.

Warriors are for when the DM doesn't want to customize an NPC or create a more complicated troop type, AFAIK.

So, what I would do is have rounded up rabble as warriors, higher level warriors being more paramilitary types like the Watch, and trained professionals as fighters.

[AtlanteanTroll]

^: A level 6 fighter... pretty much the peak of human precision. Problem is, most of those guys were leaders of men more than they were personally powerful warriors.

Still, I wouldn't want to meat any of them on the field of battle. But, if as you say, all they were was powerful leaders, who would you assign that to?

^: And Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Te Ching.

... Knowledge (History) critical failure.

Warriors are for when the DM doesn't want to customize an NPC or create a more complicated troop type, AFAIK.

So, what I would do is have rounded up rabble as warriors, higher level warriors being more paramilitary types like the Watch, and trained professionals as fighters.

OK.

[TheMeMan]

So, can I ask another question of you nice, nice GITPers? Well, I am anyway. Who would be a level 6 Fighter in a real world E6 campaign? Attila the Hun, Lao Tzu, Genghis Khan?

Very, very, very few people I would imagine. Likewise, those, although great war-minds(Not to be confused with the prestige class) are not necessarily great fighters. That's not to say Generals and the like can't be great fighters, but these men largely were moreso intellectual fighters, rather than having a great deal of actual fighting(Although Genghis and Attila were very good). If going by E6, I would look at Alexander the Great, perhaps(Trained extensively both in Tactics, as well as in actual combat, although I still wouldn't put him at 6), and Miyamoto Musashi(15th century Samurai, called the "Sword Saint", master swordsman, never lost a duel, enlisted in the army, survived that mess, AND went on to create tactics, and become a combat phylosopher).

So yeah, Those two would probably be closer to 6.

[Tvtyrant]

So, can I ask another question of you nice, nice GITPers? Well, I am anyway. Who would be a level 6 Fighter in a real world E6 campaign? Attila the Hun, Lao Tzu, Genghis Khan?

People like professional gladiators might be level 6 soldiers, but in real life generals are almost never great fighters; they spend too much time working on leading armies to concentrate on individual combat. Augustus defeated all of his rivals over who would control the empire, and he wasn't even a general. He paid another man (Agrippa) to do that.

Musashi was a good swordsman, but he would have gotten any army he lead killed.

[TheMeMan]

People like professional gladiators might be level 6 soldiers, but in real life generals are almost never great fighters; they spend too much time working on leading armies to concentrate on individual combat. Augustus defeated all of his rivals over who would control the empire, and he wasn't even a general. He paid another man (Agrippa) to do that.

Musashi was a good swordsman, but he would have gotten any army he lead killed.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Professional gladiators were very good at fighting... in the arena. Few people know that the gladiatorial games had very strict rules, covering pretty much every aspect of the fight. As such, the gladiators were good at fighting... in a specific context. That said, they would be one hell of a fighter compared to you or me, but compared to a professional soldier, they probably would have been beaten down right quick. That's not to say a Gladiator couldn't be level 6. However, such a gladiator would be remember for generations, and every subsequent gladiator would be compared to them (Killius Everyonii may be good, but he's no Beholdii Myus Pecksius...). A level six fighter, in realistic terms, would be the man of legends, the guy your grandparents tell you stories of to get you to shut up for a while. The common gladiator would probably be Fighter level 2 & 3, and the numbers would quickly diminish from there. A level six would be a once in a lifetime, maybe two, type of person.

[Coidzor]

So, basically, trying to model real life faithfully and closely is not very satisfying with D&D, even E6.

[Tvtyrant]

I think your underestimating population numbers mate. The Roman Empire had more then 60 million people in it, and the Han had even more. I don't know how the levels are meted out with regards to numbers, but I find it more likely that there would be about a dozen level 6's across Eurasia at any one time. We don't hear much about them now, but 2000 years reduces our records to mythology and political leaders.

And the gladiator thing, while i agree, doesn't effect their levels. They would be unoptimized level 6's, such as compared to a knight (charger).

[TheMeMan]

So, basically, trying to model real life faithfully and closely is not very satisfying with D&D, even E6.

Well... yes, actually. Unless you're playing a very slow progression game, with level 6 being seen as a milestone of achievement after a very long journey, trying to model anything D&D out of the real world creates a sort of lackluster feel to it. Everyone wants their favorite warrior, general, or what-have-you being level 15, and proceeding to kill the world. The reality is much less... interesting. Playing E6 would allow for this, with a little care to the details, and fudging the abilities of real-world entities a bit. Even still, the level 6 characters in the world would essentially be able to stomp 95% or so of the world's population with breaking a sweat. Realistically speaking of course. Which is why you don't, and probably in most cases probably shouldn't, do so. It just doesn't work well.

[Tvtyrant]

A level 6 is capable of fighting over 100 base level orcs and getting out alive. Their reach proscribes a circle of death, and their eyes burn like fire. Not with ten thousand men could you do this, it is folly.

[TheMeMan]

I think your underestimating population numbers mate. The Roman Empire had more then 60 million people in it, and the Han had even more. I don't know how the levels are meted out with regards to numbers, but I find it more likely that there would be about a dozen level 6's across Eurasia at any one time. We don't hear much about them now, but 2000 years reduces our records to mythology and political leaders.

And the gladiator thing, while i agree, doesn't effect their levels. They would be unoptimized level 6's, such as compared to a knight (charger).

Although my numbers may have been a tad harsh in the negative routs, I wouldn't say necessarily a dozen 6s about at a given time. Perhaps a handful or so. But once in a lifetime in the sense that you, a person, may only see them once in a lifetime, keeping the Gladiator thing going. Likewise, I would argue that they would be optimized, but optimized for a very, very specific task, and that's it. They were, essentially, very good professional wrestlers of their time.

Yet this is all petty details, with the same result: Very few(Almost non-existent, in comparison) level 6s amongst a host of lower-leveled fighters.

[TheMeMan]

A level 6 is capable of fighting over 100 base level orcs and getting out alive. Their reach proscribes a circle of death, and their eyes burn like fire. Not with ten thousand men could you do this, it is folly.

True, however the 95% thing came from if they fought each person, not as a whole. Only once you get up to level 5s or 6s(And maybe 4s) is a threat posed, below that, it's a cake-walk fight.

[Tvtyrant]

True, however the 95% thing came from if they fought each person, not as a whole. Only once you get up to level 5s or 6s(And maybe 4s) is a threat posed, below that, it's a cake-walk fight.

I ran the stats for 100 horsearchers versus 1 level 6 once; it is actually possible to win that way with level 1 fighters. They aren't very good horse archers, but they can each fire about 60 arrows, and all they have to do is ride away, shoot, and ride away. In melee however the 6 kills them all :P (it took 75 rounds though; stupid tower shield).

4s using flanking might be able to, or by initiating a bunch of grapples.

[Coidzor]

I ran the stats for 100 horsearchers versus 1 level 6 once; it is actually possible to win that way with level 1 fighters. They aren't very good horse archers, but they can each fire about 60 arrows, and all they have to do is ride away, shoot, and ride away. In melee however the 6 kills them all :P (it took 75 rounds though; stupid tower shield).

4s using flanking might be able to, or by initiating a bunch of grapples.

Well, yes, historically, even, horsearchers were OP.