You know what they're good and bad at when hunting monsters and bagging gold, but how they relate to the wider society of a medieval fantasy campaign world is not quite as clear. In this "Playing the Part" series, I will describe what I believe each class's role is when talking to NPCs.
I propose here that it's not always the person with the highest charisma who should do the talking.
Naturally, I will begin with the class most likely to spark debate (or just anger) over this subject.
 |
| by Filip Štorch |
The Fighter, the Warrior, the Fighting-Man as they were known in Original Dungeons and Dragons (OD&D). This is the class you play when you want to, yes, Fight.
They deal damage and take damage better than any other class, but that is by no means what they always do. If they used to be a rank and file soldier, they would know about siege weapons, horseback riding, and militia tactics. If they used to be a sailor, they would know about weather, rope work, and navigation.
Talking to the nobility and landed elites is also something fighters should be better at than other base classes.
Hear me out on this one.
When you make a fighter at level 1, what do you envision he or she is like? A scowling brute with a sword? A plucky young swashbuckler with dashing good looks? A wise and jaded mercenary? These are some standard personality sandwiches for a low-level fighter.
What you do not usually envision is a knight in shining plate armor on a steed. Why? Because plate armor and a horse are really expensive, and you're just a lowborn thug for hire, right?
You are, but not permanently.
In OD&D, each level corresponds to a set title. At level 1, a fighting-man is not called that, but rather a "veteran". At level 2 they are called a "warrior", at level 3 a "swordsman" and so on. At level 9 and all levels thereafter, they are called a Lord.
 |
| by WL OP |
This is significant when you take a look at how other classes refer to their own "name levels." In OD&D and 1st edition AD&D, a mage or "magic-user" isn't called a "Wizard" until level 11, for example. Likewise in 1eAD&D, a "thief" is not called a thief until level 9.
But a Fighter is never actually given the title "fighter". When they achieve their name level, they are a Lord. The reason for that is, the more power a fighter obtains, the more the nobility comes to see him or her as "one of them." It could also be due to the fighter getting a small loyal army practically for free, and the other nobles don't want to start antagonizing them.
A fighter's default aspiration is to become a Lord, with all the advantages that come with such a title. When they gain land and influence, the local nobility will no longer think them a filthy, unwashed peasant undeserving of even a passing glance. They may even consider a new, upstart lord important enough to plot their downfall.
Welcome to the world of politics!
Let's not kid ourselves. A medieval fantasy setting is almost nothing like a historical medieval society. Campaigns are commonly set in worlds where you are not locked into soul-crushing serfdom and have enough freedom to go out and adventure. For this reason, even a lowly grunt can eventually gain enough skill, power, and respect to become a noble in their own right, social spheres be damned. Magic and monsters might have something to do with it too.
But how to reflect the fighter's advantage in an actual game?
Simply, when a fighter reaches name level, treat their charisma score as 2 points higher when interacting with the nobility up to the limit of 18.
Don't like this rule? Don't include it. I however would include this in a game I run, because it's important to understand that a fighter's role extends beyond the scope of combat.
This certainly make a lot more sense in a setting which tries to be more accurately medieval than the 'faux middle ages' of most games, which draw upon more from modern society, the western or even post apocalyptic roots.
ReplyDelete