It has always bothered me that the level title for a first level fighter is “Veteran” considering that this is exactly what a 1st level fighter is not. I've never served in the military, but I do know that the term veteran is reserved for those who've actually seen some action. Sure, veteran isn't as awe-inspiring as terms like hero, champion or–ahem—Myrmidon, but it still deserves more respect than 1st level accords it. For that reason, until someone comes up with a better term I am doctoring my PHB to look like this:
That is all.
But that's exactly what a 1st level Fighter *is*: someone whose been to war and learned how to fight. Non-veterans are 0-level. Just like a Magic-User has to have successfully cast a spell.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I get that, though I don't buy that all 1st level fighters have necessarily seen action. Especially since in AD&D all men-at-arms and mercenaries beneath the officer class are assumed to be 0-level regardless of their actual combat experience.
ReplyDeleteIn your example, it is not necessary that the MU has cast a spell in an adventure setting, only that s/he has learned to cast a spell. Likewise, a 1st level fighter has learned how to fight, but has not necessarily been in actual combat.
When you think of the term, especially as applied to athletes, you're still a rookie after your first game. Eventually you achieve non-rookie status--once the first season is over, but a 2nd year athlete is still not really considered a veteran. Such status is conferred on those with certain amount of experience on the job, not just the bare minimum of qualifications.
It actually bothered me as well, although i wonder if recruit or enlistee might be more appropriate. Still, what to do with "Veteran" if you remove it from first level?
ReplyDeleteI've never particularly cared for Myrmidon...
ReplyDeleteActually, maybe 3rd level level would be a good spot for veteran. "Swordsman" has always seemed a bit too weapon-specific especially considering the number of axe-wielding dwarven fighters out there. By 3rd level you've seen enough combat to have developed a gritty demeanor and workmanlike competence, but the flamboyance of a hero or swashbuckler has yet to come.
"In your example, it is not necessary that the MU has cast a spell in an adventure setting, only that s/he has learned to cast a spell. Likewise, a 1st level fighter has learned how to fight, but has not necessarily been in actual combat."
ReplyDeleteI think you're putting the cart before the horse, somewhat. A first level fighter that hasn't seen combat already has a title: Normal Man! The elite few fighting men that ever see first level have already been tempered in the flames of mortal combat. Magic-users? Apples and oranges!
I guess what I'm getting at is that an elite, classed fighter that has only had practice sessions is like a gymnast at the Olympics that read a book about how to do a flip once. :)
ReplyDeleteExcept your "elite few" warriors have only a 5% better chance of hitting their opponent than the non-elite "normal man." Anybody with combat training who hasn't seen actual combat is going to be substantially better off their first time in the thick of it than someone with no combat training--at least 5% better I would think. Otherwise armies wouldn't bother training their troops before throwing them into combat.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides, I've worked under the assumption that 1st level fighters are newbies fresh out of the academy for 30+ years now, do you think reasonable arguments are going to change my trajectory now? Freakin' Brezhnev was in office when I first came to this conclusion and you want to change my mind with chatter about Gymnasts and flip books?! HA!
"Otherwise armies wouldn't bother training their troops before throwing them into combat."
ReplyDeleteThey frequently didn't. Peasant levies, "cannon fodder", etc.
But I digress. It's perfectly cool that you have your own interpretation of what it means to be a member of the fighter class. It's not in line with the game's default assumptions, but that's alright. To each his own.
Where are these "default assumptions" listed? I don't think I've ever seen them.
ReplyDeleteI've long used "shield bearer" instead of veteran.
ReplyDeleteShieldbearer definitely puts novice fighters in their place.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the setting, here are some others I'd consider: ensign, cadet, squire, plebe, grunt, bantam, punk,
We made a change long ago when our ex-military buddy suggested changes.
ReplyDelete1st Armsman
2nd Veteran
3rd Swordsman
4th Swashbuckler
5th Hero
6th Myrmidon
7th Champion
8th Superhero
9th Lord
10+ Lord
etc
Necro posting again, sorry.
ReplyDeleteVeteran never bothered me as a title for the 1st level, but then I never really thought about *any* of the class "level" titles either; I can't think of any instances or games in Basic or Advanced where we ever used any of them. "Did I level up?" "You're a Myrmidon" "Oh, yeah? Same to you, buddy!"
I could definitely get behind the Armsman or Shieldbearer titles, though. Along with RPGs, one of my other interests is playing Trucking sims and watching trucker videos for the lingo and "campaign" background ;) Among them it is a common belief that nearly anyone can get a CDL license; you have to prove yourself in the field before you get to be called a "Driver", before that you are just a "Steering Wheel Holder".
You're right, no one has ever really cared about level titles, with the exception of Pelltar, the sorceror from L1 Secret of Bone Hill who really hated it when folks in town called him an enchanter.
ReplyDeleteIn keeping with Steering Wheel Holder, a first level fighter shall hence be known as "weapon guy."