I intend to design a full set of intermediate and advanced careers for WFRP3, and I want them to fit well with the existing basic careers. I have some ideas on balance and playability as adventuring careers that I want to take into account.

Some of the first careers I want to make are a generic Veteran Warrior and a slightly more specific Sergeant. Some of the basic careers to which they should be obvious advances are Soldier, Mercenary, and possibly Watchman. And there's my problem: the traits of these careers are too different.

Soldier, Mercenary and Watchman are all Basic Combat, but there the similarities end.

Soldier is Military Specialist

Mercenary is Menial Rogue

Watchman is Bureaucrat Urban

That Solider is Military is obvious, but Specialist? Aren't these just the standard rank & file soldiers? If this is a specialist, then what would an artillerist be?

That a Watchman is Bureaucrat Urban, I can sort of understand. He doesn't fight battles, but enforces the law and stuff like that. Operates in cities.

Mercenary is the really odd one. A Menial Rogue? Other careers with Menial include Boatman, Dockhand, Commoner, Rat Catcher, Thug, Hunter and Pit Fighter. What does Mercenary have in common with those careers? Only Thug amd Pit Fighter come somewhat close perhaps, but not nearly close enough. Isn't a mercenary somebody who is hired to fight in big battles, just like a soldier? Wouldn't Military make more sense here?

And then there's Rogue. Some other Rogues: Thief, Gambler, Smuggler, Agitator and Thug. (In fact, a Thug is Basic Combat Menial Rogue, exactly like the Mercenary.) Most of them really classical rogues in every sense of the word, and all of them quite a bit more roguish than a mercenary.

To list a few others: Pit Fight is Basic Combat Menial Specialist. Sounds not entirely inappropriate (although I have my doubts about Menial for someone who's only job is to fight in an arena), but it puts him halfway between Mercenary and Soldier, and that's just wrong. More than that, I'd like to give Sergeant some traits that make it an obvious career for Soldiers, Mercenaries and Watchmen, but not quite so much for Pit Fighters and Thugs, but as traits are right now, there's no way to do that.

Whichever way I turn the issue, Mercenary keeps coming up as the real problem. It's not a menial job, and it's not a rogue. It's a Mercenary every bit a Military Specialist as a Soldier? Or, if you want a bit more distinction between those two, perhaps Military Rogue sounds like a nice compromise. He fights big battles like the Soldier, but switches employers more often, and might resort to plundering when honest employ is scarce.

And with Mercenary a Military Rogue, I guess Sergeant would become a Military Bureaucrat, or perhaps it's time to add a new trait and make him a Military Leader. Together with Intermediate and Combat, that'd give him two traits difference with Soldier and Mercenary. It's still a bit more than I'd like, but probably the best I can do. (For Veteran Warrior I'm leaning towards Intermediate Combat Rogue Specialist, though I have my doubts about the Rogue.)

What do you think?

A mercenary has to turn their hands to all sorts of menial tasks, jack of all trades etc., since they don't have as much logistical support as regular troops, and sometimes they turn to the shady stuff to get by, that's my narrative explanation of "menial" and "rogue" traits for them.

Rob

I agree with Valvorik, in regard to mercenaries since for the most part they are not always employed to fight in major battles or even fight at all, in fact they could easily double as a bodyguard, watchman, or protagonist (from previous editions), also they have a reputation for being only as good as the coin they have already been given or the coin that somebody else could give them to turn on you. They lack the discipline of a trained soldier and would not likely face the same consequences as a soldier who deserts his post. So menial rogue sounds about right to me.

That being said I encourage you to alter your game as you see fit; making it your own is part of the fun of being a GM. You could always make Mercenary an advanced career and make a new career, say Sellsword as a basic one (or vise versa). Sellsword would represent the naive roguish more menial sword for hire while Mercenary would be the veteran who understands concepts of discipline and even loyalty. This is all right off the top of my head so I haven't given it all much thought, just trying to propose another possibility for you to ponder. Good luck.

I was contemplating the soldier career myself (and by extebsion all the "generic" careers).

What I was thinking was that soldier is so generic that it may be possible to diversify different regiments, units, mercenary companies, etc by making unique talents along the lines of ORDER cards.

For example:

Pistolier Talent / Order card could say Skill (Ride), Specialisation BS (Gunpowder Pistols), subject to a Fear test when fighting on foot and out numbered. The skills and specialisations count as career advances and can replace any listed in the career profile.

Long Sword Talent / Order card; TO (Fortune dice), Specialisation WS (2H Sword), subject to a Fear test when facing mounted or very large opponents.

I have not fully thought through this idea, but the intention is to further diversify the 'generic' careers and segement them. All careers could the benefit???? from this so a Burgher could have an Order / Talent of Glass blower, etc, etc.

It would even be possibble to add a 'Rank' slot onto the the talent card to reflect advancement within the career. So talents would stack if confined to the same career progression. Novice > Artisan > Master?

As I have said this a VERY raw thought, but it could give you ideas.

Alp

Amani said:

I get the rogue part, but menial? You still hire them for their combat ability, not for menial tasks. For thugs, I can understand menial rogue. They probably have a real job as stevedore or something, and beat up people on the side. A mercenary is really someone who fights in battles. Sometimes even more so than a soldier. When I think of mercenary in a medieval/renaissance context, the first things that pop into my mind are Landsknechts, Swiss halberdiers and Genovese crossbowmen. Perhaps those are a bit too elite to count as basic career mercenaries, but they're still mercenaries.

So I guess I'm going to rewrite the Mercenary career to be Basic Combat Military Rogue.

"So I guess I'm going to rewrite the Mercenary career to be Basic Combat Military Rogue."

Cool glad you now know what you want to do. My first thought after posting was that there were orders of mercenaries that were more professional than other run of the mill sellswords. Anyway good luck.

alp said:

I like this idea. A lot. Just like bright and grey wizards have the same career yet are very different, and just like priests of Sigmar and Shallya are very different, so too could you make several different kinds of Thief, Soldier, Mercenary, Agent, etc.

Not every career lends itself well to that kind of thing, but many definitely do.

Just with some quick research a Soldier in the empire can be defined as(using the Empire army book for reference);

State (Regular) Troops: Halbadier, Spearman, Swordsman, Handgunner

Militia (Irregular) Troops: Archer (Skirmisher), Huntsman(Skirmisher / Scout), Free Company Fighter (mercenary would cover this?), Crossbowman (Mercenary?), Dogs of War (Mercenary)

Special Troops: Longsword (Veteran), Pistolier (Irregular Light Cavalry), Engineer (?), Artillery (Mortars, Cannon & Hellcannon)

Using the Soldier and Mercenary Careers with an Order type talent mechanism could very quicky differentiate soldiers from being identical. All of them have a similar function (to fight) but they differ in their training and expertise.

I have not mentioned Knights (Heavy Cavalry), but one Knight template with an Order type mechanism could lead to a quick way to create different knightly characters.

This could be rolled out through quite a few of the basic careers to provide that little bit more flavour to a character.

What do you all think?

Alp

Sounds good. I something like this idea for the Burgher career, which I think was also mention earlier in this thread, but applying it to the soldier seems particularly apt. If you go with this thought would you be using the Strange Eons aplication to create the material? Either way please share whatever you do.

As a bit of an historical note, many of the mercenaries in periods similiar to the WFRP setting (notably the 30 years war) very much fit the menial role. Many were farmers or tradesmen who had lost their jobs or land during the war. Mercenary companies would often forcebly recruit any capable young men into their forces and train them in basic combat skills. They were often required to carry out whatever tasks their commander's required of them. Fitting with rogue they were also renouwned for the destruction they left in their wake and their lack of discipline.

Conversly trained soldiers were fairly rare, as most countries used conscripts. A trained, profesional soldier was very much a specialist. Just my historcal two cents, but as always with role-playing; what fits best for you and your group is paramount.

Lack of discipline? I guess there are a lot of very different kinds of mercenaries. Elite mercenaries like the Swiss or Landsknechts must have been pretty disciplined to be as good as they were. Then again, the Swiss were indeed farmers who wanted to be home in time for the harvest. I think the Landsknechts were full-time professional soldiers, though.

But I don't think the Mercenary career should reflect that the mercenary might also have another job. Mercenary is about the military part of the career. He may have Farmer as a previous career, though.

mcv said:

It's a very common conception of sell-swords that their loyalty is up for the highest bidder. There may be some that can't be bought out once they have a contract, but most are in it for the big payout.

Rogue makes perfect sense.

mcv said:

But those mercenaries were the exeption . Note how you used the word "elite" to describe them. Those groups were indeed specialists, and imo would be better represented in the game as soldiers due to their training and organization.

And I wasn't implying that these men were still farmers/tradesman. Most of the mercenaries during the thirty years war (which I use as an example because it not only fits the technological era of warhammer, but also because there were many large mercenary armies) fell into one of two catagories. The first were bully-boys and thugs gathered together and given proper weapons (which is why their traits so closely match thug). The second, and the ones I was refering to, were peasents and tradesmen whose homes and shops had been destroyed in the sack of their towns; usually by the very mercenaries they then joined either through force, or because they had no options left. They were then given very basic weapon training and pointed at the enemy. These forces were notoriously unruly and since the men, as opposed to the officers, were often paid with looting rights not contract money, they were renowned for their **** and pillage.

So all told I feel the the card traits bear out that FFG intended the Mercenary card to more appropriatly represent the far more common type of historical mercenary. I think that the soldier card can be used very well to represent the more elite and "specialist" merc.