I was reading over the creature guide and I have found that the stats of a Soldier of the Impire are much more the same as the stats of a townfolk. Except for an extra fortune die in Strength and the big amount of wounds (even compared to other human NPC).

To me, this makes quite a pathetic Soldier, especially a Soldier from the Imperial army, who in principle, is trained regularly to fight the horrors of a battle. May be the stats of the Soldier (pg 98 of the creature guide) are more apropiate to describe a City Watchmen. Then, a soldier from the real army, instead of having St(3) <W> and To(3)<W> could have for example St(4) and To(4).

To compare with for example, NPC Merchants apearing in the creature guide have Int(3) <W> WP(3)<W> Fel(4)<W>, therefore looks like that common humans with stat values of 4 are not that uncommon.

Any GM opinion about that will be apreciated.

I think the "weak" soldier reflects the idea of hapless soldiers being the "standard", ones who will be lucky to never get in an "even fight" with competent foes and who are winnowed down in times of challenge to the experienced veterans etc. That soldiers are mostly like that is the reason we have heroes.

I would not use those stats for "picked troops", veterans etc.

Yes I think that as well. Most guys you would come across would be levied state troops to bored/scared to be overly effective. Plus being better than soldiers makes you feel like a total boss when they come running to you for protection.

I think its important that the PCs get bullied and pushed around by soldiers early on so they know how tough they really are. There's nothing worse than GMing a game where the players think that they're tougher than the town guard.

..hence, I've always leveled up my soldiers to whatever the PCs are . I think there was a star wars video game like this (it was d20 based) where I recall fighting tusken raiders who were level 18..and that was the babies stepping out of the tent with naught but a diaper and the signature mask on their face. I think it was KotOR.

jh

www.hafnerchiropractic.com

Yepesnopes said:

Not so much... Remember this is based on a period of history where the closest thing you got to standing armies were the knightly orders - and mercenaries. Regular soldiers are basically just peasants who've been given a halberd and (if they're luck) a helmet and leather jacket. Their training probably focuses on 'learn to follow orders, or at the very least keep silent' and 'intimidate the peasants so that they don't think to challenge their feudal overlords'.

Different versions of warhammer (both the roleplaying game and the tabletop battle game) have given different impressions as to what sort of a world this is. If you're just going by the latest version(s) from GW then sure; not an hour passes without a horde of orcs/zombies/elves/griffons/chaos warriors descending upon the Empire, and half destroying it before being finally defeated in some apocalyptic battle led by the latest heroes to have models released.

But in older versions, and especially in WFRP, the emphasis has been more on creating a credible, consistent and somewhat 'realistic' setting, anchored firmly in certain periods of history.

**** Despot!

You are so right, I still remember playing the first edition of the game, the atmosphere evoqued by the books was that of a world made by common men fighting impossible foes, that was a really grim set up.
Nonetheless, I also feel like Emirikol. I need that my players, at the begining of their careers at least, learn to respect the authorieties, to make them feel more average and less heroe like. Although, as my players advance I don't level up guards or soldiers, I try to find new formulas, like Witch Hunters or so, otherwise I have the feeling the world loses consistency. So I think I will just boost a bit soldiers and the like.

Do you find that for beginning players that guards, etc. are that underpowered? I would have thought that one good / lucky hit can give a PC a nasty injury. Taking on two at once is surely pretty dangerous. You might escape with your life, but once the criticals begin to mount up, the stress and lack of sleep start getting to you, and you start succumbing to diseases in your weakened state, I'd have thought that a fun in with the guards is not something you'd want to do if you really have a choice.

If you don't find this, then I think it's not a bad idea to beef the guards up a little.

However, remember also what sort of characters your PCs are. If they're playing thieves, scholars and jugglers, then they might (and probably should) find guards a serious threat. But if your PCs begin as (semi) hardened mercenaries, troll slayers, etc. then it's not necessarily wrong that they're more competent than the guards.

Obviously though, you do what your game needs to work - mechanically and thematically.

My guards )guards( tend to be more Terry Pratchett, so you'd be hard pressed to strike the final blow without falling over in laughter

jh