Military positions in a "squad"?

[Oryan77]

I'm wanting to have a war and put the party in a "squad" that they get to scout around with. I want to give each PC a military title for their role in the squad. What role would a soldier have for each D&D class?

Like, cleric would be medic?
Ranger would be scout?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What classes are your PCs? "Builds?" (Eg an archer is a "build" or ranger or fighter, not a class itself.) Are you looking at ranks? Even what edition, because a warlord should be in charge, but most editions don't have warlords.

And then I would give positions medieval names. A medic is too modern a name, IMO, and "medic" barely touches on a cleric's capabilities anyway.

If PCs are independently scouting and then reporting to superiors, their superiors might not even care what their positions are called, so long as the PCs can get the job done.

 

[Oryan77]

This is a scenario that I have planned down the road. The PCs may change before that point and I may get new players in the group by then (we're short a player at the moment). So the exact builds are not set in stone. I was just mining for ideas/opinions to prepare for it ahead of time. Maybe focusing on each of the 3.5e core classes will be enough and what kind of role they could fill in a military squad.

I know this is kind of an open ended question. Any thoughts on it are welcome.

My goal is to give each player a role in a "military" as a way of adding something to the game that the players may not have experienced before in a D&D game. So they may be given skirmish missions from a higher-up, but I want them to be in charge of the team (squad) provided to them. I want them to feel like they are in charge and are filling a special role in the squad that other members of the group can't provide as well.

I want the more warrior types (fighters, paladins, cleric, etc) to be in charge of the squad and would be the one reporting to the higher-ups. The sneaky types (rogue, ranger, bard) could be in charge of scouting ahead short distances and reporting back to the squad leader. This person would be given a couple of members from the squad while doing the scouting so that the player feels like he's in charge of his little "unit".

I want to put the caster types in charge of the battle plans and offensive/defensive situations. For example, the scouts report back to the squad leader about some orcs camped ahead. The squad turns to the casters on how to ambush them, or how to bypass them.

These are all just flimsy thoughts right now. The whole idea may not even play out like this since my players don't really take charge and roleplay in that sort of way. But I'd like to at least set it up for them and see what happens. I could have an NPC commander actually designate these roles to them and express to the group how important it is to play up to these roles for the sake of the war. At the same time letting them express their concerns if they have any (maybe he doesn't want to be the squad leader).

My knowledge about the military is limited. Which is why I'm asking for advice. Being able to give the PC a "rank" would help spice things up. So I guess I'm asking for a rank and that persons role in the military in a fantasy setting. Hashing out the core classes would be nice, but the PC specifics right now are:

Fighter
Cleric/Sorcerer
Beguiler
Bard

 

[GreyLord]

Well, how official do you want the squad to be?

How specialized?

You of course have the Sergeant or Corporal...if you have a Sergeant and a larger group, you'd probably also have a Corporal or two. A Combat Medic is probably a good idea, you'd want a radio operator (though I have no idea who that may be, I suppose that could be the trumpeter, drummer, or flagman...so maybe a bard?), if it's a convoy, maybe a gunner (heavy weapons...so perhaps the Mage?). If it's just a squad, you probably don't want to break it up much, but you would want a man on point (so I guess that could be your scout type class if you want).

Just a few ideas of what you could toss in there...maybe.

 

[Wicht]

Ranks: Captain > Lieutenant > Sergeant > Corporal>footman

Job Titles: Commander, Chirurgeon, Chaplain, Scout, Cook, Shieldsman, Swordsman, Archer (bowman), Standard Bearer, Drummer and/or Piper

Personally, for the typical group, I would give each one a rank above footman. I would make the cleric a Chaplain and the Chirurgeon. I would give the one or two stealthiest the job of scout, make the Captain the Commander (obviously). Rank does not necessarily denote job, so make sure to delineate both. The Chaplain might also be a Sergeant for instance.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, the notion of a 'squad' and a 'military occupational specialty' is anachronistic in most D&D settings. The military organization with detached squads like you are thinking probably doesn't really happen until the 20th century, and certainly any time before Frederick William (mid-17th century) that sort of modern military professionalism was just unknown. Indeed, the term 'squad' doesn't even exist until the mid-17th century and evolves ultimately from 'quad' or 'square', and refers basically to what we'd now call a battalion - a detachment of troops capable of forming a square formation so as to defend itself on all sides, specifically with pikes and muskets. So, you are very much headed for a deliberately anachronistic mage-punk sort of setting if you go this route. If that is what you want, I'm sure titles can be provided if they are really needed, but personally, I'd have everyone in the squad identify themselves as 'Voltigeurs', which is suitably exotic and descriptive at the same time. Slightly less anachronistic, I might go with 'Velites'. More truthfully, I might go with 'Raider', which is the function that small detachments in antiquity generally functioned in. Most ancient armies fought without supply lines, and depended for subsistence on small detachments of raiders that would collect, by force if necessary, food from the surrounding countryside.

As an aside, I really don't like 'medic' for 'cleric', because it doesn't convey the prestige and respect owed to a member of a religious order. If I was introducing a militant priest serving as a mercenary, I'd say something like, "Reverend Father Robert, of the Militant Order of the Unconquered Sun, a Chaplain of the Royal Voltigeurs" Informally, other soldiers would introduce him as, "Our Chaplain, Father Bob". Higher ranking members of a religious order, would be introduced by their title - Bishop, for example, or whatever titles are used by the particular 'church'. Note that so much of the technical language of organized religion is explicitly Christian and may not make sense in a polytheistic setting. It's entirely possible that you could replace 'Chaplain' with a term like 'War Priest' or even a neologism and it would make perfect sense in the setting.

You will probably need to do just that in the case of an wizard. I would imagine spell casters would be accorded special respect in any setting that they exist in. At a minimum, they are going to be accorded an honorific of some sort, if only 'Master'. In my setting, the proper honorific for a mage of unknown power is, "Your Potency". So you might have, "His Potency, Mord, Venificus of the Royal Voltiguers". "Venificus" isn't exactly a neologism, but most players won't know where it comes from and those that do will appreciate it. You can explain that Venificus is what mercenary arcane magic users (regardless of class) are called in your setting, which I think will be necessary, because there is no real world equivalent I'm aware of.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My goal is to give each player a role in a "military" as a way of adding something to the game that the players may not have experienced before in a D&D game. So they may be given skirmish missions from a higher-up, but I want them to be in charge of the team (squad) provided to them. I want them to feel like they are in charge and are filling a special role in the squad that other members of the group can't provide as well.

Are the PCs the only members of the squad?

I want the more warrior types (fighters, paladins, cleric, etc) to be in charge of the squad and would be the one reporting to the higher-ups.

This is one of those areas where D&D's simulation falls. The person in charge is, at minimum, an experienced and charismatic person. Hopefully intelligent too. These aren't things that are associated with D&D fighter-types. (That's why I mentioned warlords above. In my current 4e game, where I'm a player, we acknowledge our warlord as leader. He has Int 10.)

In other words, PCs aren't competent enough (within the rules) for the roles you're trying to give them, at least without introducing a series of often poorly-balanced non-core rules. (A marshal might be a competent leader, but they're pretty wimpy in actual combat.)

I'm a big fan of the really old Chinese classic, Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Drop the first three words, that's not important, or replace "Romance" with "Book". It's all about a massive civil war. All three faction leaders were nobles (think aristocrats), each had a group of "Tiger Generals" (or "Kings of Wu" for the southern group) who were generally charismatic badasses but had varying levels of intelligence*, and each were usually assisted by a very intelligent adviser who was usually not a badass. Perhaps you could replicate that.

*I'm picturing fighter/marshals. There were some who were clearly better at fighting than others, and some who were clearly better at thinking. I'm not really sure if there were any who were really good at both, although Gan Ning's bold leadership certainly made him seem very intelligent. Even if all he did was roll dice to randomly select a strategy!

Another couple of examples are English and Roman. During the Hundred Years' War, the highest-ranking commanders got their position by birth and commanded numerous contingents from their duchy. Each English contingent generally consisted of ~100-120 soldiers, of which one quarter were knights (they often fought dismounted) and the rest were archers. Archer leaders were called "centenars" (lead 75-100 archers) or "ventenars" (lead 20 archers). These contingents would be led by a noble (a count for instance), who was generally a fairly badass warrior, and may or may not be a competent field leader. Fortunately for the English, their high-ranking leaders were either good leaders or at least listened to their advisers. I couldn't find good info on other types of soldiers (they couldn't all have been just knights and archers).

In such a system, one of the contingent leaders could hire mercenaries (the PCs) to act as scouts and so forth, and this noble must in turn report to a higher-ranking noble. This noble is responsible for them, but what ranks these mercenaries are given isn't really relevant.

And finally, the Roman system. Romans marched in units of 10, of which two were noncombatants and possibly slaves. 10 units gave a century, led by a centurion and an optio (basically really high-ranking NCOs, because they were promoted from the ranks) and a legion would have a senior centurion, the primpilus or primipilus (first spear), who was both a badass and a really good commander, plus the aquilifer ("eagle carrier"), whose job was to protect the legion standard (aquila) and was the legion's most badass person. The aquilifier did not need to be a good commander, and that's a great place for a high-ranking fighter to go to, although high Charisma helps rally troops to protect the aquila. There were essentially noble officers (legatus, the guy officially in charge, several tribunes, who were usually very young noblemen) and weren't really expected to be good at war. Sometimes a governor led the legion instead of the legatus, or led several legions (Julius Caesar did this).

A group of PCs isn't even the size of a 10 man Roman squad though.

Fighter
Cleric/Sorcerer
Beguiler
Bard

Since you want the fighter to at least nominally lead the unit, I need to know more. Do they have decent Int and Cha scores? Do they have noble birth? Tactical feats? Because if they have neither, they cannot effectively lead in flavor terms. They can only be the badass.

What is the cleric/sorcerer "specialized" in? Domains? Favorite spells? That's a pretty suboptimal combo too. If this PC really drops the bomb on enemies, I would give a title such as "War Wizard" or "Senior Wand". But there's not enough info here.

Beguilers have a wide array of out-of-combat spells they can use, such as Charm Person. (I refuse to see such a spell as a combat spell.) So this PC could make a good infiltrator or "Covert Ops Agent", but you need an old-fashioned title for that. But again, you know your PC better than I do. A beguiler who spams Confusion is something else entirely.

A bard is much like a Beguiler. They have actual combat leadership abilities (high Charisma, the ability to enhance their allies, social skills for out-of-combat) and if they're of noble birth all they need is a sword to be a standard of leadership and you now have a party leader. Even if they have low Int, that just means they need to lean on an adviser when prepping for battle (I'm looking at the Beguiler) and then follow the "script". Keep the troops focused. Said bard would probably have a title like "Lieutenant" or "Captain" and will probably customize the title to better suit them. "Almost-Major?"

 

[Celebrim]

This is one of those areas where D&D's simulation falls. The person in charge is, at minimum, an experienced and charismatic person. Hopefully intelligent too. These aren't things that are associated with D&D fighter-types. (That's why I mentioned warlords above. In my current 4e game, where I'm a player, we acknowledge our warlord as leader. He has Int 10.)

This is more a problem generated by point buy and a somewhat limited definition of fighter in 3e than an aspect of D&D generally. Nothing particularly prevented a 1e fighter, for example, from being a competent leader of men.

Indeed, in my opinion, if the fighter class is properly implemented, no Marshall or Warlord class is required. The concept of a fighter fully encompasses that of a commander.

 

[Wicht]

In general, the notion of a 'squad' and a 'military occupational specialty' is anachronistic in most D&D settings.

Eh, the greeks had the dekas (unit of ten men). I imagine that the existence or utility of a small squad was somewhat situational. In mass formation combat, such as typically used by the Romans, and Alexander, it would be unnecessary. For smaller skirmishes fought with more guerrilla tactics, it would be better to use smaller units organized more loosely.

Specialties of old would have been more in line with weapon training. Slingers, for instance, and archers, would be separate from spearmen, though most likely by units, not within the unit. For larger forces, I imagine it was easier to make training more general so that men could be equipped similarly.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This is more a problem generated by point buy and a somewhat limited definition of fighter in 3e than an aspect of D&D generally. Nothing particularly prevented a 1e fighter, for example, from being a competent leader of men.

Indeed, in my opinion, if the fighter class is properly implemented, no Marshall or Warlord class is required. The concept of a fighter fully encompasses that of a commander.

I would have to disagree. I never played 1e but I did play 2e a lot, and even then did not feel that a fighter who rolled low Int and Cha made a good leader. I don't think "he knows how to chop off your limbs with the halberd he specialized in" leads to "he knows all about fighting". A fighter who rolled low mental stats and isn't of noble birth isn't going to make a good commander compared to someone who is a noble, has smarts and decent social skills, even if said noble has less actual military experience.

Even if fighters were given leadership abilities, it's still going to be jarring for those fighters without good mental ability scores. They're asskickers or bodyguards, not "masters of all aspects of combat".