Is there a Command skill

[Starfox]

Taking the route Paizo has chosen for their kingdom rules, it would be a pure attribute check, most likely Charisma for command, Intelligence for strategy and Wisdom for tactics.

Around here, we tend to use Charisma bonus + BAB as command rating, but we have no standardized rules for how to use that.

 

[Greenfield]

I don't know. Don't Diplomacy or Intimidation fill the bill?

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know. Don't Diplomacy or Intimidation fill the bill?

Technically, no. You can still conceivably be diplomatic without being terse or clear. You can be very likable and attractive without being the sort of person other people want to follow and obey.

And Intimidation is for buck privates that have just enlisted and whipped into shape, and you can be good at without knowing the first thing about leadership. But if you try to lead men by intimidation, pretty soon they'll want to kill you. See for example Richard Winters by comparison with Herbert Sobel.

There is a repeating problem in militaries where the peace time traits of its leadership don't translate well into strong leadership in war time. You could think of this as Diplomacy being a skill of great utility during peace time, allowing leaders to rise high in the ranks and be well liked and admired, but ultimately turning out to actually lack skill at Command which is needed urgently during time of war. You can easily imagine a very diplomatic person who expresses this in consensus building, in bolstering others egos, and in not giving offense. And this person might completely lack the ability to make firm decisions, express those decisions in clear ways, and not muddle the situation by forgetting needed steps or adding unnecessary information. And you might not even realize that until you are in a situation where because of pressure, they can't go through a long process of polling other peoples opinions and reaching a compromise.

However, in a simplified system, you could combine the idea of Leadership with something else the way Pathfinder has a 'Perception' check. There are advantages to doing things like that, particularly if you want to have all PC's inherently have strong leadership qualities which you might in a game like Birthright where everyone is assumed to be some sort of leader.

 

[Greenfield]

You can be terse and/or clear, and still have nobody listen to you.

I was simply suggesting that part of Diplomacy is getting people to listen. It's getting people to think, at least for the moment, that what you're saying sounds like a good idea, that it makes sense.

And, as you point out, leadership in peace time an be quite different from leadership in a time of war or emergency.

Just as Perform can be singing, oratory, dance, a musical instrument, theatrics, etc, couldn't we see different flavors to Diplomacy and Intimidate? Diplomacy would be the fall back for non-military leadership, and Intimidate the fall back for emergency situations.

Normal Intimidation includes some threat or duress, either implied or very specific. In an emergency/combat situation, it is the situation itself that provides the threat, and the Leader who is, at least implicitly, offering a way to lessen it.

I know that they aren't a perfect fit. But they can be used as a starting point.

<EDIT> Or maybe I hit on the answer and passed it by: Could leadership be an aspect of Perform: Oratory? The ability to give a rousing speech should not be underestimated. So how about Perform: Leadership? Literally, "Acting Commander"? </EDIT>

 

[Celebrim]

You can be terse and/or clear, and still have nobody listen to you.

Oh sure. No arguments there.

I was simply suggesting that part of Diplomacy is getting people to listen.

And I certainly agree you could fold Command into Diplomacy for game purposes in the same way you could fold Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive into a single skill, or fold Move Silently and Hide into a single skill. However, I didn't do that for two reasons.

Just as Perform can be singing, oratory, dance, a musical instrument, theatrics, etc, couldn't we see different flavors to Diplomacy and Intimidate?

Sure, we could. However, I tend to dislike the division of Perform into separate silos because Perform is pretty weak as it is without limiting what you can perform. And additionally, this wouldn't have accomplished what I was going for. Additionally, while being able to give a great speech is an admirable trait in a leader, I tend to think of it as being different skill yet again to Command. By command/leadership, I'm not thinking of Perform (Oratory), useful as that ability might be. And maybe we ought to think about Perform (Oratory) or just Perform having some particular uses.

The reason I used the design I did was twofold. First, I wanted the skill to have concrete active uses. I didn't want the skill to be waiting around for, "Perform a command test to pass this hurdle." I wanted it to be concretely useful as a problem solving skill. And secondly, I wanted it to be a social skill that was the special province of fighters and not shared necessarily with everyone that had access to Diplomacy and Perform, nor for that matter to require fighters to be good at Diplomacy and Perform in order to fulfill roles central to their archetype.

Similarly, I could have just said the Tactics skill was Knowledge (Tactics and War), but I wanted a skill that was not necessarily shared with every sage with access to Knowledge and which had more concrete active usages than just, "If you roll well on Knowledge (Tactics and War) in a particular 'room', the DM might give you some information."

 

[Random Axe]

I don't know. Don't Diplomacy or Intimidation fill the bill?

Well, no and no.
Diplomacy is about Negotiation and Bargaining and working out compromise between two factional sides.
Intimidate is about bullying and pushing around and being an Alpha among alpha wannabes.

Leadership in my mind is about an entirely other set of effects and purposes. Shakespeare's Henry IV was neither an Intimidator nor a Diplomat on the battle field.

 

[Random Axe]

But this raises an interesting point, Celebrim, did you have any synergy bonuses in mind with Diplomacy and Leadership? I would believe a high Leadership would grant a +2 synergy to Diplomacy, what do you think?

 

[Starfox]

Aw, skill synergies!

*Tears out hair*

Phew, I am playing Pathfinder!

 

[Celebrim]

But this raises an interesting point, Celebrim, did you have any synergy bonuses in mind with Diplomacy and Leadership? I would believe a high Leadership would grant a +2 synergy to Diplomacy, what do you think?

It's reasonable that the social skills would synergize (arguably in both directions) but I haven't done so because I find that synergies are frequently forgotten about. But sure, if you want to account for the fact that good leaders can benefit from skill in diplomacy and even perform (oratory), and vica versa that good diplomats should also be good leaders, then I'm ok with that.

 

[Greenfield]

Well, no and no.
Diplomacy is about Negotiation and Bargaining and working out compromise between two factional sides.
Intimidate is about bullying and pushing around and being an Alpha among alpha wannabes.

Leadership in my mind is about an entirely other set of effects and purposes. Shakespeare's Henry IV was neither an Intimidator nor a Diplomat on the battle field.

Diplomacy is about getting people to agree with you, about getting them to do what you want.

Intimidation is about getting them do what you want whether they agree with you or not.

Whether that's done through sweet reason, flattery or a talent for barking orders can be seen as game color.

The true gift for it, where people see you as a natural leader? That seems like it ought to be an aspect of the feat.

In the classic TV mini-series Shogun, John Rice-Davies character kind of explained it.

"I am important because I act important. You just have to be careful who you act up for, or you wind up dead."

So part of the ability to take command and have your orders followed is knowing your audience: Are these men who are used to taking orders? Line troops, yes. Officers? Not so much. Nobility? That's when the "you wind up dead" part comes into play.

The fun part of Davies' performance? He was bullying Samurai about, in English, when they only spoke Japanese. And he made it believable. Body language and bluster.

Maybe Bluff should play a part? Synergy?

I suppose it depends on whether you're trying to convince someone you're in charge, when you aren't, or whether you have the actual authority and just need to make it work for you.