Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2281578" data-attributes="member: 30001">What world did this occur in?  I'm not convinced that this is historical.  Is this based on a novel?  Alexander the Great, for example, was one of many leaders who had a reputation for personal combat ability.  Is every leader in DnD a heroic Alexander the Great?  Maybe.  Does every forest have a troll?  This is DnD after all, so heroic examples could be much more the norm.  Even if I agreed that leaders wouldn't typically be good fighters (which I don't) they would still be leaders based on some exceptional personal qualities?  Good at diplomacy or sensing an opponents motives?  Knowledge?  Given the way 3E ties skills to level, there's cause for leaders being high level even if they are not powerful fighters.  Even just raw charisma is likely to be higher in characters who have applied ability score points from gaining levels.    Leaders of the period did not get the reputations they have from phoning in orders via walkie-talkies.  In fact, I would recommend that you read up on the issues of "Command and Control" in the ancient period - from what I recall it was a very personal thing that required a charismatic presence on the battlefield (given the limits in communication).  It's possible that I'm wrong, or that you're thinking of the modern period - but I'm not convinced of either.  And, in a warrior society, your "authority and command" comes from where?  "Often a warrior class" as in "always"?  Perhaps you are thinking of the Age of Enlightenment or somewhat more modern periods when the customs of the nobility were changing.  In the European Middle Ages, society was divided into People that Fight (nobility), People that Prayed (clergy) and People that Farmed (peasants).   I would think there are examples in early Islamic and Japanese history as well.  In the words of one historian "the noble of 1000 AD fought, and fought often"  I agree with your point that the "social" skills are important to leadership.  But given a number of factors: skill points rules in 3E, delegation of bluffing and such to legates and other officials - I don't think a 9th level Aristocrat and 20th level fighter are on equal playing fields.  Since I see no reason for a 9th level aristocrat being any more likely to focus on social skills than a 20th level one, I would think that level would still be a primary factor.  The degree to which a leader can motivate through a clear vision - vs. simple trickery and enchantment, is somewhat up for debate.  I don't think bards are necessarily in a better place to lead by example and possess a clear vision and mandate to lead.  Those persons that a bard is not able to directly control or manipulate via music/magic are no more likely to follow them that anyone else IMO.  Bards may be the best disseminators of propoganda - but it's like suggesting that the heads of advertising agencies in the US could all be senators.  IMO you have to combine pure pursuasiveness with other factors that a bard does not have a monopoly on.</blockquote>

Verification