D&D 5E How does that Fighter, Barbarian or Rogue become king? Bring on the Feat

[Horwath]

This is where media narratives clash with mechanics. When you think of Conan, he is the true exception. He's super strength, and pretty darn tough, AND not too dumb, AND super charismatic. He's the protagonist after all.

The issue is that dnd has a charisma stat, and as long as people do point buy, your going to have to trade off combat power for social power. Only way to truly play the Conan type is to roll stats, get super lucky, and then make your highly competent fighter that also has amazing charisma.

you can get that with point buy, if you are not super greedy for your primary stat.

friend played half elf barbarian(with tasha's ability score option to assign racial bonuses wherever).

started with 13,13,13,12,12,12 in point buy, ending in

str 15, dex 14, con 14, int 12, wis 12, cha 12.

4th level feat: skill expert for +1 str and expertise in Survival.

he was both scout and party face. having 8 skills, it worked out very good.

 

[Tonguez]

you have int as dumpstat, kings need Charisma, Wisdom helps but Int is for cohorts

 

[Maxperson]

but do they naturally have the stats to keep the crown? which I think is the topic of discussion.

There have been many dumb, unwise and/or uncharismatic kings. Just don't take an 8 and be done with it. 10's are average and you don't need better than that to be king. Or roll stats.

 

[Azuresun]

Oi... here we go again.

(bowing out now...)

By now, I just tune out of a thread as soon as someone says "martial" in any context.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sounds like Zhuge Liang didn't dump his brain stats. It is very possible to have a wise, charismatic fighter. Maybe Zhuge Liang raised his mental stats and took skill prodigy instead of just taking Sentinel, GWF, and maxing Strength/Con. Could plain martials use some mechanics to boost their Charisma/fame? Sure, I can buy that. It'll help the tables that call for Insight and Persuasion checks at every chance. But I always thought that's the extra feats were for. So they can become more well-rounded as they level up.

Zhuge Liang was pretty charismatic as well, but he was not a fighter. He didn't carry weapons, probably wore no armor, never killed anyone (except by talking them to death, which he didn't do in real life)... he was like a Noble NPC class.

That’s how all lords and kings and emperors gained power. They murdered everyone who stood in their way. Leaders worrying about being charismatic is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. Being the biggest and the toughest (and/or having the most money) was all that mattered. If you managed to kill the ruler, you’re now in charge. In older editions you simply started attracting followers at certain levels. It needn’t be more complicated than that.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Charisma was always important. It's the leadership stat. You want people to look up to and respect you. You have to convince lesser warlords to team up with you (and not your competitors) and you need to do this when you're not very strong so it's not just a case of "my army is bigger/more badass than yours". Examples of extremely charismatic leaders include Julius Caesar (died 44 BC, was very charismatic on and off the battlefield), Liu Bang (reigned 202 to 196 BC and became emperor specifically because he had better social skills than his chief competitor, who had a larger army and a better sense of tactics) and Ghengis Khan (reigned 1206 to 1227).

 

[Amrûnril]

Sooooo, not really familiar with real life kings/rulers, then? Pick a point in history...ANY age or culture's history.

You take over the neighboring territory. You call yourself king. Some magical/religious person says, "Ya, sure [don't kill me], you're king." And now if someone wants to say you're NOT king, they had better be able to kill you before you kill them...and then you're king of THEIR land, too!

That’s how all lords and kings and emperors gained power. They murdered everyone who stood in their way. Leaders worrying about being charismatic is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. Being the biggest and the toughest (and/or having the most money) was all that mattered. If you managed to kill the ruler, you’re now in charge. In older editions you simply started attracting followers at certain levels. It needn’t be more complicated than that.

Yes, but even a small kingdom is far to large for the king to do all the murder/threat of murder personally. Or even to directly supervise all the people doing it on their behalf. Any king, therefore, is going to need some way of securing and keeping the loyalty of subordinate commanders (reputation, family ties, bribery, religious/legal structures, etc.). Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma aren't the be all and end all in doing so, but they certainly don't hurt either.

 

[Stormonu]

No need for a feat to rule.

But I wouldn’t be against a feat that gives followers, like the 9th level rules in 1E/2E. Whether it’s men-at-arms, apprentices, devout followers or a gang/guild. More than anything, it can be used as a signal of “I want this”.

And I wouldn’t be against a feat that gives you Expertise with a skill - not much different than one that gives maneuvers or magic initiate and the like.

 

[the Jester]

In my game, you become a king by roleplaying it. You set goals, figure out how to achieve them, and do the work. Even in 3e, with Leadership, I would never have given kingship for a feat.

 

[steeldragons]

Yes, but even a small kingdom is far to large for the king to do all the murder/threat of murder personally. Or even to directly supervise all the people doing it on their behalf. Any king, therefore, is going to need some way of securing and keeping the loyalty of subordinate commanders (reputation, family ties, bribery, religious/legal structures, etc.). Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma aren't the be all and end all in doing so, but they certainly don't hurt either.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that having intelligence, wisdom, or charisma, as a king (or any kind of nobility or simple leader) "hurts."

But the premise of the OP seemed to be "Since Fighters dropstat any mental stat, weshould get a feat to let them be effective rulers."

I think (and it seems some others who have commented concur) many do not see that as necessary or even desireable, imho.

Gaining/making/conquering a "dominion" of whatever size should absolutely be an "in game/in world" thing...not "Took a feat. POOF! I'm a Duke!" (why did I hear that in my head in Ralph Wiggums voice?)

Roleplay the taking over/creating a kingdom.

• Attract your followers.
• "Clear the territory" as we used to say in ye olden days.
• Construct your (or conquer an existing) castle/fortress/stronghold/(hideout?)
• Recruit (and pay) your henchmen and retainers.
• Collect (demand) your taxes and/or good will from the community and/or religious leaders (or simply conquer through violence and rule by fear).

AND/OR once you have some success/degree of security, there's nothing stopping a player from putting some ASIs into mental stats. Take feats that assist in communications, persuasion, and leadership. Sure. But a feat to "make me a king?" I don't think so.

There is a TON of stuff you can do to make your Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue a ruler... and capable of being a good one. An "auto-king" feat is not warranted.

 

[jgsugden]

I think we're confusing mechanics with story.

If you elect to make a fighter that doesn't have great charisma or wisdom, and they don't have training in persuasion, insight, intimidation or deception - and they find themselves in place to be the leader... well, I'd call that an opportunity, not a problem. Players walk their characters through challenges as part of telling a good story. If the player and character are willing to take on the role, but lack the skills to do so, how do they do it? Do they resort to magic to augment their skills or raise their ability scores? Do they work through agents that they guide? Do they solve diplomacy through means that do not rely upon skill? Or perhaps they sign a deal with a Devil to overcome their shortcomings?

And for that matter, what do others in their social circles think they need to do in light of the shortcomings? Isn't the uncharismatic leader a cliche in TV and movies? Think about how those stories evolve. Who are the players? Why do those stories work?

A problem, in an RPG, is an opportunity.