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

[Monayuris]

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

A character is more than just the stats and mechanics. A D&D character is as much the player playing the character as it is the numbers on the page.

If your character becomes a ruler in game and situations are presented by the DM then the player gets to deal with them.

No need for mechanics or rules to justify it.

 

[el-remmen]

Why would someone roleplay and 8 int, 8 cha, 8 wis Fighter as a smart, wise and strong ruler?

There are recent and current world leaders with equivalent stats in our own world who are roleplaying exactly that!

 

[Rabulias]

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.

1) Kill current monarch.
2) Put crown on head.
3) Say "Anyone got a problem with this?"
4) Deal with any challengers (see Step 1).
5) Sit on throne and become king.
6) Profit!

 

[overgeeked]

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 don't have to lead with charisma, you can lead with fear. It's how most warlords, lords, kings, dukes, emperors throughout history have done.

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".

If you're not strong, you lose and die. Having a nice smile is at the end of the long list of things you need.

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).

Three examples. All of whom were also accomplished warriors. Of those three, only one actually won out because of charisma. Caeser won wars and gained popularity. Khan murdered everyone who stood in his way. If they happened to also be charismatic, that's fine, but they primarily gained their reputations as military men first.

Yes, but even a small kingdom is far too 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.

No one said otherwise.

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.).

Fear. Power. Threats. Brides. The brown stuff rolls down hill. None of which require a charming personality.

Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma aren't the be all and end all in doing so, but they certainly don't hurt either.

Exactly. The end all be all is power and a willingness or ability to do worse to your enemies than they're willing or able to do to you.

1) Kill current monarch.
2) Put crown on head.
3) Say "Anyone got a problem with this?"
4) Deal with any challengers (see Step 1).
5) Sit on throne and become king.
6) Profit!

7. Sit on the throne long enough and people stop challenging you.
8. Arrange advantageous marriages with other warlords nearby and increase your holdings over generations.
9. Your family sits on the throne long enough and people stop even questioning you.

And now you know how all the monarchies in history were established.

 

[Blue Orange]

I'd say you probably do have to put points into Cha (being a general and eventually a king means getting people to follow you) and Wis (to know when they're trying to put poison in your soup or get your vassals to defect).

There have been plenty of real-life monarchs with single-digit mental and physical stats (Charles II of Spain comes to mind), but that's usually after inbreeding has damaged the gene pool.

 

[Jackdaw McGraw]

I allow PCs to substitute their proficiency bonus for their Charisma bonus in situations where reputation is more important than personal magnetism. Here are my guidelines...

1) Have the NPCs actually heard of the PC? This depends on the structure of the campaign. Just use your best judgement here. If not, it's just an interaction roll using Charisma.

2) If the NPCs have heard of the PC and the PC has been actively trying to promote their reputation (hiring bards, leaving heads on spikes wherever they go, calling cards, etc.) then the roll is made with advantage.

3) Do the NPCs have a classical fantasy outlook, where martial and clerical classes are viewed as more esteemed and esoteric classes (wizard, druid, warlock) are viewed with suspicion? If yes, then the esoteric classes can only use half their proficiency bonus. Use your best judgement here. In general, Fighter, Barbarian, Rogues and Clerics get full reputation bonuses.

 

[lingual]

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.

 

[ECMO3]

You don't have to lead with charisma, you can lead with fear. It's how most warlords, lords, kings, dukes, emperors throughout history have done.

Fear. Power. Threats. Brides. The brown stuff rolls down hill. None of which require a charming personality.

You need charisma to do this effectively, or more accurately you need people skills, which are rolled up in the d&d charisma stat.

I also not that you keep talking about power, but what is that in a stat. Sure Khan and Caesar were great leaders, but they were not great warriors because they could defeat others in 1-on-1 combat or in Ceasers case even because he was the best at leading armies. Mark Antony was far more of a soldier and general than Caesar was when he was defeated by him.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

[Deleted due to error]

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You need charisma to do this effectively, or more accurately you need people skills, which are rolled up in the d&d charisma stat.

I also not that you keep talking about power, but what is that in a stat. Sure Khan and Caesar were great leaders, but they were not great warriors because they could defeat others in 1-on-1 combat or in Ceasers case even because he was the best at leading armies. Mark Antony was far more of a soldier and general than Caesar was when he was defeated by him.

I totally agree with you...

Quick note: Antony was defeated by Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus (Caesar's great nephew and heir). Augustus would have been a terrible warrior, since he apparently had severe allergies as a child and young man, missing out on military service.