Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aus_Snow" data-source="post: 2799754" data-attributes="member: 29112">Geron, that's quite an explanation! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> More lucid detail than I am accustomed to reading (. . or writing) on messageboards, to be sure.I can certainly see your point there, but I am of the opinion that the ideal core class to support the main body of said explanation is the Aristocrat, perhaps followed by the Expert (the latter, tentatively). The reason being, the nature of their extensive 'real-world' training is more likely to be directly geared to ruling (in the case of the Aristocrat), or is more at least more easily steered that way (for the Expert).In systems other than core D&D, there are classes that might serve as well, or even better still. The various interpretations of the Noble, as an obvious example.Historical precedent *certainly* supports the notion of the military commander rising to a position wherein they (to whatever extent) govern the populace - of course! However, I would hazard a guess that the majority of rulers within structured societies have come to be such via other means, or other fates (religion, birthright, assassination, wealth, wits, good fortune, etc.) Yes, that is bit of a dodgy, sweeping kind of 'estimate', but it er. . sounds right. . <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> . . I think.And of course, common soldiers (and other low status warrior-types) have - often enough - gone on to become military commanders. I can see the reasoning for the proposed Fighter progression there. Mind you, it could get back to birthright, wits, et al for the forces behind a lot of military commanders being in the positions they are. Eh, but that might be clouding the issue further.The more I think about it, the more I realise I don't even strongly disagree with the original statement. I believe that there is a lot of room to move on this topic, and what's more, I strongly agree with most of what you've said. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Particularly ". . other classes can be easily set up . ." of course! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification