Who Are the Generals in D&D?

[Black Omega]

Luckily, the Rokugan book has the Battle skill for such occasions, and it's even a Samurai class skill.

As a rule in a DnD world I suspect generals would not lead by example in battle. Way to easy for magic to target a general in melee, and much harder for bodyguard mages to protect him. Besides, magic enhancing communications in battle only helps with army command and control.

And a little love for Belisarius here! This was a guy so amazingly successful the Lombards offered to follow him instead of the Emperor. Justinian was so nervous over Belisarius' popularity, he brought him home and used Narses, a much safer choice who luckily happened to be a talented general as well.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, Belisarius was a brilliant general, and Narses was a good commander, too. As for generals in D&D, well, I give all classes a bonus of +2 skill points per level, because the skills as stated really don't allow for much depth for any character.

How rounded and deep of a character can you have with a fighter who only has climb, ride, swim, and jump as significant skills? Part of the problem is that D&D is designed as a default assumption of a Hack & Slash game, thus everything, especially the skill ratios--are designed to pre-channel, and keep your character into a very narrowly defined character type--which, regardless of specialty, whether fighter, wizard, or cleric, is still primarily geared for Hack & Slash, and little else.

It is difficult to make whatever characters--but fighters especially--into well-rounded, deep characters, with many different skills and specialties, from perform, to History, to the skills necessary for being a General.

I also use the skills found in Kalamar's Player Guide, which has skills tailored for Generals. With the increase in skill points, this is a partial remedy. I also think providing a broader subset of skills classified as "Class Skills" is useful for all of the classes, as there is a bit broader range of skills available now than in the beginning, and there is a need. I am also considering jumping the skills from a bonus of +2 per level to +4, because I still believe that there are characters that unless they have unrealistically high intelligence scores, they don't have enough skill points to effectively "know" what their character's should "Know". It becomes somehow artificial to feel like every character, regardless of class, must have a 22 Intelligence or higher in order to have the skills necessary for a well-developed character.

For example, in my campaign, there are perhaps anywhere from six to a dozen knowledge skills that *every character* really needs. I have characters often interacting on their own, getting involved with other things, and they don't always travel everywhere as a group, nor can they point to one character and say "He's the Bard, or she's the rogue, you do all the talking!"

It just doesn't work that way in my campaign. There is a broad need for different characters to have knowledge in History, Local, Streetwise, Law, Literature, Religion, and Perform, for example, in addition to Diplomacy, Gather Information, Bluff, Spot, and Listen. Almost every character could use from 6-15 skill ranks in just about every one of those skills. Indeed, there is a lot of combat in the campaign, but when *not* in the dungeon, or out in the wilderness, these skills often come in regular and frequent use for every character.

Fighters, especially if they are to be generals, they need some help in the skill department, as well as a high charaisma score. Providing those things, as well as a good reputation, then the character may well have an army of warriors following him into battle!

Many generals are indeed aristocrats initially, but not all. In fact, before the rise of Fuedal Europe, the "Aristocracy" were not aristocrats at all, but merely rough, hard men who managed to have armor, horse, weapons, and greater skill in combat than most of their neighbors. These were the beginnings of fuedalism, and the people who would gradually lay the foundations for all of the "nobility" two to five hundred years later.

That in mind as inspiration, plus there are other examples throughout history, of common soldiers or barbarians rising to the positions of leadership to lead armies into battle, so I don't see an overwhelming need for all such generals to be aristocrats.

I might also suggest that for those interested, that they think about customising a prestige class that includes a large skill-set, plenty of skill points, and other neat abilities to reflect the skills and abilities of a general. The game doesn't really have good examples of this, so it would take a little work on the part of the individual.

Hail to the Conqueror!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Knew I could count on SHARK...

Indeed, Belisarius was a brilliant general, and Narses was a good commander, too. As for generals in D&D, well, I give all classes a bonus of +2 skill points per level, because the skills as stated really don't allow for much depth for any character.

Amen!

...--which, regardless of specialty, whether fighter, wizard, or cleric, is still primarily geared for Hack & Slash, and little else.

Hallelujah!

It is difficult to make whatever characters--but fighters especially--into well-rounded, deep characters, with many different skills and specialties, from perform, to History, to the skills necessary for being a General.

Testify!

I also use the skills found in Kalamar's Player Guide, which has skills tailored for Generals.

Hallelu... erk. So now I need to buy the Kalamar's Player Guide, too. -grumble-

I know it's been commented on before, SHARK, but the more I hear about your games, the more impressed I become. Great stuff!

 

[Dark Jezter]

Fantasy literature is full of people who start out as lone-wolf adventurers and end up leading armies. Take Conan the Barbarian, for example; most of the time he was an adventurer who only looked out for himself, but on several occasions he found himself leading armies to victory against superior forces. Eventually, he became the king of the mightiest kingdom in the world.

Or, how about Han Solo? A smuggler/pirate who became a General in the Rebel Alliance practically overnight.

In cases like these, I would say that the DM would use his own discretion in this matter. If it makes for a good story to have the PCs take command of army to defeat the evil overlord, I'd say let them!

I would also like to say that charisma does not determine a general's leadership skills; a general could have the intelligence score of a cockroach, but if he had high charisma he could still get people to follow him.

 

[Greybar]

Yes, but clerics weren't leading a whole lot of armies.

So, would you argue that the Pope isn't a cleric?

I'm coming in late to the thread, so I don't want to repeat to much of the earlier excellent examples. However, I didn't notice any mention of the Warrior Popes that actually led armies.

Just another real-world example without all of the powerful divine magic that would make clerics even more likely to lead armies. Wouldn't you want to follow a General who might even raise you from the dead if your valorous death was brought to his attention? Charge!

John

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Fantasy literature is full of people who start out as lone-wolf adventurers and end up leading armies.

Indeed. It seems to me that adhering to "real world" history as a model is missing the point of a fantasy role playing game. Especially when that model limits the development of interesting characters.

 

[Chrisling]

Which is sort of the reason why I suggested Base Attack Bonus as being a measure of a general's skill. For making plans, you could have BAB modified by Int, for actually commanding troops, say, Cha. But by using BAB for general battle-prowess it follows genre pretty well. The people who should be good at setting up ambushes and leading armies -- rangers, paladins, fighters, barbarians -- generally are. The people who don't tend, in most genres, to be good at leading armies -- magicians and sorcerers -- aren't. The rest of the crowd is somewhere in the middle, which works for me. It has the added advantage of not requiring any major changes to rules.

Though in this I might be showing my exposure to Amber DRPG, where Warfare accounts for both skill at weapons and leadership abilities.

 

[takyris]

Just as a side-note -- isn't the Napolean complex a modern invention? I was under the impression that Napolean was in actuality average height for his time and region, and scholars looked at him and said, "Gosh, he's tiny!" without taking into account the fact that most everyone else was also that tiny back then.

This ain't in the Core books, and it's arguably cheating, but in my campaign, as time goes on, I allow skill atrophy and replacement. A 40-year-old veteran who now leads his troops has forgotten most of his climbing and jumping skills, and transferred most of those points over into Sense Motive or Knowledge(War) or something.

Random Posit:

An intelligent but unwise general will make excellent plans -- but won't react well when things get messed up, unless he planned for it. He will use all his intel excellently, but won't think to ask additional questions -- if someone tells him that the ground is soft and muddy, he'll use it, but he won't bring it up on his own. When the enemy does something surprising, he had better have a backup plan prepared from before, or he'll flounder. After his first big loss, though, even an unwise general will have a backup plan -- though it might not be a flexible one.

A wise but unintelligent general will probably lead less and ask more questions. He won't have a ton of plan, mostly, "Charge out there and attack and then see what happens." He'll notice things and start calling out helpful orders in midbattle, and he'll develop very simple but effective countermeasures to enemy strategy. The unwise general will have little classical strategic training, which means that in open fields he's likely to get beaten, but in tricky or unexpected situations, he has no habits to keep him from thinking of new plans.

In both cases, their closest advisors should be complementary -- the intelligent but unwise general will have an unlettered but street-smart veteran who thinks to ask about what the ground is like and whether it's supposed to rain tomorrow. The wise but unlettered general will have a tactical advisor who will take what the general says and turn it into a coherent plan, doing the nitty-gritty troop positioning and moving forces appropriately.

-Tacky

 

[takyris]

Which is sort of the reason why I suggested Base Attack Bonus as being a measure of a general's skill. For making plans, you could have BAB modified by Int, for actually commanding troops, say, Cha. But by using BAB for general battle-prowess it follows genre pretty well. The people who should be good at setting up ambushes and leading armies -- rangers, paladins, fighters, barbarians -- generally are. The people who don't tend, in most genres, to be good at leading armies -- magicians and sorcerers -- aren't. The rest of the crowd is somewhere in the middle, which works for me. It has the added advantage of not requiring any major changes to rules.

The problem, though, is that it doesn't work like that.

I don't agree that the people who fight best lead best. A wizard who has studied battlefield tactics and watched fighting and such can be just as good as a fighter who has done the same.

Projected argument: But a wizard doesn't know how to fight, so he won't know how well other people fight, and he'll send troops into hopeless battles or overreact to feints and such, making bad decisions.

Pre-emptive answer: That's not combat knowledge, that's knowledge of a particular instance. A fighter with bad intel could just as easily send "The King's Finest" to their doom because he thought they'd have no trouble taking out a bunch of pikemen. If the wizard knows that this group has these strengths and these weaknesses, he can plan just as well as a fighter.

(This is, in my completely unasked-for opinion, what went wrong with fresh green Lieutenant JGs in Vietnam. It wasn't their lack of fighting ability that messed them up. It was their bad intel -- they'd learned all these great strategies that in no way applied to the actual situation. The crusty sergeant who kept his team alive could have been a lousy shot with a glass jaw, but he knew the terrain and he knew how things worked.)

-Tacky

 

[Chrisling]

The problem, though, is that it doesn't work like that.

I don't agree that the people who fight best lead best. A wizard who has studied battlefield tactics and watched fighting and such can be just as good as a fighter who has done the same.

Projected argument: But a wizard doesn't know how to fight, so he won't know how well other people fight, and he'll send troops into hopeless battles or overreact to feints and such, making bad decisions.

Pre-emptive answer: That's not combat knowledge, that's knowledge of a particular instance. A fighter with bad intel could just as easily send "The King's Finest" to their doom because he thought they'd have no trouble taking out a bunch of pikemen. If the wizard knows that this group has these strengths and these weaknesses, he can plan just as well as a fighter.

(This is, in my completely unasked-for opinion, what went wrong with fresh green Lieutenant JGs in Vietnam. It wasn't their lack of fighting ability that messed them up. It was their bad intel -- they'd learned all these great strategies that in no way applied to the actual situation. The crusty sergeant who kept his team alive could have been a lousy shot with a glass jaw, but he knew the terrain and he knew how things worked.)

-Tacky

I was actually agreeing with Canis and saying part of the weirdness of this discussion is that people seem to want to apply standards taken from history instead of what the real source material for most D&D games actually is: fantasy literature.

In fantasy literature, the fighter types are generally the best leaders in battle.

Furthermore, it won't actually be the case that the best fighters are the best generals in the system I posited. The best fighters have good Str, Dex and Con. The best <i>generals</i> have the best Int, Wis and Cha. So, at the same level of experience, a skilled general is likely to get his behind whupped by a person who built their character for combat, combat, combat.

And to do a bit of deconstruction on your point: junior-grade lieutenants in Vietnam did so badly because they were <i>inexperienced</i>, not because they had a different class than the master sergeant who had been fighting for three years in country.