Who Are the Generals in D&D?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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.

That's actually a really nice aging mechanic, and it's arguably similar to what the brain does with reinforced vs. unreinforced skills. Furthermore, I think that it jives well with the existing aging mechanic, so it's in the spirit of the rules, if not the letter.

And it would allow a fighter-type to actually be useful as he got older. As it stands, casters get ever more powerful, while fighters get ever more useless. Not that I've heard of anyone playing the same fighter until the character was 50 years old, but if anyone did, this would make it more viable.

I just had the thought that if one were reincarnated into a younger body, or one that was more physically able and/or physiologically complicated (like a centaur), the brain would have to build new motor pathways, possibly at the expense of other skills. Sort of the reverse of the situation you've described.

 

[Greybar]

To give you the brief of The Mask of Command by John Keegan (well worth the buy and the read!)

Note the shift over time:

Alexander the Great
Fought from the front lines and led by example (predominantly Ftr)

Julius Caesar
Fought rarely on the front lines, but was very visible to the front line troops (let's say even levels of Noble/Fighter)

Wellington
Never fought himself, but was very visible, and sometimes did have to outrun enemy cavalry trying to hunt him down. (Noble, maybe a single level of some fighting class)

Hitler (and pretty much every modern since)
Never saw the front, rarely met the men except for a photo op, commanded from a bunker miles and miles from the battle. (Expert, no fighting class levels at all)

So take that spectrum (which Keegan describes as the path from a Heroic Leader to a Modern Leader), and decide where your campaign world lies. I'm sure your answer will be different from mine or the next guy's.

John

 

[takyris]

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.

I'd basically agree with that -- I was going to be snooty and come up with examples to the contrary, but they were pretty much exceptions to your very astute rule.

GOOD = FIGHTING POWER

GOOD = TACTICS

Ergo, FIGHTING POWER = TACTICS

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.

A 20th level fighter with an average int, wis, and cha is still going to handily splatter a 20th level wizard on the field of war by your rules. I'd really rather go with a skill for it.

I have done what you're talking about, though, in a slightly different context. I allow BAB+Int rolls to determine the particular fighting style an opponent is using. It doesn't get you bonuses to hit them, but it helps you realize you're fighting a Southlander Duelist, known for using poison and invisible allies... Or BAB+Wis to notice that someone is fighting at less than full strength just by crossing blades with them. Or BAB+Cha in the place of Intimidate when trying to scare someone away from you in mid-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. [/B]

Excellent point. I would argue back that we're both right -- they did badly because they had little field training (as you said), and their tactical training didn't cover the situation (as I said). And also probably because they didn't get their squads behind them. Wasn't a common cause of death for some of the worst LJGs "accidental friendly fire"?

An argument against sending an Exp1 with max'd out ranks in Strategy and expecting him to lead a bunch of mid-level Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues.

-Tacky

 

[Dark Jezter]

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.

Would you ask a fighter or a barbarian to lead a wizard council? Of course not. That would be crazy.

Conversely, I would not want a wizard or sorcerer to lead an army of fighting men. I don't care how much military tactics they've studied in a book, or how many battles they've watched through a crystal ball. If I were a soldier, I would much rather be led into battle by a vetran warrior than a spellcaster who had never been exposed to war outside of books.

 

[Kilmore]

Not to make this complicated, but I got to thinking about it and I think that a "General" character is a bit of a change from the regular "Fighter" class. A general may be taking levels in expert or aristocrat, or some military officer prestige class, rather than gaining levels as a "Fighter".

I think the short answer to the last couple of pages is that no two generals are the same.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Professional Officers' Corps

I'm stealing this from Swashbuckling Adventures, but...
I would say that the best general skill would be
<Drum Roll Please>
Profession: Commander

Potentially complemented by Profession: Strategist or Knowledge: Tactics.

I certainly see the use of charisma and intelligence as being pivotal to being a truly outstanding general and leader. The fact is, however, that leading men through a nasty situation is about insight and good decisions more than salesmenship or knowledge.

Roman historians attributed their victories over the far more tactically sophisticated Greeks and Carthaginians to their superior practice in putting an army together, deciding where it could be best used, getting the men there without killing them, and listening to the men well enough to know when it was time to innovate and when it was time to put down mutiny.

Noone lauds Scipio Africanus for his brilliance, but he lead the armies that destroyed Hannibal.

Also profession is a class skill for nearly everyone and it isn't at all unbalancing, in my opinion, to offer certain versions of it as a class skill to Barbarians and Fighters.

Plus it's a neat role-playing skill, having a profession skill says something about what your character has done and can do rather than simply what they know or have a talent for.

No messing around with anything but the core rulebooks.

 

[Agback]

Aristocrat makes sense for some cultures. But what about paladins? Paladins are based on a form of knight, and knights often became generals. But there's no way in the Nine Hells a paladin's got access to the skills we're talking about.

Absolutely not. And in practice, teh various masters of the Holy Fighting Orders were generally very bad generals.

Who were the great generals of the Middle Ages? Aristocrat/Fighters, mostly.

Regards,


Agback