Flyspeck23
First Post
Check out the Order of the Stick for more information on why the fighter's the leader, and not the bard.
Who's in charge?
- Thread starter Inconsequenti-AL
- Start date
The person with the highest WIS, INT, CHR and RANK, you don't become a general without going through the chain of command and you don't live long if you are a looser. It is one of those combined score things. 
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Inconsequenti-AL said:
Just rename Bardic Music in your head to Bardic Performance, because thats what it is, really. Oratory is one of the official 'classes' of performance now, and a bardic general can give rousing speaches, shout encouragment or even be giving tactical direction to inspire courage, and his countersong may be as simple as reminding his troops of their true loyalty and strength, thus giving them the renewed will to turn away from the magical compulsion and do their jobs.
You do not have to be Lawful in allignment to be capable of tactics and logistics. I'd say intelligence will count more for those things than overall allignment which can be based on a dozen character traits. Your chaoitic general may lead a mercanery group which is organized and effective in it's action, but take jobs almost on personal whim, with no preference to who is legally or traditionaly in the right in the conflict they are entering.
If you ask "who would make a better general, 'a' bard or 'a' fighter", the answer is probably "they would both suck for different reasons."
But if you are building a general, I would definitly go with bard, knowlege skills in geography, history and warfare, maxed out perform oratory and no other performance skills, reasonable dex and a few bow feats, feats and spells to extend the range at which your orations can be heard, etc. Kahuna Burger
derelictjay
Explorer
I love the bard, the bard is my favorite class. But I don't think a bard would make a good general. A good general had to work his way there by example, he had to show he was good at tactics, strategies, and at being tough. Lets face it the bard sucks at being tough, and being an example well, when your forced to run away because you know that big bad raged barbarian (kobold) will take off your head, well thats not very inspiring too potential troops. The bards a support character, in all things military and combat. He could easily be a politician, ambassator (spelling?), or even an underling of the fighter general. But the fighter will always look better as a general.
Snoweel
First Post
Yep.
Call it academic-elitist denial, but I don't think these guys have any idea of just how little appreciation violent men have for "a sound knowledge of tactics, history, etc".
Precious few rough types have an appreciation for knowledge, a fact I've seen first-hand after a decade in the construction industry.
No matter how knowledgeable, intelligent and organised a guy is, you can't make him a foreman over a crew of bricklayers if he doesn't have their respect. And you only have their respect by being good at what they are good at - laying bricks, labouring. That's it.
Likewise men of violence. You can be the greatest tactical mastermind of your generation but that won't get you respect from the savage grunts that you intend to send into battle.
And without their respect, there will be muttering. And muttering's bad.
Now admittedly, a great fighter won't be much of a general without a head for tactics (though there are always advisors, and I'd say many "generals" throughout history were merely figureheads, but don't underestimate the importance of figurehead leadership), but if the men don't respect him, they won't be willing to risk their lives for him, and as Sun-Tzu said, an army that will fight to the death is a dangerous thing indeed.
Call it academic-elitist denial, but I don't think these guys have any idea of just how little appreciation violent men have for "a sound knowledge of tactics, history, etc".
Precious few rough types have an appreciation for knowledge, a fact I've seen first-hand after a decade in the construction industry.
No matter how knowledgeable, intelligent and organised a guy is, you can't make him a foreman over a crew of bricklayers if he doesn't have their respect. And you only have their respect by being good at what they are good at - laying bricks, labouring. That's it.
Likewise men of violence. You can be the greatest tactical mastermind of your generation but that won't get you respect from the savage grunts that you intend to send into battle.
And without their respect, there will be muttering. And muttering's bad.
Now admittedly, a great fighter won't be much of a general without a head for tactics (though there are always advisors, and I'd say many "generals" throughout history were merely figureheads, but don't underestimate the importance of figurehead leadership), but if the men don't respect him, they won't be willing to risk their lives for him, and as Sun-Tzu said, an army that will fight to the death is a dangerous thing indeed.
jollyninja
First Post
when lead by example is not an option, the army is done before it starts. bards suck at all the things a soldier has to do.
Inconsequenti-AL
Breaks Games
Snoweel
I think you're quite right about the general needing respect... it's going to be a mess otherwise.
The 'social skills' are important - I think getting respect out of people, in any situation I can think of, is easier if you're good at dealing with people than if you're not? Admittedly, if that's all you've got then there's going to be real problems.
FWIW, I think the foreman's job is more that of a junior officer - A general is more like management - the grunts don't interact with them very often, but good management (should!) among other things, know how to treat their staff right, know who to listen to and pick decent foremen? They've also got to know what they're doing, otherwise everyone is out of a job? it's a different set of skills required for the two things?
Besides, it's not like a bard can't fight? Or at least pretend they can!
I think you're quite right about the general needing respect... it's going to be a mess otherwise.
The 'social skills' are important - I think getting respect out of people, in any situation I can think of, is easier if you're good at dealing with people than if you're not? Admittedly, if that's all you've got then there's going to be real problems.
FWIW, I think the foreman's job is more that of a junior officer - A general is more like management - the grunts don't interact with them very often, but good management (should!) among other things, know how to treat their staff right, know who to listen to and pick decent foremen? They've also got to know what they're doing, otherwise everyone is out of a job? it's a different set of skills required for the two things?
Besides, it's not like a bard can't fight? Or at least pretend they can!
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Snoweel said:
I'm not sure that's entirely true, at least in the real world. I've been doing a lot of reading about British Imperial military history lately: the siege at Balaclava, the retreat from Kabul across the Khyber Pass, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Tai Ping Rebellion and march across china to force concessions, that sort of thing. Obviously, a lot of British generals had been in battle before but had seldom fought personally. Instead, the good ones understood sort of a military jujitsu: where to apply their army and units in order to succeed tactically. If they were good at this and won their battles without making any boneheaded decisions, they won the respect and admiration of their troops, and how many times they could personally swing a sabre each round had nothing to do with it.
Similar Threads
