Who's in charge?
- Thread starter Inconsequenti-AL
- Start date
just__al
First Post
Why not a wizard? Promoted up from the corps of wizards any good army would keep. A high level wizard is super intelligent and if they were say, an army brat that was raised to serve the military, they'd probably have invested a lot of ranks in Knowledge skills like tactics, seige craft, geography, military history. And when they are high enough level they can bust out the magic nukes.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Inconsequenti-AL said:
I don't think it's a question so much of generals needing respect so much as authority. The general is going to be relatively remote from the men anyway. He needs his junior officers to recognize his authority. They are the ones who have to implement the decisions with the men. So yes, the skills may need to be different between levels of officer.
Also for what it's worth, having a general who actually rose through the ranks is a relatively new thing in the history of the world. There weren't many armies who had that sort of thing before the French Revolution and its revolutionary army. Officer standing was a privilege of social class and the lower ranks were bound to obey you or suffer a brutal flogging.
A little bit of modern meritocracy isn't out of place, but I wouldn't over-analyze the situation in that mode of thinking.
derelictjay
Explorer
billd91 said:
I gotta agree with you, and I said nothing about coming up through the ranks. Charlamagne, the Khans of the Mongols, Sargon the Great, Alexander the Great and many others of old times were givin thier leadership through bloodlines. But those I mentioned proved their worth through violence and sheer toughness. The point is a general had to prove to his troops he was as tough or tougher than them.
By the By, a wizard would make an exellent choice as wizard, for similar reasons as the fighter (though he can't prove he's exceptionally tough). When he walks into camp acting holier than thou, and was approached by the local toughs, and he didn't stand down, but incenerated the person on the spot, you demand respect.
P.S. ignore any spelling errors
Hmm...
Barbarian - has skill points, and is certainly impressive enough in battle to win the respect of the grunts, but no knowledge skills are class skills, and intimidate's the only social skill that is. So if a barbarian is going to lead a civilized army (rather than a barbarian horde), he'll probably be high level with surprising Int for a barbarian, or multi-classed. Can't be lawful, but that's not too much of a problem.
Bard - has all the social skills, and class abilities you'd want. Spells aren't too shabby. Not all that great in melee, and typically not tempermentally suited to command. Could certainly be done, though it'd be weird.
Cleric - good melee abilities (especially with the right domains), good spells, and can claim divine favor. Often expereinced with leadership roles. But of the social skills, only Diplomacy is a class skill by default. A high-int Cleric with the Knowledge and War domains would make an excellent general.
Druid - Can be devastatingly effective in battle, and has 4 skill points/level, but only one social skill (Diplomacy) is a class skill, and tend to be loners. Not very fond of civilization. It'd be a very rare druid who takes command of an army.
Figher - Certainly the best in melee, which helps with impressing the men, but with few skill points and neither knowledge skills nor social skills as class skills, probably should pick up a PrC before moving to a leadership role.
Monk - Stylisticly a hit&run type, which may be effective, but doesn't impress your average soldier. Usually favor small groups. Some social skills (diplomacy, sense motive) and 4 skill points per level. Monk generals will only be slightly more common than Druids.
Paladin - See Cleric, except that the Paladin is typically more charismatic, and has Sense Motive as well as diplomacy. If almost no one in your army is evil, Paladins make excellent generals, except that they tend to have a bad habit of involving themselves in the fighting.
Ranger - May rise from the ranks of scouts. Neither social skills nor knowledge (tactics) are class skills, but with 6 skill points/level, a ranger can afford to buy ranks cross-class. Rangers are better at leading a commando team than a whole army, but still would make decent generals.
Rogue - May easily have the social skills and knowledge skills to be a good general, and may very well keep a generalship they were appointed to, but unlikely to work their way up the ranks (except in societies were assassination is considered an acceptable means of advancement).
Sorcerer - High charisma and the typical role of a sorcerer (blow stuff up with magic) are likely to impress common soldiers. But Bluff is the only social skill that's a class skill, and with only 2 skill points/level, is unlikely to have dropped points into cross-class skills. If a sorcerer leads an army, it's by force of personality, and probably wins battles mostly because of his magic, not his command ability.
Wizard - Has knowledge skills and the Int to use them, plus the wizard's broad array of spells. Not likely to be a charismatic leader, but could do well with underlings who manage the firing-up-the troops well.
Barbarian - has skill points, and is certainly impressive enough in battle to win the respect of the grunts, but no knowledge skills are class skills, and intimidate's the only social skill that is. So if a barbarian is going to lead a civilized army (rather than a barbarian horde), he'll probably be high level with surprising Int for a barbarian, or multi-classed. Can't be lawful, but that's not too much of a problem.
Bard - has all the social skills, and class abilities you'd want. Spells aren't too shabby. Not all that great in melee, and typically not tempermentally suited to command. Could certainly be done, though it'd be weird.
Cleric - good melee abilities (especially with the right domains), good spells, and can claim divine favor. Often expereinced with leadership roles. But of the social skills, only Diplomacy is a class skill by default. A high-int Cleric with the Knowledge and War domains would make an excellent general.
Druid - Can be devastatingly effective in battle, and has 4 skill points/level, but only one social skill (Diplomacy) is a class skill, and tend to be loners. Not very fond of civilization. It'd be a very rare druid who takes command of an army.
Figher - Certainly the best in melee, which helps with impressing the men, but with few skill points and neither knowledge skills nor social skills as class skills, probably should pick up a PrC before moving to a leadership role.
Monk - Stylisticly a hit&run type, which may be effective, but doesn't impress your average soldier. Usually favor small groups. Some social skills (diplomacy, sense motive) and 4 skill points per level. Monk generals will only be slightly more common than Druids.
Paladin - See Cleric, except that the Paladin is typically more charismatic, and has Sense Motive as well as diplomacy. If almost no one in your army is evil, Paladins make excellent generals, except that they tend to have a bad habit of involving themselves in the fighting.
Ranger - May rise from the ranks of scouts. Neither social skills nor knowledge (tactics) are class skills, but with 6 skill points/level, a ranger can afford to buy ranks cross-class. Rangers are better at leading a commando team than a whole army, but still would make decent generals.
Rogue - May easily have the social skills and knowledge skills to be a good general, and may very well keep a generalship they were appointed to, but unlikely to work their way up the ranks (except in societies were assassination is considered an acceptable means of advancement).
Sorcerer - High charisma and the typical role of a sorcerer (blow stuff up with magic) are likely to impress common soldiers. But Bluff is the only social skill that's a class skill, and with only 2 skill points/level, is unlikely to have dropped points into cross-class skills. If a sorcerer leads an army, it's by force of personality, and probably wins battles mostly because of his magic, not his command ability.
Wizard - Has knowledge skills and the Int to use them, plus the wizard's broad array of spells. Not likely to be a charismatic leader, but could do well with underlings who manage the firing-up-the troops well.
micromaximum
First Post
One answer to this question would be whoever has enough money. If you have enough money to raise an army you can be the general if you want. Influence also plays a significant role, but that often involves money or wealth to some degree.
An important thing to consider is that a successful general, especially a medieval general, can benefit from more than just an understanding of tactics and strategy. Knowledge of logistics, an understanding of diplomacy, being able to judge character, reputation and natural luck are all desirable traits.
In a fantasy setting, being able to directly influence the minds of your adversaries would also be a significant advantage. The ability to detect thoughts and contact with a higher power could also give a general a decisive edge.
It's also wise to surround yourself with talented advisors. However, historically that wasn't always common knowledge. Generals often had to figure everything out for themselves, as knowledge and experience wasn't always passed on. The lack of military academies, communication, and recorded knowledge meant a lot of things that appear to be common sense to us definitely weren't in the past. Many practices that were developed in the ancient world were lost and had to be re-discovered later on.
Personal ego, power struggles, intrigue and other decidely non-martial obstacles would also need to be dealt with.
An important thing to consider is that a successful general, especially a medieval general, can benefit from more than just an understanding of tactics and strategy. Knowledge of logistics, an understanding of diplomacy, being able to judge character, reputation and natural luck are all desirable traits.
In a fantasy setting, being able to directly influence the minds of your adversaries would also be a significant advantage. The ability to detect thoughts and contact with a higher power could also give a general a decisive edge.
It's also wise to surround yourself with talented advisors. However, historically that wasn't always common knowledge. Generals often had to figure everything out for themselves, as knowledge and experience wasn't always passed on. The lack of military academies, communication, and recorded knowledge meant a lot of things that appear to be common sense to us definitely weren't in the past. Many practices that were developed in the ancient world were lost and had to be re-discovered later on.
Personal ego, power struggles, intrigue and other decidely non-martial obstacles would also need to be dealt with.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
derelictjay said:
I wasn't necessarily directing the "through the ranks" comment just at your post. That would be only one way of proving that you're as tough as the grunts, having lived the life.
I'm also not really certain that a general really had to prove he was as tough in general as the rest of the army. Maybe proving that he could withstand a life on campaign and at risk while still looking kind of majestic and full of appropriate authority was enough. Sure, the ones who did prove how tough they were by being right in the thick of things would have MORE loyalty and respect. But with a well trained army, I doubt that going out of your way to prove your toughness would be an absolute necessity.
Anyway, that's a fairly minor point. I think it's reasonable to assume that pretty much any class in D&D with the exception of commoner (unless he's a really exceptional commoner) could have the chops to pull it off. Even bards.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Piratecat said:
This is the way I've been thinking as well. I think what some people here are describing is more of a Conan-esq warleader than a general. The very use of the term General implies to me a structured army and a position where tactics and thinking are going to be more important than impressing everyone with your own bravery. A foreman is not a general. A foreman is a sargent or a Master Chief perhaps. The architect is the general, and while the construction workers may like him a bit better if he seems moderately rugged, what really matters is if the design and timetable work. And more importantly, like soldiers under a General (as opposed to a horde leader) they don't really have a vote.
You might think that you would get a warm fuzzy (or less grandmother appropriate feeling) seeing your general charge into the thick of things and take the heads off three enemy soldiers in a row. But in the real world, the soldier whose general stayed out of the thick of it, communicated orders clearly and came out of a similar situation with half the casualties is going to be just as happy with his assignment and live longer. And his army will beat yours in every battle.
I find mysef thinking of Master and Commander, though thats naval. But Lucky Jack never jumped into battle till the very end and never even tried to be physically intimidating to his men. He commanded respect because he was smart and intuitive, could get them out of tough spots on the fly and made the hard decisions with authority. There were undoubtably men on the ship who could wipe the decks with him, but he was a military leader, not the thug who gets to yell 'charge' by virtue of being the biggest.
Kahuna Burger
Similar Threads
