Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ronin_Nakuan 10-26-06, 01:47 AM	My group is about to go up against an army that has been pretty successful. Bases set up all over the country all with higher ups stationed in larger cities. I plan on having them show up every couple of campaigns, but i need to set up a sort of hierarchy for this to work. Cause they're going to be fighting off portions of the army at a time. I plan on having about 8 Generals.. or whatever you want to call them(i'm horrible with Ranks) Working under the leader of the army each about level 12-14 I want to fix up each general like i would fix up a PC, i plan on making them as unique and capable as i possibley can. Not sure if this should be posted here or character optimization as such.. Although i haven't really decided on what i want to do for each character, i was thinking i might go for a different theme in each case. Although i want to make them the type that would be fighting things stronger then themselves. Cross classing from any book isn't a problem i just want them to seem like a threat. Now with all that said i was wondering if anyone had any ideas? Any possible directions that i should go in? Or thoughts on templates that would work? Any help would be appreciated.
Pandaemoni 10-26-06, 02:43 AM	Personally, I'd start by reading as much information as you can on real world military tactics (even wikipedia, if nothing else has a list of tactical manuevers to peruse and come to understand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics)). Different generals will have different tendencies. Some will prefer straight forward attacks and will be very aggressive, others will be more cautious and even defensive in their style, some will prefer guile and confusion (use of stealth forces, misdirection, force multiplication), some will prefer ambushes and surprise attacks to keep enemies off balance, some will try to encircle and surround enemies when possible and others may generally prefer to concentrate attacks of a single point as much as they can. There are almost as many styles are there are generals, and it can be a challenge at times to accurately play a general whose style is radically different from your own instincts. You could look up and read (online) about many historical military leaders and model your NPC personalities on them and their tactics. Some suggestions (in no particular order) would be: Ulysses S. Grant Robert E. Lee Nathanael Greene Henry Knox Hannibal Scipio Julius Caesar Alexander the Great Field Marshal "Bill" Slim (his WWII exploits) Napoleon Genghis Khan (or, more specifically, his advisor Subedei) Charles Martel Charlemagne (even, for a little color, though he was a very good general) Benedict Arnold There are countless others you might choose, and whom I'm tempted to list, but you only need 8.
Ronin_Nakuan 10-26-06, 03:12 AM	hmm i wasn't thinking tactically but thanks for the advice.. think i'll add that now.. What i'm thinking about more is actual classes, like basic templates. For instance a dragon rider that is decked out in dragon armour and the such. Or a Giant with a few War Hulks under his command. Add a bit of flavor from where they're coming from know what i mean? Although each general will be a small campaign in itself so tactics should be playing a role in all of this. My largest loss is where to start with making my Generals.. i plan on cross classing to get the most out of each character as i can, and add a bit of surprise. Although i'm just not sure where to go with this.
Pandaemoni 10-26-06, 03:22 AM	hmm i wasn't thinking tactically but thanks for the advice.. think i'll add that now.. What i'm thinking about more is actual classes, like basic templates. For instance a dragon rider that is decked out in dragon armour and the such. Or a Giant with a few War Hulks under his command. Add a bit of flavor from where they're coming from know what i mean? Although each general will be a small campaign in itself so tactics should be playing a role in all of this. My largest loss is where to start with making my Generals.. i plan on cross classing to get the most out of each character as i can, and add a bit of surprise. Although i'm just not sure where to go with this. I'd generally start by working out their personalities and then develop their classes to complement that. Once you know enough about them to suggest the type of threat they'd pose in your campaign, it suggests certain career paths to me.
anton1066 10-26-06, 04:44 AM	You could also just start by finding a PRC for each one and then build them off of that.
PiedmonSama 10-26-06, 04:51 AM	I agree that when making High Level PCs, "working backwards" is usually the quickest way. Pick a PrC that you like, find out the requirements, and then construct the NPC in that mold. For characters with a military theme, I'd recommend looking into "Heroes of Battle," which has a few PrCs designed to fit into a military hirearchy.
GenghisUber 10-26-06, 08:04 AM	An army with 8 generals sounds like an army that will fly apart at the seams if left alone for a few years. If your players are smart, they're going to ask questions like that. Most organizations should have 1 leader. Any more than that and you'll have infighting and politics and significantly decreased effectiveness. These things typically have extreme growth rates, also. Two leaders makes something half as effective, three makes it about 1/4th as effective, and so on. I'm just speaking as someone who's in charge of 1/3rd of a company. If there weren't someone to make final decisions above me, my colleagues and I would have trouble getting everything done at times when there is a dispute about which project is more important and deserves scarce resources.
Haruspex 10-26-06, 08:22 AM	The OP mentioned that they were working under the leader of the army. Maybe they're not generals in the regular sense (the OP said he was horrible with ranks) but rather sub-commanders or whatever.
alecthemad 10-26-06, 09:10 AM	First of all 8 generals sounds fine, I am assuming that they all have their own "army" to command. The over all leader should either have the biggest army (or better be very powerful personally.) Different themes should be fine. Heck you could go through the PHB and use each base class for a theme. The barbarian leader controls a group of rough and tumble troops. He has one level of rogue to give him literacy and a little surprise sneak attack damage when he flanks. The bard leader is all about motivation and the cult of personality. His troops are fanatically loyal. The cleric leader believes his god commands him to fight and is always looking for or preparing for battle. (Warpriest PRC would rock here) The Druid leader commands forces that protect the forests of the realm from attack. He also manages the lumberjacks to make sure not too much wood is taken. He uses his spells to awaken trees to help with defense. The Fighter leader is all about personal power. He leads from the front and leaves the tactics to his underlings (rogues and wizards). Skip the monk. Rangers probably make up most of the druid's force. Paladins are trouble. The Rogue commands a scout and commando force. They are the troops that attack from hiding and pin the enemy between them and another force. I am skipping the sorceror. The Wizard is the master tactician. He has all the necessary knowledge skills: geography, history, religion, tactics, engineering, etc. He makes extensive use of teleport to put small sets of forces in strong positions. He wards himself and his personal areas. That is seven right there.
CharlieRock 10-26-06, 09:34 AM	Archer General: Ranger w/archery specialist Cavalry General: Fighter w/ mounted combat feats Infantry General: Fighter w/trip&disarm Intelligence General: Rogue/Wizard with illusion spells Hospitilar General:Cleric w/ Cures Magic General: Wizard w/lotsa potions Aerial General: same as cav gen. but with flying mount Scout General: Ranger/Rogue trap specialist :)
Pandaemoni 10-26-06, 09:57 AM	An army with 8 generals sounds like an army that will fly apart at the seams if left alone for a few years. If your players are smart, they're going to ask questions like that. A "general" is just a "general officer." In most armies generals ranks below marshals (or field marshals). There are also divisions amongst generals. Lietenant Generals outrank Major Generals, who outrank Brigadier Generals (in the U.S. system) and all of thiose might be subordinate to a "full" General or to a General of the Army. Historically speaking, they were all subordinate to their rulers, who typically were not themselves considered military leaders per se. In the American civil war there were many dozens of generals of various sub-ranks on both sides of the conflict. So there's plenty of flexibility to have multiple generals without an overt internal struggle for power (McClellan notwithstanding).
Ronin_Nakuan 10-26-06, 10:36 AM	Thanks for all the advice, as for the confusion about the "generals" they are working under a leader.. think i mentioned that already though. Anyway as such they're pretty much leading certain areas, taking care of roughly 1/10 of the whole army apiece. The rest resides with the leader as a defence. Each general will be taking care of they're troups while forcing the area into submission through force. That is about all i've come up with so far.. just thought i'd have the group keep finding these troups set up in random towns, and have the people in the town afraid to say anything bad about the army. Possibley have a soldier or two harass the PC's a little bit and see if they react. I was leaning towards the basic set ups for each class.. but i think i'll give each class a little flavor, like if i used a monk he wouldn't be a pure monk, probably make him a drunken master. Although through this thread i have realized something, i would be foolish to set these generals against the party solo. Each one will need a lower in command to help them out when it comes down to the actual fight.
BlueBlazer 10-26-06, 10:47 AM	Traditionally most generals (or sub-commanders, etc.) are in charge of ordering their troops around (reading the battlefield, deciding how many of what to commit where)... they usually don't actually get mixed up in the fighting. Neither Napoleon (the leader/head) nor Ney, Murat, Bessières, et al, would do any shooting (or healing etc). The leaders or various armies or corps (or whatever you call your divisions) can't run up to the front and mix it up; they're too important, too valuable, and everything falls apart without their leadership. Their 'class' would be irrelevant (all that matters is whether they have the brains/charisma to lead and inspire their troops). However, I get the feeling you want a much more hands-on kind of sub-commander NPC (I"m picturing that Skull-Helmed General from Willow...what's his name again? or the Witch-King of Angmar from LoTR). I've played a few of those, and I have a little advice. First, they need either very protective gear or very protective spells (or both)...expect your players to see the enemy leader and immediately try to pick him/her off, probably from afar. Second, they need to not only be able to take it, but also dish it out...if your sub-commander can't deal decent to major damage you invite anti-climax. Wizards/Sorcerers are usually good (especially if buffed), and Clerics can be great as well (especially if clerics of evil gods, or, even better, pumped up a bit with BoVD nastiness...using Dark Speech against an enemy army is nicely dramatic and potentially quite effective). Another class (or, rather PrC) I'd look at is the Blackguard...nothin' says enemy General lovin' like an Anti-Paladin, wearing bloodied black plate and wielding a fell weapon... Third, if you're going to have a bunch of sub-commanders, one or two could be non-class or classed monsters. Ogre Mages (possibly with class levels), Giants, and even Devils or Demons could be very cool...not to mention, of course, Dragons ('the Dread General Thraknar The Red' becomes a nice twist when it's an Ancient Red). Oh, and GenghisUber and Pandaemoni are both right...you can have that many sub-commanders all under one individual's leadership (each with divisions or whatever, and all taking orders from one Uber BBEG), but they will be competitive. Their primary desires would be to win the war/campaign and please the main leader, but they would also want to outshine the other sub-commanders (so you might want to include a bit of political posturing, infighting, possibly intrigue). Good luck
BlueBlazer 10-26-06, 10:55 AM	Deleted...double post (oops)
Keevo_Darkwood 10-26-06, 11:25 AM	However, I get the feeling you want a much more hands-on kind of sub-commander NPC (I"m picturing that Skull-Helmed General from Willow...what's his name again? That'd be Kael, IIRC. Nice movie, that. Of course, I'd prefer to, ummm, discuss some close-quarters combat techniques for a while with that other general, Sorsha...but that's just me ;)
BlueBlazer 10-26-06, 11:29 AM	That'd be Kael, IIRC. Nice movie, that. Of course, I'd prefer to, ummm, discuss some close-quarters combat techniques for a while with that other general, Sorsha...but that's just me ;) Thanks Keevo...that was going to drive me mad. And you bring up a good point... an enemy general (attractive redhead or no) whom the PCs can convert to their side could be fun (not to mention potentially, er, rewarding).
Keevo_Darkwood 10-26-06, 11:45 AM	Thanks Keevo...that was going to drive me mad. And you bring up a good point... an enemy general (attractive redhead or no) whom the PCs can convert to their side could be fun (not to mention potentially, er, rewarding). You're welcome. Glad I could help. :) Rewarding? Yeah, I'd definitely say so. Hell, it worked for Val Kilmer; not only did Madmartigan and Sorsha fall in love, but he and Joanne Whalley (the woman who played Sorsha) went on to become husband and wife in RL. :D
Far_Traveler 10-26-06, 02:01 PM	Zera- Cleric of Rage (CoDzilla-style)- employs barbarians, weilds scythe, does not rage himself but knows the one and only truth: "All is lost in Rage" Phage- Wizard/Archivist/True Necromancer, employs undead Dartan- Paladin of Tyranny, Employs standard army, intelligent and weilds a heavy flail Forge- Warforged Artificer, employs Warforged and other constructs Jeer- Beguiler, Employs a vast amount of strike forces, works with other Generals Crystal- Female Frostrager, employs ice-themed soldiers Oath- Monk, employs non-weapon soldiers Darius- Fighter, Employs standard (and weakest) army, weilds fullblade Big Guy: Ultimos- Warlock
roll8dn 10-26-06, 03:43 PM	Idon't know just how much you want your PC's enemies to be a "standard" army (that is, comprised of mostly infantry and cavalry with some scouts and support), but it might be interesting to devote two or three of your generals to nonstandard armies. For example, one of your ten divisions could be smaller than the rest, but made up of moving artillery. The division is led by a giant of some type (stone, fire, and frost work well here) with cleric or fighter levels, leading his fellows (some of whom have hulking hurler levels) as a sort of living catapult. The great advantage of his division is that the equipment can also fight, to great effect. You have to remember, however, to give them some smaller scouts (ogres or even hobgoblins work well here) to help with the obvious dangers of traps and ambushes. Also, the division would likely be smaller in number than the regular ones; a hundred giants on the field are worth a whole lot more than a hundred first- through fourth-level warriors. Perhaps another could be your aerial cavalry. Rangers, fighters, even spellcasters mounted on giant birds (owls, eagles, even rocs), vermin (wasps, bees, even spider eaters), or more esoteric creatures (pegasi, griffons, wyverns, even young dragons) make for an interesting challenge and a change of pace. The leader of this division could be a monster (adult red dragon, anyone?) or a classed individual (spellcasters work excellently here, due to their sheer number of ranged attacks). Remember, though, that (yet again) each of these units is much more capable than their normal counterpart. As far as the rest of the army goes, you will want a good mix of infantry, archers, calvary, and support train. Each of the generals in command of their specific unit should, however, have something to do with the men (or monsters) under their command. Especially with evil creatures, it is important that the individuals take their leaders with respect. Otherwise, said leader doesn't last long. Ghoul food, anyone? Anyways, just some random thoughts regarding the composition of the army (and the type of your generals). Take 'em with a large grain of salt.
Pandaemoni 10-26-06, 05:26 PM	One of the difficulties in making realistic "generals" is how much combat optimization one wants. Generals are always strong personalities, which suggests high charisma. (As some have noted on these boards, a low charisma character is not terrifying, but unnoticeable...and wallflower military leaders would be a rarity). Clerics would make good generals both because of their martial prowess and because a hig charisma is of come benefit to them. Strangely, one of the great classes for military leaders would be a bard...high charisma, ally-boosting abilities, a broad range of knowledge skills like history and geography. (I like bards, but I say stangely because they are not most people's first choice for a general). High-charisma paladins would make good generals (as would blackguards) due to their synergy with Charisma. The Legendary Leader PrC (Heroes of Battle) obviously has its uses, though it's not my favorite. Sadly, though a focus on charisma limits the universe of "optimized" builds.
Cifer 10-26-06, 06:17 PM	Another class (or, rather PrC) I'd look at is the Blackguard...nothin' says enemy General lovin' like an Anti-Paladin, wearing bloodied black plate and wielding a fell weapon... You might want to give him asthma and a red brilliant-energy weapon too... Most of it has already been said, however, there is one thing I very much like to do: Look at your PCs. Look at every PC, see what its essence is and what kind of personal enemy you could make for him. E.g.: Paladin - Blackguard, easy. Possibly a fallen one from the same order Druid - Blighter or possibly pseudoindustrial wizard employing constructs Cleric - Cleric or other champion of rival faith or an outsider and so on. Let the enemies appear from time to time and make the players (the characters as well, but mainly the players) hate them. Once you've managed that your players walk away from the table with that smug smile indicating they paid Captain Horatio the butcher, perpetrator of the harvest massacre back what he owed them, you know you're good.
Pegasos989 10-26-06, 06:40 PM	I am afraid that you are making a small mistake in designing these, but worry not, Pegasos - the flying horse - is here! Always start designing NPCs from players' point of view. Don't design "I want 8 generals around level 12" as that is doomed. You must first decide what they will do to PCs. If there is 8 same level opponents, then the first is a good challenge to PCs and by the time they meet the last one, he is already so low that PCs will wipe him out. So design their levels based on when PCs meet them. Even better would be to have everyone's progression decided so that when the PCs kill one at level 12 and go after next one, you can just advance him a few levels and thus give a decent challenge at every level. Also, at higher levels, the armies are not a problem to PCs: groups of 1st-3rd level NPCs aren't a challenge. So, how do you challenge the team when they are level 14? Surely they won't just walk to the general and fight him! So, does the general have mean plot? Decide that first! Does he have assasin squad? Ooh, design it first and then start giving the general possibly a few rogue levels! Does he have a group of bloodhounds he sends after the PCs? Nearly certain ranger levels! So start thinking "How will this general affect the PCs and pose them challenge" and go ftom there.
Ronin_Nakuan 10-26-06, 07:59 PM	I like the advice im hearing ok.. I do plan on having a monster type class as a general, and i was also planning to do most of the armies as a theme after the General. Hehe i'm going to have alot of fun doing a rogue/assasin styled army it's going to be fun setting up a battle field for them. Now looking at the PC's they're opposite would have to be good, considering they are all evil. Although problem is i'm using a former comrade as the leader of the army they're going up against(i really liked the plot twist) who also happens to be evil, so leading good players would be pretty odd.. especially considering i planned on the army to be more of a take over the world themed. Far Traveler, thats exactly the kind of stuff i was looking for! thanks for giving me something to look into. Oh and i think i will go with a black gaurd, using a red energy weapon. But i'm a bit curious about what asthma is? im not an expert on the black gaurd but it sounds more like an item then an ability..
Pandaemoni 10-26-06, 08:29 PM	Oh and i think i will go with a black gaurd, using a red energy weapon. But i'm a bit curious about what asthma is? im not an expert on the black gaurd but it sounds more like an item then an ability.. Asthma is a respiratory ailment that makes it difficult to breathe, he was making a Star Wars (Darth Vader) joke (red energy weapon, black armor, heavy breathing, etc.).
aramilcaelvan 10-26-06, 09:01 PM	D'oh, I got Starwars, but I was thinking of Gen. Grevious. As for your eight general archtypes, you could go with: The Scout/Commando: This general leads an army of down and dirty rangers/scouts/rouges, who serve as the invisible strike team of the army. Guerilla tactics are a must. The Fighter: This general is the knight in shining armor, only backwards. He is the LE knight in impecably clean but oddly diry armor. He's snooty and egotistical, and does not like to put himself in harm's way. That isn't to say he can't fight if he has to though. The Blackguard: This general is a direct rival to the Fighter. Like the fighter, his army focuses on melee combat, but unlike the Fighter, the Blackguard prefers to get in there and mix it up, leaving the stratagizing to underlings. He always seems to be looking for a fight. "The blood on La'Hire's sword is almost dry..." Look to the picture of the Thayan Knight in CW for my inspiration. The Wizard: This character is incredibly calculating, and probably insane. He leads the army's most accomplished spellcasters, and to great affect. He has plans to take out the leader of the army, but hasn't put them into play yet. He is simmilar to the Fighter in the sense that he is both snooty and egotistical. This guy probably focuses on all spells except Necromancy, which he considers distasteful (and needs to be reserved for the next archtype). The Necromancer: This guy is a combination of arcane and divine spellcasting classes, and his sole focus is to become better at necromancy. He is disgusting to behold, because his age is about 45, but due to so many experiments with his chosen school, parts of his flesh have actually decayed and rotted away (he isn't undead yet though). He hates the wizard, and vice versa, but they both respect each other as their main threats, as they both hold spellcasting in the highest reguard. The Bard: This fellow is amazingly controlling, in fact, he is the very definition of control freak. He uses his spells to take over the minds of those who threaten him, and he always has a troupe of past foes nearby, ready to lick his shoes. This makes him dangerous, because his army is extremly loyal, some by choice, some by force. That's six, I cant think of anymore right now. Like someone before mentioned, don't design them all at once, rather, make them scale up in level as the PCs grow stronger.
Far_Traveler 10-26-06, 11:12 PM	Far Traveler, thats exactly the kind of stuff i was looking for! thanks for giving me something to look into. :D Thanks! I'll come up with more for you! What I had before(with an extra or two, I was rushed): Zera- Cleric of Rage (CoDzilla-style)- employs barbarians/rangers, weilds scythe, does not rage himself but knows the one and only truth: "All is lost in Rage" Phage- Wizard/Archivist/True Necromancer, employs undead, corpsecrafter awesomeness(infantry: skeletons/zombies, calvalry: Quadraped Skeletons/zombies, skirmishers incorporal, Dragon Skeleton or four) Dartan- Paladin of Tyranny, Employs standard army, intelligent and weilds a heavy flail, possibly good for monstrous races (hobgoblin? gnoll? troll? depends on power level) Forge- Warforged Artificer, employs Warforged and other constructs (heavy seige stuff here) Jeer- Beguiler, Employs a vast amount of strike forces, works with other Generals (for out-of-place soldiers in other armies, casters or really powerful humanoids) Crystal- Female Frostrager, employs ice-themed soldiers (might I suggest fey-based warlock elemental varients?) Oath- Monk, employs non-weapon soldiers (claw, fist, feet, throw in whatever you like, just no manufactured weapons) Darius- Fighter, Employs standard (and weakest) army, weilds fullblade(this guy is encountered first, but put in them the fear of Ultimos in them by making every blasted soldier at least 3rd level) Big Guy: Ultimos- Warlock (exersise your creativity here, I'm not sure where to go) Pyre: Pryokinetisist, fire-themed soldiers (see Crystal) Scaerun: Druid, Insectoid Army (lots of Swarms and giant bugs) Vincent: Vampire, employs Vampires and Spawn Luke: Werewolf Lord Ranger, Employs Weres Have fun! The last two are for more elite Armies.
Keevo_Darkwood 10-26-06, 11:42 PM	D'oh, I got Starwars, but I was thinking of Gen. Grevious. You were, in that case, also thinking of bronchitis, not asthma. George Lucas suffered from bronchitis during principal phography for Revenge of the Sith; General Grievous' persistent cough was actually recorded by him, not Matthew Wood who supplied the voice of the Jedi-killing cyborg.
Gilganarz_the_reporter 10-27-06, 04:20 AM	I hated Greivous. When I first saw him on the cartoons (note, I hadn't heard him speak) I thought he was a total bad*** Suddenly he became a hacking old loser.
Ltlconf 10-27-06, 09:34 AM	One of the difficulties in making realistic "generals" is how much combat optimization one wants. Generals are always strong personalities, which suggests high charisma. (As some have noted on these boards, a low charisma character is not terrifying, but unnoticeable...and wallflower military leaders would be a rarity). Clerics would make good generals both because of their martial prowess and because a hig charisma is of come benefit to them. Strangely, one of the great classes for military leaders would be a bard...high charisma, ally-boosting abilities, a broad range of knowledge skills like history and geography. (I like bards, but I say stangely because they are not most people's first choice for a general). High-charisma paladins would make good generals (as would blackguards) due to their synergy with Charisma. The Legendary Leader PrC (Heroes of Battle) obviously has its uses, though it's not my favorite. Sadly, though a focus on charisma limits the universe of "optimized" builds. Hello Folks, Nothing to add here but an observation really. You, Pandaemoni, have a very good observations as do several others. Obviously done your homework and scratched some scalps at the holes in the system of our game system here. While D&D largely (with exceptions and tweaking) demands uberbad*&%#$ with stats and bells and whistles to make Superman sweat bullets for a general, in real life most great general where physical dweebs by comparison. Napoleon, argueably in the top ten of the all time great generals of all time, was a 5'2'' little Corsican of no great physcial attribute (but a phenomenal stamina) but fantastic charisma, intelligence and common sense. Not only a great war leader but also a great ruler (two do NOT often go hand in hand). He's one example. Other great leaders such as R.E. Lee, Grant, Bradley, Patton, Rundstedt, Kitchner, Ceaser and others were in middle age or further (Rundstedt was in his late 60s!) and past their physical prime. While others such as Alexander the Great (walking bundle of God-like charisma!), Richard the Lionheart, Eponidias, Gustav Adolphus and William the Conquer led from the front or close to it, all suffered various injuries that radically shortened their lives or got themselves out-right killed. True in D&D you've got healing and ressurection, but that does the army no good as they've just seen their leader whacked. Morale often crumbles (to nothing more than not) and the enemy, even if losing at that point or badly outnumbered, can now pull a upset and win. Often they did. Even if healing is done the impact on morale has been made and will be hard to repair in the middleof a fight with a enemy on a roll. Thus as time when on most generals led from the rear. It was practical, improved command (kinda hard to give orders to your army in the middle of a grand melee) and removed a random element in a business full of such. Civilians idolize the front-line leaders, professionals do not. As for competitiveness, the word is often a understatement. Often generals on the same side were such prima donnas and touchy as well as competitive that they could lose wars or certainly help such along. The Confederate Army of Tennessee and Union Army of the Potomac both had such contentious high commands (not to mention problems with respective presidents). The two armies went through a rotation of commanders that makes the head spin, many back-stabbed by his own (in)subordinants! Napoleon's marshals were a difficult herd to ride, Washington sacked a hatfull of unrully generals (and had Arnold crawfish on him) and few with a understanding of history are unaware of Eisenhower's headaches with HIS commanders (Patton, Monty, Bradley) and then throw in Churchill and De Gaulle and it's a wonder he didn't have a embolism! Medieval armies with the touchy nobles, and their senses of honor and precedent they would eagerly kill over, made all the above look like well oiled machines! And these are the GOOD guys (in the sense as not being sociopathic Darth Vader types. Ignore the movies)! Basicly, Generals are PERSONALITIES who command through tradition, cunning, brains and, more than anything, sheer charisma. Kinda hard to make it work in D&D mechanics and keep him alive. AHA! CHALLENGE! Keep a Napoleon clone a viable leader in a D&D world and alive! AS HE WAS!
Pegasos989 10-27-06, 10:27 AM	Sooo... Have generals be very unoptimized (possibly NPC classes too) but have badass bodyguards? That also takes away the problem I always used to have... "This general is not badass unarmored but I doubt he would wear full plate every day of his life...
Far_Traveler 10-27-06, 11:13 AM	Alabaster: Abjurer, Siege specialist, works with other Generals, employs siege workers and uses abjurations and conjurations to protect them. Exemed: Sorcerer, Employs Dragons and Sorcerers, works with other Generals Gardimesh: Ghost Rogue, Employs Etheral Beasts and ghosts Ultimos: BBEG, Warlock, employs 12 other Casters to form the Council, all under his control. Shouldn't probably fight all at once. Possibly throw in Half-feind Template, and infect the council with feindish. Des: Fiend Lord, Controls Ultimos, Must travel to the nine hells/abyss to fight, in case they want to continue with thier characters. Karn: Celestial Benefactor, Will grant powerful items to those who would fight Des Directly Maybe you should let the possibility that the PCs could raise thier own army possible... Be Prepared for such an instance. I suggest introducing the armies by having them combating a warrior tribe (everyone at least 3rd level barb, but small tribe) to wipe them out (use undead, so that the necromancer can raise them), and have survivors join the party. This campaign is gonna be so cool. Please, tell us what you do with this, or at least me. Hire a few bards, enlist a church or two, buy a catapult or six, hire an entire guild of warmages, this has potential. make things like this available. This can accually cut down on monsters they accually have to fight.
Amon_WinterfallIV 10-27-06, 12:38 PM	In D+D, generals would fight at the front lines and lead by example. The whole idea of Generals sitting in the back, drinking tea didn't take off until the first world war. And if the Generals had led at the front, the tactics would have been very different. But I digress... 8 Generals would mean 8 commands, 8 fronts and positions. Geography would probably be the determinant. Seperating armies by subgroups means that performance would be unequal, however, it could make sense. Just go with: Mercenary General: Leader of a major Mercenary group. Inspirational General: Bard type who greatly inspires men. Scrappy--no holds barred General: known for launching the 'kitchen sink' in attack strategies. "You are replacable" General: This general views his men as expendable and frequently orders zerg rushes against enemies. Master of Logisitics General: This guy can get his army to move FAST. His army would simply outpace others. Great Defender: This general would rather defend than attack, and they defend very well. Ambusher: Probably for smaller units, the Ambusher type would like to get the drop on his enemies. Magician: The mass-buff general.
OleOneEye 10-28-06, 12:26 PM	A beholder with a core of mid-level mages blasting around his anti-magic field sounds like a terrifying general to me. Give him a couple fighter levels for extra hit points and a better attack bonus with his rays.
Ltlconf 11-02-06, 03:14 AM	In D+D, generals would fight at the front lines and lead by example. The whole idea of Generals sitting in the back, drinking tea didn't take off until the first world war. And if the Generals had led at the front, the tactics would have been very different. But I digress... Not quite true. Alexander was one of the few generals who fought from the front lines and he takes guff for it to this day. Had he been killed at Issus, as he dang near was, no victory at Guagemela and we would all be speaking Persian...As it was, his leading from the front nearly cost him that later battle as he was off chasing Xerxes instead of being detached and taking stocka nd his infantry was nearly overrun. Nearly all generals stayed back and ran things and only got directly involved if directly threatened and desperate. Ceaser once a general fought hand to hand all of four times he tells of, and he was never shy about tooting his own horn. Being in the thick of things is in fact overrated as it also means you have no way of getting the big picture or even running the battle. This is VERY dangerous as the plan never survives contact with the enemy and you are too busy staying alive to be in command. Effectively you are reduced to foot soldier not general. A general wins battles, soldiers fight them. You are also too important to be killed and many a Kingdom has been lost due to the king being a soldier and not a leader. King Harold at Hastings comes to mind. Had he simply stayed back, he'd not gotten an arrow in his eye, not been later cut down and his entire family (ENTIRE family) killed. Not to mention letting his kingdom he'd sworn to protect conquered by foreigners for centuries. He should have stayed back and when things went south mounted a horse with his bodyguard and retreated to London. Sadly he could have raised overwhleming force even though the battle had been lost and swamped William. Hannibal didn't lead from the front, neither did Scipio, Charlemagne, Edward I, nor Edward III. Henry V did, but then that was only at one battle were surviving would have been pointless anyway (hence the point I made about desperation). All military historians agree the Confederacy's (US Civil War)independence marched on her bayonets. They also agree hew chances died mainly (and for other reasons) due to the nasty tendency of the Southern generals' to lead from the front even when unecessary thus assuring a constant brain-drain promotions couldn't keep up with. General R.E. Lee, no physical coward by any means ORDERED his generals to STOP leading from the front, especialy after Stonewall Jackson's death (which many consider the REAL turning point in the war). 1/4 of Confederate generals died in combat. No army can survive this and function. Not to mention the number of leaders out of action at important moments due to injuries. And don't use Rommel as an example. He was often out of touch and nearly FUBARed more than once, being saved only by a first class chief of staff back at HQ. Rommel could be out of touch for a couple of day while a battle was going on, changing status minute by minute and no one effectively in charge. Remember they didn't have the comm systems of today. His stock has fallen far in recent decades. Lastly, thougth the performance of the generals in WWI was a popular whipping boy, its now recognized that this is a false criticism. A living historian (reenactor) started up WWI reenacting, and like the hobby has elsewhere it overturned some serious assumptions. The most important is that the generals were incompetant. After two decades the reenactors still can't figure out how you attack across two hundred yards of open, swampy, shell-pocked, barbwired ground protected by a entrenched enemy protected by cannon and machineguns except by just charging through and hoping enough survive to take and hold the trenches on the other side. I still challenge anyone to do so using partially trained conscripts! To do different takes advances in technology not present nor reliable for use until 1917. Also these generals had to be out of range of artillery that could flatten a town in minutes and radios were primative. Also battlefields covered dozens or hundreds of square miles and thus battles had to be fought off maps, using set piece tactics, utilizing millions of men, with comm lag times of hours or even days. It was a recipe for disaster if anything went wrong, which in war always happens and no amount of closeness to the front would have changed a danged thing, nor improved the weather or mud (which Haig in fact ignored as beyond his capacity to change. It was). Once new methods were indeed found and proven (you NEVER take a new idea at face value when the fates of nations are at stake), they were adopted and used. Trial and error is ugly when the technology so new and results often contradictory, but generals want to win and want results. Only the truly incompetant will do otherwise. Haig WAS slow and hardheaded (and loathe to admit failure) but he did adapt and by 1916 new tactics were appearing in drabs and drips but due to the attrition in frontline officers such information was slow to be applied. Then they only became practical battle winners once certain holes in the tactics were filled by the needed technology. Then new rounds of trial and error were needed to figure out what tactics worked on what scale with what tool. Only real fighting works in these circumstances (if you want results NOW) and this took time and more men died. On the British and French side they did come up with new methods of assault using small unit tactics, LMGs and creeping barrages but these didn't become decisive until the new, reliable tanks came along. The Germans did the same but created the SMG to compliment the LMG and improved an assualt hand grenade (the "potato smasher," the handle improves accuracy and distance) and created the storm trooper. These men nearly won the Germans the war in early 1918 in the Kaiser's offensive. Point is a dead general is a useless general and a victory for the enemy. He can't lead effectively nor react quickly at the front. A generals responsibilities demand that he lead to win and survive to do so at a later time if he loses. BTW its rare that generals create new unit tactics, that usually comes from below.
Ltlconf 11-02-06, 03:31 AM	In D+D, generals would fight at the front lines and lead by example. The whole idea of Generals sitting in the back, drinking tea didn't take off until the first world war. And if the Generals had led at the front, the tactics would have been very different. But I digress... Not quite true. Alexander was one of the few generals who fought from the front lines and he takes guff for it to this day. Had he been killed at Issus, as he dang near was, no victory at Guagemela and we would all be speaking Persian...As it was, his leading from the front nearly cost him that later battle since he was off chasing Xerxes as chief of cavalry instead of being in overall and giving orders and thus his infantry was nearly overrun. He nearly didn't the word in time and his generals were NOT happy about it. Though many Roman generals gave lip service to Alexanders' style they in fact considered it foolish, studied his tactics instead and, unless assassinated, lived to die of old age in the largest empire in the Western world. Nearly all generals stayed back and ran things and only got directly involved if directly threatened and desperate. Ceaser once a general fought hand to hand all of four times he tells of, and he was never shy about tooting his own horn. Most kings and leaders have done the same and doing different nearly always leads ot eventual defeat and likely destruction. As said being in the thick of things is in fact overrated as it also means you have no way of getting the big picture or even running the battle. This is VERY dangerous as the plan never survives contact with the enemy and you are too busy staying alive to be in command. Effectively you are reduced to foot soldier not general. A general wins battles, soldiers fight them. You are also too important to be killed and many a Kingdom has been lost due to the king being a soldier and not a leader. King Harold at Hastings comes to mind. Had he simply stayed back, he'd not gotten an arrow in his eye (questionable if such happened but...), not been later cut down and then later his entire family (ENTIRE family)hunted down and later killed. Not to mention letting his kingdom he'd sworn to protect conquered by foreigners for centuries. He should have stayed back and when things went south mounted a horse with his bodyguard and retreated to London. Sadly he could have then raised an overwhleming force even though the battle had been lost and swamped William. All military historians agree the Confederacy's (US Civil War)independence marched on her bayonets. They also agree her chances died mainly (and for other reasons) due to the nasty tendency of the Southern generals' to lead from the front even when unecessary, thus assuring a constant brain-drain promotions couldn't keep up with. General R.E. Lee, no physical coward by any means, ORDERED his generals to STOP leading from the front, especialy after Stonewall Jackson's death (which many consider the REAL turning point in the war). 1/4 of Confederate generals died in combat. No army can survive this and function. Not to mention the number of leaders out of action at important moments due to injuries. And don't use Rommel as an example. He was often out of touch and nearly FUBARed more than once, being saved only by a first class chief of staff back at HQ (or his enemy's incompetance). Rommel could be out of touch for a couple of days at a time while a battle was going on, it changing status minute by minute and no one effectively in charge. Remember they didn't have the comm systems of today and mechanized battles moved FAST. His stock has fallen far in recent decades. Even Patton kept in better touch. Lastly, thougth the performance of the generals in WWI was a popular whipping boy, its now recognized that this is a false criticism. A living historian (reenactor) started up WWI reenacting, and like the hobby has elsewhere it overturned some serious assumptions. The most important is that the generals were incompetant. After two decades the reenactors still can't figure out how you attack across two hundred yards of open, swampy, shell-pocked, barbwired ground protected by a entrenched enemy protected by cannon and machineguns except by just charging through and hoping enough survive to take and hold the trenches on the other side. I still challenge anyone to do so using partially trained conscripts! To do different takes advances in technology not present nor reliable for use until 1917. Also these generals had to be out of range of artillery that could flatten a town in minutes and radios were primative. Also battlefields covered dozens or hundreds of square miles and thus battles had to be fought off maps, using set piece tactics, utilizing millions of men, with comm lag times of hours or even days. It was a recipe for disaster if anything went wrong, which in war always happens and no amount of closeness to the front would have changed a danged thing, nor improved the weather or mud (which Haig in fact ignored as beyond his capacity to change. It was). Once new methods were indeed found and proven (you NEVER take a new idea at face value when the fates of nations are at stake), they were adopted and used. Trial and error is ugly when the technology so new and results often contradictory, but generals want to win and want results. Only the truly incompetant will do otherwise. Haig WAS slow and hardheaded (and loathe to admit failure) but he did adapt and by 1916 new tactics were appearing in drabs and drips but due to the attrition in frontline officers such information was slow to be applied. Then they only became practical battle winners once certain holes in the tactics were filled by the needed technology. Then new rounds of trial and error were needed to figure out what tactics worked on what scale with what tool. Only real fighting works in these circumstances (if you want results NOW) and this took time and more men died. On the British and French side they did come up with new methods of assault using small unit tactics, LMGs and creeping barrages but these didn't become decisive until the new, reliable tanks came along. The Germans did the same but created the SMG to compliment the LMG and improved an assualt hand grenade (the "potato smasher," the handle improves accuracy and distance) and created the storm trooper. These men nearly won the Germans the war in early 1918 in the Kaiser's offensive. Point is a dead general is a useless general and a victory for the enemy. He can't lead effectively nor react quickly at the front. A generals responsibilities demand that he lead to win and survive to do so at a later time if he loses. BTW its rare that generals create new unit tactics, that usually comes from below. Mind it always that here I'm talking 'bout ARMY commanders! Line officers up to company level lead on the line whenever possible (and the men know when they should) and even Battalion COs should be close up where they can "feel" the battle (read and see "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young"). As you reach Colonel and up there is simply too many decisions and too much information (especially these days) for a frontline presence to be practical and the battle too big to controled that way.