PDA

View Full Version : Art of War-Making Tacticians in DnD



Noedig
2011-09-26, 11:22 AM
So I found a box of my old books, and lo and behold, Sun Tzu's Art of War was in it. I picked it up, read it cover to cover, watched a few movies (Red Cliffs) and then my mind started churning. I did a little research and a few names came up. Sun Tzu (obviously), Sun Ping, and Zhuge Liang. The last is regarded as one of the greatest strategists of the Three Kingdoms era.

Now onto the meat of the issue. These men can be recreated. But which class would be the best class suited to this? In some cases, namely Zhuge Liang, they never actually lifted a finger in battle. Is it reasonable to assume a Warlord can function in the same manner? Not actually fighting, but winning all the same?

gkathellar
2011-09-26, 11:34 AM
I don't think you really can, unless you adapt them into control/buffing-heavy casters or do it by fluff-fiat. D&D is not a game about large-scale adaptive warfare, and it doesn't manage large-scale adaptive warfare well by any means. Moreover, the variety of magical effects and means of information gathering in D&D totally invalidate a lot of real-world tactical assumptions.

awa
2011-09-26, 11:47 AM
armies in general are largely irrelevant a single barbed devil with its dr 10 and spiked body can wade through almost limitless numbers of normal troops.

characters with the correct class levels and gear have to much mobility and concentrated fighting force. so it turns into a battle between the high level characters and every one else is irrelevant.

of course if you cap the maximum level much lower then it can work in that case someone who cant fight but is a good leader might just be an aristocrat with high mental stats and the right skill choices. i would not suggest a buffing class unless they lead from the front

Noedig
2011-09-26, 11:48 AM
Hmm. I see your point. The rules for mass combat are...messy. At best. A specific game world would actually be required to even attempt this, likely a low magic one. As you said many spells completely invalidate certain tactical procedures.

Hawk7915
2011-09-26, 12:02 PM
Yeah tactics seem to be handled almost entirely out of game. I think characters with decent Int and Charisma and ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (History; Architecture and Engineering; Arcana or Religion in high-magic settings) make more believable glorious strategists and uber-generals, and no specific class is needed to do all that. Even an NPC class or a class that doesn't have those skills in-class can probably do just fine as a master tactician with feats, cross-class ranks, and respectable mental stats. Were I DMing a "military" campaign I might fudge up a system where Bluff and Sense Motive rolls can deceive opponents on a global conflict scale, but that'd be totally houseruled.

Obviously it might make you feel better if your Sun Tzu wannabe was actually effective at leading mooks; for that consider a "Leader" class (Warlord, Cleric, Bard) from 4th Edition or a class with huge ally buffs from 3.5 (mundane ones include Marshal, Bard, Dragon Shaman, sometimes Paladin, and anyone with access to White Raven discipline from ToB; almost any spellcasting class can replicate most of their buffs). Coincidentally most of those classes have the necessary class skills and/or have strong Int and Charisma synergy, so it all works out.