Character concept advice (Red fel and others)

[Aleolus]

Hello. I have a character concept I would like some opinions and suggestions on, if possible.

A LE Fighter/Knight build who worships Hextor (or equivilent god). He is a prince who was exiled from his homeland with the parting words from his father being "if you ever return, you had best have an army at your back". So that is what he is doing. He is going to find a fortress or stronghold, and set up a mercenary corps there. That corp, once sufficiently manned, trained, and armed will be marched as his army to take back his rightful throne.

Btw, if anyone feels like invoking the name of a certain playgrounder well known for good advice with evil characters, go right ahead ;P

[Nifft]

Regarding a name: Fedrel, perhaps.

Usage: "This territory is now under the jurisdiction of the Fedrel Government."

- - -

What kind of advice do you want?

If you just want to maximize Leadership, then I suggest being a Paladin of Tyranny and taking the Leadership feat.

[Draconium]

The name of Red Fel must be invoked three times, if one wishes to summon Red Fel. But it would be useful to have Red Fel give you advice...

But what exactly do you need advice and opinions on? You aren't quite clear on that.

[Aleolus]

Suggestions regarding his personality. Right now I have him as something of a " Tough-but-Fair", where he is harsh to people who fail him, generous to those who don't, and he only kills his underlings as a last resort to save on the expense and headaches involved in replacing them.

My biggest concern, honestly, is that I am making him too LN, and I'm wanting to know what I can do to keep him in the decidedly LE category

[Draconium]

My suggestion, then: Make him driven by his overall goal. As in, he's so completely caught up in his quest to regain his throne, he is willing to use, hurt, and even kill others. He's not necessarily a bad guy, just so wrapped up in his own agenda that he doesn't stop to think about the consequences of his actions.

[Azoth]

Landlord and Leadership are two feats that stand our for this kind of build. Both feats give you the mechanical oomph of parts of your fluff. Landlord will give you a plot of land to build a stronghold and training grounds. Leadership will give you followers and a cohort to be your army.

While you have established you want to be a martial character and that you are Lawful Evil, you have not described what kind of Lawful Evil you wish to be. Are you the kind who pushes one sided contracts to your betterment, are you the kind who "technically" doesn't break the law but totes its grey area, are you the kind who punishes law breakers to the full extent authority allows? There are a thousand ways to be Lawful Evil, and just as many builds that can "knights". We need more information.

[Aleolus]

The kind who enforces the law to the extreme. As I said, punishments are harsh, but always fit the reason the person is being punished. He will use loopholes to benefit himself, but never actually break the law.

EDIT: I suppose I should also mention he is extremely tactically oriented, being both a natural and trained tactician

[ExLibrisMortis]

Well, for knightly types, I like cleric 4/ordained champion 5/prestige paladin of tyranny 2/crusader 2/ruby knight vindicator 7, or other things with those classes. You need to refluff RKV, there is technically no such thing as a prestige paladin of tyranny, and you lose a lot of caster levels (6 in all), but then you weren't going for a full caster, it's easy to deri ve the class features it would have, and RKV has few Wee Jas-themed abilities anyway. A level of marshal would be fun, too. Downside is, it might be too caster-y or too religious for what you had in mind.

You have enough spells for utility magic - self-buffs, but also spells for communicating with your army, feeding it, scrying on enemies and so on. At the same time, you have a clear martial/fighting focus, with maneuvers, swift-action spontaneous flame strike, and good base attack, and between your buffs and divine grace, you're pretty tough to take down.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel

. . .

Red Fel.

. . .

Red Fel

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-11-2015/3Yo4ns.gif

I AM COMPLETE!


Hello. I have a character concept I would like some opinions and suggestions on, if possible.

A LE Fighter/Knight build who worships Hextor (or equivilent god). He is a prince who was exiled from his homeland with the parting words from his father being "if you ever return, you had best have an army at your back". So that is what he is doing. He is going to find a fortress or stronghold, and set up a mercenary corps there. That corp, once sufficiently manned, trained, and armed will be marched as his army to take back his rightful throne.

I love it already. Is his father also a Hextorite? Because that's perfect Hextorite mentality. "You will prove yourself a worthy heir when you can prove your strength at the head of a freaking army." And exile into the wilds, alone and without aid, is basically a Hextorite parent's version of telling the kids to turn off those consarned video games and get outside for awhile.


Suggestions regarding his personality. Right now I have him as something of a " Tough-but-Fair", where he is harsh to people who fail him, generous to those who don't, and he only kills his underlings as a last resort to save on the expense and headaches involved in replacing them.

My biggest concern, honestly, is that I am making him too LN, and I'm wanting to know what I can do to keep him in the decidedly LE category

There's nothing inherently non-Evil about "tough but fair." It's how one defines "tough" that matters. The L provides the fair; let the E provide the tough.


The kind who enforces the law to the extreme. As I said, punishments are harsh, but always fit the reason the person is being punished. He will use loopholes to benefit himself, but never actually break the law.

EDIT: I suppose I should also mention he is extremely tactically oriented, being both a natural and trained tactician

Alright. We've got some pieces together. Let's get this started.

First, and I'm sure you already know this, keep in mind that the Hextorite faith is pretty much the only openly accepted and worshiped Evil church, due in no small part to the fact that its presence makes places less crappy. Hextorites cut down on crime, promote health and physical fitness, build cities and inspire order, obedience, and loyal devotion.

Admittedly, they do so by planting a boot firmly into any face that would offer opposition, but people get the message fairly quickly. In fact, it's not unfair to say that a Hextorite theocracy would strongly resemble a highly militaristic LN society, assuming they dealt with a minimum of dissidents and enemy nations. This means that, if your character is anything like a good little Hextorite, it is possible to walk the line between LN and LE and still stay on your patron's "good" side.

Now, are you familiar with Les Miserables? Inspector Javert is often presented as walking that same line, and personality-wise, he's a wonderful starting place for you. This is a character who is fanatically devoted to the law, and to preserving that law by punishing lawbreakers without mercy. This alone is merely an LN tendency, but the reason he walks the line is that he judges all men guilty. This is the tendency that makes some question whether he gets an N or an E. Basically, he assumes that all men have a tendency towards sin and crime, and that those who have proven themselves lawbreakers are not only utterly irredeemable, they are openly worthy of contempt, condemnation, abuse, and the worst possible punishment for any offense.

Embrace that intolerance. Those who break vows aren't merely untrustworthy, they are repellent filth. Those who violate the law must be punished by the most severe consequences possible. One who steals a loaf of bread will be fortunate if he only loses one hand; one who glances wantonly at a woman should count his blessings if the torturer stops after removing both eyes. Don't just be without mercy, be excessive in your severity. That said, I like your position of never punishing without some cause. If a person is not proven a criminal or an enemy of the State, he need not suffer more than a brief detention. Once his guilt is established, however - by whatever standard you deem appropriate - let his screams become glorious music.

Next, zeal. Hextor is a general and a warrior. He inspires awe and commands obedience. As one who seeks to emulate his example, your PC should do the same. Be a great commander. I like that tactical acumen angle - use it. Orchestrate successful campaigns. Promote those who serve you well. Execute those who are disloyal.

Here's a key thing. Never use suicide missions to get rid of those you disfavor. It's cowardly. If they are disloyal in service, execute them for treason, and if they forget themselves in your presence, kill them where they stand for their insolence. But never do so quietly or secretively. When someone has wronged you, make an example of him. And don't be afraid to stop there - if the wrong is sufficiently severe, make an example of his family, his loved ones, anybody who (in your mind) could have contributed to the delinquency and derangement that caused him to forget his place.

But the opposite should also be true. Those who are loyal shall be protected, their enemies shall be your enemies. That's how you inspire confidence in your troops - they serve you, as they should, but in doing so they earn your protection and your peace. Those who serve you well shall be rewarded, their loved ones cared for, their station raised. Those who fail you shall be punished, but generally not lethally; failure earns penalty, but good help is hard to find. Those who succeed, however, shall earn your praise. They shall earn a place at your side.

Because that's what it all has to come back to. Place. The pecking order. As far as your PC is concerned, at the bottom of the pecking order is everyone else in the world. Then the dirt. Then the worms in the dirt. Then your PC. Then Hextor. That's it. Your PC sees himself aloft, above the world. He recognizes this divinely inspired authority extending from Hextor. He also recognizes that Hextor does not give power; Hextor demands that it be taken. And take it he shall.

Now, as far as build goes, do you have access to Tome of Battle? Because a capable Warblade or Crusader could be delicious in this role. Or just go straight-up Cleric / Ordained Champion, as that is literally the Hextorite PrC.

[Honest Tiefling]

Suggestions regarding his personality. Right now I have him as something of a " Tough-but-Fair", where he is harsh to people who fail him, generous to those who don't, and he only kills his underlings as a last resort to save on the expense and headaches involved in replacing them.

My biggest concern, honestly, is that I am making him too LN, and I'm wanting to know what I can do to keep him in the decidedly LE category

You could hug puppies, kiss children and escort old women down the street and still be evil if you think nailing the families of your enemies to walls to die slowly is only half of what those who oppose you deserve. You could focus on being evil to your enemies and not your minions if you need to boost the evil. Minions tend to need fingers and other body parts after all.

[BowStreetRunner]

Those who are loyal shall be protected, their enemies shall be your enemies. That's how you inspire confidence in your troops - they serve you, as they should, but in doing so they earn your protection and your peace. Those who serve you well shall be rewarded, their loved ones cared for, their station raised. Those who fail you shall be punished, but generally not lethally; failure earns penalty, but good help is hard to find. Those who succeed, however, shall earn your praise. They shall earn a place at your side.
This is where LE(Smart) and LE(Stupid) go their separate ways. LE(Smart) knows that actions have consequences. He knows that while some people will obey because they love their leader and others will obey because they fear their leader, the truly great leaders are both loved and feared at the same time. He knows that if he acts thoughtlessly his mistakes will pile up until they bury him. So he does not go forth with the mindless brutality of his LE(Stupid) brethren, but he carefully weighs the value of every action, both good and evil, to make sure he is not undermining his own cause. That cause may be selfish and evil, but that does not mean he will allow himself to use methods that are self-defeating. He is the type of evil that will make sure that there are no future enemies growing around him, slowly counting the reasons why they want to avenge themselves against him. Every such potential threat will either be beguiled into complaisance, cowed into acquiescence, or utterly destroyed.

[Telonius]

Some other excellent posts above. I'd suggest that you think about the motivation of this character. Why is he doing this? You could take his situation several ways, emotionally. He might be doing it out of spite or obsession with revenge: his father should feel the pain he's inflicted on me. He might be doing it out of moral outrage and greed: how dare he take what's rightfully mine! It could be a matter of honor and shame: he's lost face, and he has to defeat his father to regain his authority. Or, he could be treating the whole thing with a reptilian lack of emotion, with his father almost an afterthought: he's going to be king, his father decided to get in his way, so he has to be destroyed. Any one of those responses (and a lot more that you might be able to think of) might well go through the mind of a Hextorite. If you can get a handle on which angle he's taking, you'll have a much easier time figuring out his other choices.

I do think that this is a great setup, and you're well on your way to having a great Hildebrand and Hadubrand confrontation.

[Nifft]

A Motto for the Law & Order-ly Evil

"Prison sends a quiet message, that one man may be taught. But a public execution is a proclamation, that all may take the lesson. This is not an act of destruction, it is an act of instruction, for it is said that the wise men are those who can benefit from the mistakes of others. So I ask you, my citizens, to watch this execution, to learn from it all that you can, and to share what you learn with your fellows, that all may profit from the justice of the law."

[Red Fel]

This is where LE(Smart) and LE(Stupid) go their separate ways. LE(Smart) knows that actions have consequences. He knows that while some people will obey because they love their leader and others will obey because they fear their leader, the truly great leaders are both loved and feared at the same time. He knows that if he acts thoughtlessly his mistakes will pile up until they bury him. So he does not go forth with the mindless brutality of his LE(Stupid) brethren, but he carefully weighs the value of every action, both good and evil, to make sure he is not undermining his own cause. That cause may be selfish and evil, but that does not mean he will allow himself to use methods that are self-defeating. He is the type of evil that will make sure that there are no future enemies growing around him, slowly counting the reasons why they want to avenge themselves against him. Every such potential threat will either be beguiled into complaisance, cowed into acquiescence, or utterly destroyed.

Precisely. People often misquote Machiavelli, in The Prince, as having said "It's better to be feared than loved." But that's not the quote. The exact quote, attributed to one of the greatest pieces commonly associated with LE, is this:
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.

Got that? It may be answered that one should wish to be both. If you can, inspire their devotion as well as their awe. LE(Smart), as BowStreetRunner puts it, is the one who understands this philosophy, who knows that an enemy who cannot be seduced can be coerced, and one who cannot be coerced can be crushed, but that fear and cruelty alone do not inspire stability and order.

LE(Smart) also reads The Prince. Good book.


A Motto for the Law & Order-ly Evil

"Prison sends a quiet message, that one man may be taught. But a public execution is a proclamation, that all may take the lesson. This is not an act of destruction, it is an act of instruction, for it is said that the wise men are those who can benefit from the mistakes of others. So I ask you, my citizens, to watch this execution, to learn from it all that you can, and to share what you learn with your fellows, that all may profit from the justice of the law."

Now, that's just lovely. And a healthy attitude for a leader. In every disappointment, find an opportunity. In every failure, find a chance to inspire others - whether awe, love, or both. Let your name be synonymous with your law, and let your subjects spread both with their every breath.

[Rakoa]

Aaaaaaand this whole thread gets to go right into my Favourites.

[Azoth]

I have to admit often times a Lawful Evil character can come across better and more noble than his fellow PCs. I notice it happens when the Lawful part of their alignment outweighs the Evil, at least in the public eye. That is always something I find myself striving for with Evil characters. Evil with good PR.

A piece of advice is to not go overboard with your punishments, lest you make the DM/other players lose their stomach. To go hand in hand with that is not to do without end for everything or else you lose your shock/impact value. Don't want awe inspiring acts of evil to turn into a Saturday morning villain's gimmick.

[Aleolus]

Wow. I was not expecting this kind of input. Thanks, everyone so far!

While I appreciate the build advice, I have a pretty strong idea for his classes, mainly either gestalting or multiclassing between Knight (from PHBII) and Fighter, maybe with a Prestige class tacked on. I had already decided on giving him Leadership, though, and having his Cohort be a Cleric of Hextor.

Red Fel, I was specifically hoping cor your advice, after reading some similar posts from you. His father (only living family he is familiar with) is not actually a Hextorite. In fact, his father is LG. The exile was actually because he had attempted to "convince" his father that it was time to step down by convincing a majority of the court that he would be a better monarch. The only reason he failed is because he got cocky and tried to convert one of his fathers personal guards, who accepted and then turned around and told his father exactly what was going on. The army thing was a warning, not a test. He isn't angry though. This character is very minimallistic in terms of emotions, since emotions tend to get in the way of tactics. Also, you may have missed me saying this, but he does not excecute his own men if there is any other way around it, because it takes too much time and gold to retrain someone to replace them. This is the type scenario I see for that sort of thing in my head:

He walks through the burned out husk that was a village, seeing his men's work. Noticing something, he goes to check it out and discovers a body with its throat slit. A bit more searching reveals several more. He walks a little ways away and calls the commander he had put in charge of this assault. He then, very calmly asks if his orders were clear. The commander is confused, and he goes into full "Drill Serjent" mode, punches him in the face and all but screams his question, pointing to the bodies, saying he had given orders that everyone be captured alive. He then brings together all the soldiers who fought in that battle, and demands to know who actually killed people. One person, shaking, raises his hand and is brought forward. It is found he was not the only one, but no one else steps forward, so he is given 20 lashes, and the rest of that squadron (since no one else had the balls to admit failure) is given 60. The one that stepped forward is then put in charge of a small squad since he actually owned up to his screw up.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel, I was specifically hoping cor your advice, after reading some similar posts from you. His father (only living family he is familiar with) is not actually a Hextorite. In fact, his father is LG. The exile was actually because he had attempted to "convince" his father that it was time to step down by convincing a majority of the court that he would be a better monarch. The only reason he failed is because he got cocky and tried to convert one of his fathers personal guards, who accepted and then turned around and told his father exactly what was going on. The army thing was a warning, not a test.

Clearly, the father leans fairly heavily on the L side of LG. But we can work with that. Consider this - as a Hextorite, the son perceives the exile as a trial, and is in some ways grateful to his father for the opportunity to prove himself. Obviously, not what the father intended, but products of a slightly warped mind being what they are.


He isn't angry though. This character is very minimallistic in terms of emotions, since emotions tend to get in the way of tactics. Also, you may have missed me saying this, but he does not excecute his own men if there is any other way around it, because it takes too much time and gold to retrain someone to replace them.

I saw you say that, and that's why I emphasized that punishments should generally be non-lethal. Imposing consequences is a natural function of creating order, obviously, but I agree that good help is hard to find, and it's hard to inspire loyalty when half of your men are dead at your hand.

I also like the ruthlessly pragmatic angle. I happen to think that LE does ruthlessly pragmatic exceedingly well. (See my thoughts on David Xanatos.) Keep in mind, however, that you don't want to make him too robotic; even Xanatos, so coldly pragmatic as to readily ally with former enemies when it suited him and to throw out one-liners like "Revenge is a sucker's game," was still friendly, charming, and even loving (as much as a person like him could be).


This is the type scenario I see for that sort of thing in my head:

He walks through the burned out husk that was a village, seeing his men's work. Noticing something, he goes to check it out and discovers a body with its throat slit. A bit more searching reveals several more. He walks a little ways away and calls the commander he had put in charge of this assault. He then, very calmly asks if his orders were clear. The commander is confused, and he goes into full "Drill Serjent" mode, punches him in the face and all but screams his question, pointing to the bodies, saying he had given orders that everyone be captured alive. He then brings together all the soldiers who fought in that battle, and demands to know who actually killed people. One person, shaking, raises his hand and is brought forward. It is found he was not the only one, but no one else steps forward, so he is given 20 lashes, and the rest of that squadron (since no one else had the balls to admit failure) is given 60. The one that stepped forward is then put in charge of a small squad since he actually owned up to his screw up.

I like it. I question whether the screaming is necessary - sometimes, ice-cold anger is more terrifying than blazing rage, and the former fits better with your description of "minimalistic in terms of emotion" than the latter. Keep in mind that not all drill sergeants need to scream - they simply need to project absolute, unquestionable authority.

Your depiction reminds me of a story about Sun Tzu. This story is more LN than LE, but it depicts a valuable leadership quality that your character may want to embrace. To summarize:

Sun Tzu was called before a feudal lord, who had heard of the scholar's mastery of warfare and tactics, and wished to see a demonstration of the sage's cleverness. The lord placed a challenge before the scholar, and asked that he prove his talent by drilling the court's concubines. Sun Tzu designated the lord's two favored concubines as commanders, and carefully instructed them and the other concubines in some basic military drills. He proceeded to give them orders, and his instruction was met with giggling and little else.

"If words of command are not clear and distinct," he said, "if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

He then gave the instruction a second time. Again, the response was amusement.

"If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame," he repeated. "But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

And with that, he had the two favored concubines executed. The next time he gave the order, it was obeyed.
Now, in your case, you mention that your PC would be loathe to kill his own. Even without resorting to execution, however, imposing punishments is a necessary part of military discipline, and public punishments are a necessary part of imposing order by force, a hallmark of LE. Be loved by your troops, but be firm.

Side note, have you considered a dip of Marshal in your build? It would fit flavor-wise, and Marshal auras are useful for a field commander.

[Aleolus]

Possibly. Marshall is a class I'm not exceptionally familiar with, as I haven't looked at it in great detail. I like the Knight for the mechanics of heavy armor and a d12 hd, plus I think the feel works really well with him, and no one can deny the usefulness of all the feats a fighter gets, plus Tower Shield proficiency

[Nifft]

You've told us a little bit about your character. Now, you must tell us about the world.

Are there Psionics?

Are Dragons a near and present danger?

How common are the Undead? Demons? Aberration?

Hextor being your deity implies the core pantheon -- is this assumption correct?

What forces threatened the prince's kingdom? Orcs? Goblins? Elves?

What books are allowed for PrCs and spells and such?

- - -

I personally don't like the Knight class for any role other than Defender. It's not a good Leader role at all.

It's unfortunate that Bards must be non-Lawful, because a Warblade / Divine variant Bard / Ordained Champion of Hextor would be pretty spiffy for everything you describe. (Obviously, you'd use Perform: Oratory and Perform: Military Drum instead of singing.)

[BowStreetRunner]

Possibly. Marshall is a class I'm not exceptionally familiar with, as I haven't looked at it in great detail. I like the Knight for the mechanics of heavy armor and a d12 hd, plus I think the feel works really well with him, and no one can deny the usefulness of all the feats a fighter gets, plus Tower Shield proficiency

First of all, I applaud your focus on role-playing your character well. It appears to me from your posts (possibly incorrectly so forgive me if this is the case) that you do not have a lot of experience with all of the martial classes and the various dips that help strengthen them. I say this because the reasons you have been giving for your choice of build (heavy armor, d12 HD, fighter feats, Tower Shield proficiency) are not exactly on par with the kind of optimization one normally sees in this forum. Now this may not be particularly important to you, and if that is the case you should just go ahead and play the build that you want and focus on the roleplaying angles, but you can certainly create a character that fits your goals thematically while simultaneously being a bit more optimized.


While I appreciate the build advice, I have a pretty strong idea for his classes, mainly either gestalting or multiclassing between Knight (from PHBII) and Fighter, maybe with a Prestige class tacked on. I had already decided on giving him Leadership, though, and having his Cohort be a Cleric of Hextor.

If you truly have the option of a gestalt character then you should seriously consider something other than Knight gestalted with a Fighter. Instead of Fighter, Crusader or Warblade would offer a great deal from Tome of Battle. Marshal would get you auras. Hexblade gets you some nice debuffs and CHA to saves. Look around, there are lots of options out there that would make this a much more potent build without taking anything away from the core concept.

[Aleolus]

Tbh, there isn't a world yet, I'm building him so I can insert him into most any world that comes up with only a few minor tweaks. And why could you not be a Leader and a Defender? Coordinate the troops around you while drawing the most dangerous foes to yourself

EDIT: Optimization is only as important to me as it is to the group I am playing in, which is not normally really big. In fact, my wife enjoys playing characters that are underpowered, because then you have to play smarter

[Nifft]

And why could you not be a Leader and a Defender?
Because Knights suck at being Leaders.

You could totally be both, of course, if you picked a better class.

Crusader, for example.

[Red Fel]

Because Knights suck at being Leaders.

You could totally be both, of course, if you picked a better class.

Crusader, for example.

Nifft puts it crudely, but accurately.

A Leader is, in my mind, somebody whose tactical knowledge has direct application. Use of mechanics like auras, or abilities that give bonuses to allies, such as Bardic Music or certain ToB maneuvers.

A Defender is, in my mind, a person who guards a specific person or people on the battlefield. Again, there are mechanics to do this (albeit generally poor ones). Sadly, the Knight's mechanics are too easily overcome.

That's not to say that a Leader can't be a Defender, but to do both effectively requires more optimization than I think you want to put into this character.

Not to mention the fact that, if you load up on heavy armor, tower shield, and solid HP, you will be a tough, hardy character whom the enemies can safely ignore. You'll be barely mobile, and with that tower shield in hand you can't two-hand a weapon to deal superior damage. Further, any enemy who targets touch AC or saves - pretty much any spellcaster over level 5 - will make short work of your AC and your HP, because they will become irrelevant.

That's what people mean when they call the Knight a sub-optimal class. Being a heavily armored brute is great when you're shrugging off arrows, but unless you have a massive wall of heavily armored brutes, one of them can be safely ignored. Which I think is the opposite of what you want for a charismatic leader of armies.

That's why the recommendation for Crusader has come up. Crusader is a solidly built class, strong chassis, good equipment options and BAB. It gains abilities that can be destructive in combat and abilities which support and bolster allies. In short, it's a very good base for a leader. But as mentioned, it's a matter of preference.

Like others, though, I would advise not gestalting Knight with Fighter. The only real benefit is an extra good save and some Fighter feats, and what you really want out of gestalt is functionality. Utility. Adding Fighter doesn't make you better at doing anything, it just gives you extra feats which, frankly, don't do much for you either.

You can do better, is my point. Heck, if you snuck some Psionics in there, you could gestalt whatever you wanted with Thrallherd, and bypass the need for Leadership entirely.

[Draconium]

You can do better, is my point. Heck, if you snuck some Psionics in there, you could gestalt whatever you wanted with Thrallherd, and bypass the need for Leadership entirely.

My first thought upon reading that is to gestalt Psion with Warblade - both use Int - and utilize the Egoist Discipline for buffs when you fight. Throw in an Expanded Knowledge to grab Mindlink, prestige into Thrallherd for the Leadership-esque qualities and a few fun mental tricks, and you've got yourself a pretty fearsome warrior/leader.

[Aleolus]

Fair enough, I suppose. I do really like the Knight though, so maybe mix it with Crusader and focus on White Raven maneuvers.

[Nifft]

I personally love Psionics, and agree that Thrallherd is a good fit for the mechanics of tyranny -- but this guy's theme seems to be strongly Divine in nature, what with the whole Hextor focus.

@Aleolus - The difference between Gestalt and non-Gestalt is pretty huge, your group should decide on that, and then we can help you with more specific build advice.

A very simple Gestalt build for a divine leader type might be something like Marshal // Cloistered Cleric of Hextor. Focus on Wisdom and Charisma, with secondary boosts to Strength and Constitution. You're not the smartest person in the room, but you study like crazy and you have a solid education (Cloistered Cleric Knowledge benefits). Take Leadership at level 6, and don't worry about prestige classes or whatever.

If you're not going Gestalt, then things get trickier, and you'll have to decide what specifically you want your character to be able to do.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Minions tend to need fingers and other body parts after all.

Interesting fact: Regenerate lacks a costly material component.

[Aleolus]

All right, here is part of how I see this guy.

I said he is a worshipper of Hextor, and he is, but not in the clerical way. He worships Hextor in the same way a Barbarian would worship Kord. In point of fact, he doesn't see Hextors priests as the undeniable word of Hextor unless they are actively communicating with him (such as through a Commune spell). Likewise, I'm wanting all of his abilities to come from either his martial training or his tactical knowledge, so classes like the Marshal or Crusader would be possibilities, but I am leaning against things like Psionics, magic users, etc

[Mrs Kat]

I played a Hextor worshipper once, a few years ago. She was, if I remember correctly, a fighter/wizard/abjurant champion with a glaive, taking a series of feats that netted two-weapon fighting from it. Her name was Sable.

In tandem with her, there was Sammael, a fighter/cleric/knight running a lockdown build and just enough cleric to keep things interesting.

Socially, Sammael was the leader and spokesperson, instructing and proselytizing to the party and the NPCs around him. Sable was sullen and withdrawn; a devout follower of Hextor, but not as outspoken or charismatic as Sammael.

In combat, Sable was the hammer to Sammael's anvil; Sammael keeping enemies in place as Sable cut them down. It was a devastating combination. But despite Sable being the primary damage dealer, no-one had any doubt as to who the leader was.

I guess my point is... Hextor loves him some teamwork. (And also that roleplay trumps in-combat roles.) Find out what your party composition is, and build something that takes advantage of that. Talk tactics, in character, and make the best use of your team. Make sure your suboptimal bard/rogue has useful items to throw, make sure your casters are packing spells that support your front line. Make your party work with you.
If you're worried about not contributing as slow heavy armour guy, you could invest in a horse or a tooth of Savnok and an animated shield, but how combats will go depends heavily on your DM and who s/he pits you against.

The other thing you could take from this is that you don't have to be the ultra-high damage guy to be the leader. You just have to be the guy with the plan, the guy who co-ordinates the flawless victory... or the effective retreat.

Unfortunately, a lot of this rests on OOC charisma and intelligence, as you're talking to your fellow players and are dependent on them listening.

After all, if you can't persuade your own party not to charge into every monster in a haphazard fashion, then you're not really army-leading material, are you?

[Nifft]

All right, here is part of how I see this guy.

I said he is a worshipper of Hextor, and he is, but not in the clerical way. He worships Hextor in the same way a Barbarian would worship Kord. In point of fact, he doesn't see Hextors priests as the undeniable word of Hextor unless they are actively communicating with him (such as through a Commune spell). Likewise, I'm wanting all of his abilities to come from either his martial training or his tactical knowledge, so classes like the Marshal or Crusader would be possibilities, but I am leaning against things like Psionics, magic users, etc

Okay.

You live in a world with magic.

Armies live or die based entirely on their coordination with spellcasters.

Here's how I mentally translate what you said above: "I'm wanting all of his abilities to come from either his MILITARY experience or his tactical knowledge (...) but I am leaning against things like GUNS, ARTILLERY, AIR SUPPORT, etc."


There are lots of ways to combine martial prowess with magic, but there are not many ways to be effective in even one role, let alone multiple roles, without any magic. I'm not even talking optimization, here. I'm just talking basic competence.

A commander who can fly is better able to see the battlefield.

A commander who can cast spells which alter the battlefield is better at literally and figuratively controlling the battlefield.

A commander who can create or dispel illusions can create or negate tactical traps.

A commander who can recognize enemy spells as they are cast and decide which one to counterspell can save his army from devastating enemy attacks.

A commander who can mentally link himself with his lieutenants has a reliable communication channel.


Can you do all that AND stab a jerk with a sword? Yes, yes you can.

Can you just stab a jerk with a sword INSTEAD of doing all that stuff? Not unless someone else is doing it for you.


If Hextor wants you to stand on your own two feet, make sure your own two feet are clad in magical winged boots made of infernal green steel and angel feathers.

If Hextor rewards the strong, don't be too proud to make use of strong magic.

Instead of trying to divide the world into Magical vs. Tactical, realize that tactics apply to magic, and that the best commander makes the best tactical decisions about everything including how to use magic.

[Aleolus]

True, but equally true is that a commander with a well balanced army can and should delegate each of those tasks to those with the individual skillset needed to accomplish them, and can use wonderous items to replicate most effects he personally will need.
Enemy forces using rocky terrain to make things difficult for your troops? Send in a few Druids to get rid of the rocks.
Squadrons of mooks making getting to the enemy commander difficult? A few Sorcs with Mass Dominate can clear a straight path.

[rrwoods]

Hm. That's certainly true, but.

"Sending in the right team for the job" on its face appears to be a mechanical choice, but ultimately it's a fluff choice -- in most campaigns. In reality, the adventuring party is what it is, and you won't have the flexibility of picking and choosing your "tools", you'll have to make the best of what you have. Which is why folks are suggesting you lean away from Knight (and correctly noting that you can be a knight without being a Knight) and suggesting classes that make you a more well-rounded "leader".

Of course, depending on how Leadership is handled, this can all be rendered moot. But realize that, if you choose that route, you're letting your entire mechanical identity be defined by the DM's choices on how to handle that feat.

[Red Fel]

Instead of trying to divide the world into Magical vs. Tactical, realize that tactics apply to magic, and that the best commander makes the best tactical decisions about everything including how to use magic.

Here's where I disagree with Nifft. While he's right that spellcasting > everything, that doesn't mean that the best character build for any concept is Wizard 20.

I happen to think that your character would do well with some Cleric levels, but nothing stops you from making a perfectly effective non-spellcasting field commander. The important thing is that he can do whatever you need him to do effectively. Note that I said "effectively," not "optimally." I realize you're trying to manage a low-to-moderate level of optimization, which is fine.

I would still advise against Knight, but since you're fond of the class, I'll put my reasoning in spoilers. If you'd like to read it, I think you'll find it helpful, but if you wish to play Knight regardless, you should play what makes you happy.

Okay. Let's get some preliminary stuff out of the way. Knights are not proficient with tower shields, and they get rubbish skill points. These are two fairly absurd things, but minor points. Knights also get a good Will save, which is really valuable, but oddly their Fort save - which you'd expect a heavily armored warrior to have - is underwhelming.

Moving on to actual class features, you have the Knight's Challenge, which we'll come back to; the Knight's Code, which is obnoxious, for reasons I'll get into later as well; Mounted Combat, which is generally a waste unless you design a build around it; Shield Block, which is a stupid and minor benefit; Bulwark of Defense and Armor Mastery, both of which are actually useful; Bonus Feats, almost all of which are wasted; Vigilant Defender, which uses a rule that almost never comes up anyway; Shield Ally and Improved Shield Ally, which go contrary to your character concept (your allies should take blows for you, not the other way around); and Impetuous Endurance, which is okay, but frankly, if you roll a 1, you've failed your save, automatic or otherwise.

Now, with regard to the Knight's Challenge, let's look at the mechanics. Fighting Challenge: Challenge one enemy with Int 5 (so no animals, skeletons, golems, or particularly dim people), and gain a small bonus against that target; lose and you lose extra uses. Test of Mettle: Taunt enemies in range into prioritizing you with their attacks. This is actually a bad thing when used against spellcasters, because you'll likely be surrounded by allies, and they'll be targeting you with area attacks. It's also a fairly low save, and if they make it the ability has no effect whatsoever. Call to Battle: Let an ally reroll a fear save. Situational at best. Daunting Challenge: Low save is low. The shaken effect is admittedly nice, but it's only really good against groups of mooks, and by level 12, more and more creatures have protections against it. Bond of Loyalty: You have a strong Will save. At 16, if you're missing those, you're in trouble, and it's questionable whether the reroll is worth 16 levels of Knight. Loyal Beyond Death: This is actually decent, but Die Hard is a thing, and doesn't require 20 levels of Knight.
See my point? These abilities are your core class mechanic, and they're frankly underwhelming.

Now, the Knight's Code. I've often complained about the Paladin's Code, but quite honestly, the Knight's Code is worse. You don't flank, which is tactically stupid. (Overwhelming numbers are good for a reason.) You don't strike flatfooted enemies, which is also tactically stupid. (An ambush is a legitimate combat strategy.) You don't strike a helpless enemy, which frankly runs contra to the fact that you're Evil. At least a violation doesn't permanently rob you of your powers; it just takes away one of your daily uses. Still, it's absurd.

The reason that Crusader is often compared favorably with Knight is that the Crusader's abilities, as pertains to drawing enemy fire, offer no save. They basically consist of automatic penalties when threatened or struck enemies target anyone but you. They're simple, direct, and tend to scale well with level. Note also that the Crusader gets d10 hit points, 4+Int skills, and access to all armors and shields, including tower shields. They get Die Hard at level 10 (remember I mentioned that?), a Charisma bonus to Will saves, and the Mettle ability, which is like Evasion for Fort and Will saves. They get other features too, on top of their maneuvers.
Now, that aside, you've mentioned unfamiliarity with the Marshal. Good news, WotC posted the class online. Take a look (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b). It's an extraordinarily simple class, with two good saves, 3/4 BAB progression, and a primary mechanic called Auras. Even if you don't want to stay with the class, a two-level dip gets you Skill Focus (Diplomacy), and your choice of one minor and one major aura, which affect all allies within 60 feet who can hear and understand you. Auras are an easy passive mechanic that's perfect for a field commander barking orders at his troops, and even a two-level dip can take an ordinary battle leader and make him quite exceptional.

[Nifft]

True, but equally true is that a commander with a well balanced army can and should delegate each of those tasks to those with the individual skillset needed to accomplish them That just begs the question: why is this army following you, instead of a Wizard who can personally guarantee their victory?

It also begs the question: how are you following the will of Hextor, if you don't actually have any strength of your own?

IMHO, the most effective leaders are the ones who don't need any followers to get things done.

According to Hextor, people obey the strong -- what you're saying is that you'll be strong because people will obey you, but that's just begging the question.

If you have personal power, you can say: the buck stops here. Those troops you sent can't dam the river? Fine, I'll create a bridge with wall of stone. Those Druids can't block the mountain pass? Fine, I'll cast rock to mud and bury the trail. That officer is showing disrespect? Fine, I'll bind an obedient devil or two and show those men what a real LE officer would do.

Delegation is great, but power begets power. Strength gathers strength. As an evil warlord, you should probably be personally stronger than your top three minions put together.

Magic is one source of strength.

- - -

Basically, the question isn't Magic vs. Not-Magic.

Not-Magic loses, hard and painfully, every single time. You know who's supposed to lose hard and painfully? Your enemies, not you.

You mention Barbarians as the sort of not-magic character that you'd emulate, but Barbarians can turn into bears, or become fire / frost elemental beasts, or attune to a spirit totem who lets them break the rules when they charge. As soon as you poke your toe outside the Core rules, you'll find that Barbarians use a bunch of magic.

Rogues are another allegedly not-magic class, but they get this awesome class feature, which is access to the skill Use Magic Device. Rogues cheat, and that is why they win.

- - -

The question is not if you'll use magic.

The question is HOW you'll use magic.

Personally, I recommend battlefield control, buffs, and horrible curses & debuffs for your enemies. Clerics and Wizards can do that stuff very well, and there are plenty of combinations with martial classes that will allow you to lead from the front while still being an effective caster.

The ability to summon and bind fiends to your will -- not your subordinate's will, your own will -- is another great potential source of strength. Imagine leading a cavalry charge on the back of a Nightmare.

Necromancy is a great potential source of strength. Imagine animating the fallen warriors of your enemy, who must now fight an undead monstrosity which wears the face of a former comrade.

[Anlashok]

Power begets power might be relevant here since we're talking about D&D, but it's always seemed like more of a convention to justify final bosses in games rather than an actual philosophy to live by.

[Red Fel]

The question is not if you'll use magic.

The question is HOW you'll use magic.

No, Nifft. The question is if he'll use magic. And the answer that we've received is "I'm leaning against ." So let's back down, shall we?

Frankly, if I saw two people who conquered continents - one a powerful spellcaster who dominated the land with a sweep of his arm, and one who did so with tactics and an army, I'd respect the latter more. Particularly if I were one of his soldiers. Why? Because it doesn't take talent or skill or cleverness to use magic to conquer the land - it just takes the right spells. It takes tactics and sound leadership and a commanding presence to assemble an army and lead them to victory after victory.

And controlling the land after you've conquered it? Sure, you could create resetting magical traps of [I]Mindrape that keep the citizens permanently subservient, or replace all of the people with loyal and mindless constructs of your own creation. But again, there's no skill there, no sharp thinking, no leadership or diplomacy. Holding a kingdom together with force of arms is harder in some ways, but easier in others - you have feet on the ground, feet that sprout from bodies loyal to you, not because you brainwashed them, but because they've seen you in action, they heard your voice on the battlefield, and they know that you will either lead them to glory or crush them for their insubordination. They may not be as consistently reliable as a few epic-level spells, but they operate themselves well enough.

That's the point. The OP has said that he would prepare a non-caster. Saying that NPCs wouldn't follow a non-caster isn't really a call that you, or anyone else on this forum can make, except for Aleolus and his DM. So perhaps we should simply let that idea go unless he comes back for it, hm?

[Nifft]

Here's where I disagree with Nifft. While he's right that spellcasting > everything, that doesn't mean that the best character build for any concept is Wizard 20. I would never say such a thing!

Wizards are great, but they're not the only class with access to magic. Heck, my first recommendation was a straight Marshal 20 // Cloistered Cleric 20. Great features, plenty of flavor, and hardly any fiddly optimization choices.

But I would like to point out that a pure Wizard is an excellent fit for the character concept -- far better than a pure Fighter, for example, because a Wizard who studies tactics and battlefield control can do a much better job at aiding his troops and swinging the tide of battle.

I don't mean that a Wizard is the only class which can do such a thing, nor do I think that pure Wizard is necessary for this character. I just want to make the point that tactical application of magic is a thing which can be done, and it's great fun to use power in this way.

- - -

There are many options which combine martial and magical strength which I wouldn't recommend as optimal, but which are great for a low-to-moderate power game.

For example, stuff like adapting the Knight Phantom (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050706a&page=4) for this character, since that class focuses on combining martial and magical prowess, and inspiring fear. The build would be Ranger 1 (favored enemy: Dad Humans) / Wizard 5 / Knight Phantom 10.

You'd want to strip away the flavor, but the mechanics -- fear, martial prowess, personal power, and skilled cavalry -- certainly seem worth some re-flavoring to fit.

EDIT:
That's the point. The OP has said that he would prepare a non-caster. Saying that NPCs wouldn't follow a non-caster isn't really a call that you, or anyone else on this forum can make, except for Aleolus and his DM. So perhaps we should simply let that idea go unless he comes back for it, hm? Sure.

But I do think it's worth asking: why are these powerful people following me?

If you can answer that without magic, you're awesome.

Personally, in most settings, I can't answer that without magic, and that's informing my responses.

Your setting will be different, so you may have different options.

[Mrs Kat]

But I do think it's worth asking: why are these powerful people following me?

If you can answer that without magic, you're awesome.

Personally, in most settings, I can't answer that without magic, and that's informing my responses.

Your setting will be different, so you may have different options.

I think it depends on how prevalent magic is in the world.

If magic is the privilege of an elite few (think X-men, or the Black Magician world), then it makes sense that most leaders are non-casters. Few men are suited to lead, and even fewer of them are casters.

But even in the opposite case, there are examples in high-magic universes of non-magic individuals succeeding as leaders. I'm thinking of Tavi in the early books of Codex Alera, where his quick thinking saves the day and earns the respect of those around him, even though his status as a non-caster is looked down on.

Hell, even Conan becomes a king.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal

[BowStreetRunner]

Just assuming you are going with the Gestalt option, how about something like this: Knight 20 // Marshal 4 / Crusader 4 / Blackguard 7 / Crusader 5(9)

On the one side you focus entirely on advancing the knight class and its features. On the other you add it some auras, martial adept maneuvers, CHA to saves, Smite, Sneak Attack, and even a few Blackguard spells for self-buffing. It makes your knight just dangerous enough to be able to handle whatever gets thrown at him long enough to delegate one of his minions to deal with the threats that he can't actually take on his own.

[Coidzor]

This bit on leadership mechanics in D&D (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9963.0) might be of interest to you.

[Aleolus]

Can I just point out I started this thread asking for rp advice for this character, and have since gotten numerous suggestions for better builds? I do thank you all for the advice, and I do understand and see the point behind all the arguments, I'm just noticing.

As for why those powerful people follow me, simple. To start with, it's their job, owing to belonging to a mercenary corp I run. Then because I will earn that respect from them in the field by showing my skill as a commander

[BowStreetRunner]

Can I just point out I started this thread asking for rp advice for this character, and have since gotten numerous suggestions for better builds? I do thank you all for the advice, and I do understand and see the point behind all the arguments, I'm just noticing.

Sorry, but the focus of this forum does tend to be mostly on optimization. I guess it's a force of habit that's hard to turn off. On the roleplay topic however, I noticed this before:
This character is very minimallistic in terms of emotions, since emotions tend to get in the way of tactics....He then, very calmly asks if his orders were clear. The commander is confused, and he goes into full "Drill Serjent" mode, punches him in the face and all but screams his question, pointing to the bodies, saying he had given orders that everyone be captured alive...
You have him going from emotional minimalist to screaming drill sergeant in the same post. I am wondering if the screaming was simply done for effect or if it came from real anger. Personally, I always like the characters with few emotions to have at least one big trigger that will really set them off. It makes it that much more dramatic when someone who is usually even-tempered suddenly bursts into a rage.

[Invader]

Just a thought. If the ruling monarch throws him out of the country, it's not really his "rightful throne" anymore. I would assume the king being a.... King, has the right to decide. This prince strikes me as a hostile sort and I can't justify assisting in regicide.

[BowStreetRunner]

Just a thought. If the ruling monarch throws him out of the country, it's not really his "rightful throne" anymore. I would assume the king being a.... King, has the right to decide. This prince strikes me as a hostile sort and I can't justify assisting in regicide.
Actually that depends entirely on the laws of the kingdom in question. Historically speaking (and let's face it, most of the kingdoms in fantasy are at least loosely based on historical concepts) most kingdoms were not pure despotic states (where the rule of the king would have been the only law) but in fact had various laws establishing the monarchy and governing the rules of succession quite rigidly. In many cases, these laws of succession were designed to prevent the frequent bloody wars that came when a despot died and, in the absence of any rules of succession, there was a brutal power struggle between all of the claimants to his throne. Usually, these laws succeeded but from time to time arguments would still arise and lead to wars of succession.

In the case where a king denies his own heir, the heir might very well have a legal claim to the throne despite the king's wishes to the contrary. It really depends on the laws of the kingdom in question. But there are many historical precedents of just such a disputed succession taking place.

[Aleolus]

I am going to allow the eventual dm to determine the specifics of the nation. Suffice it to say he sees himself as the only rightful heir, and has taken steps to make sure his father will not be making another (A well worded curse is a wonderfully subtle thing :D)

Also, though, I have never said he wants to kill his father. He has a fair degree of fillial affection for him, and simply wants him to step down from the throne. His original plan was to convince him of this by showing his father the court and people would prefer him as a monarch, his new plan is to show his father that trying to stop him taking the throne will result in long and bloody warfare with an uncertain result, which will only harm the people of the kingdom. If his father still chooses the warfare route, then that will be on his concious, not mine.

[TheBrassDuke]

I just wanted to say that my last general was a Cannith (of the House of Making, from Eberron) Wizard (Transmuter) / Master Specialist / Heir of Siberys / Archmage; his alignment was LE.

Yes he could control the battlefield and get things done himself, but the Duke was more of a people person, and delegated much to his subordinates, mostly because it was practical and didn't waste his precious reserves. He was a fierce commander, both loved and feared--and not because he was a powerful wizard or dangerous individual. It was because he had the charisma of a sorcerer, and I went with it. He commanded his men with intelligence, with outrageous tactics, and zeal.

When all else failed is when his power would come into play.

You can do a lot with a LE warlord and not outshine anyone if you can bend the will of others just by sheer force of personality. And I'm not talking magical here.