"Characters without this feat cannot lead military troops."
They can't? Sez who?
Military Leadership [General]
Sun, 2005-02-13 08:24
#1
Military Leadership [General]
Sun, 2005-02-13 17:29
#3
Military Leadership [General]
"Characters without this feat cannot lead military troops."
They can't? Sez who?
Says someone who knows a soldier's mindset.
Sun, 2005-02-13 21:26
#4
Military Leadership [General]
The only place where it says that characters can't normally command troops is in this feat. So, effectively, you only need to take this feat if you take this feat. Otherwise, you can just command troops with the Leadership feat.
Sun, 2005-02-13 23:04
#5
Military Leadership [General]
The only place where it says that characters can't normally command troops is in this feat. So, effectively, you only need to take this feat if you take this feat. Otherwise, you can just command troops with the Leadership feat.
I'm sorry, which military branch did you serve with? Ever talk to an actual soldier to see who they'd follow in combat?
Mon, 2005-02-14 00:13
#6
Military Leadership [General]
The only place where it says that characters can't normally command troops is in this feat. So, effectively, you only need to take this feat if you take this feat. Otherwise, you can just command troops with the Leadership feat.
I'm sorry, which military branch did you serve with? Ever talk to an actual soldier to see who they'd follow in combat?
Non-soldier that soldier's would follow orders into combat:
A. The president of the United States
B. The King/Queen of your country.
C. A higher up officer that was just drafted too.
D. Someone who's paying them.
The job of a soldier is to follow commands. It doesn't matter if the commander is a soldier or not. In fact one of the officers that accepted the South's surrender of arms had never fought as a soldier before in the first battle that he lead his men into. History is full of civilians taking up swords and leading others into combat including other soldiers. If the motive is right and the leader charismatic enough the troops will follow.
Mon, 2005-02-14 00:19
#7
Military Leadership [General]
Mon, 2005-02-14 00:58
#8
Military Leadership [General]
Non-soldier that soldier's would follow orders into combat:
A. The president of the United States
B. The King/Queen of your country.
C. A higher up officer that was just drafted too.
D. Someone who's paying them.
The job of a soldier is to follow commands. It doesn't matter if the commander is a soldier or not. In fact one of the officers that accepted the South's surrender of arms had never fought as a soldier before in the first battle that he lead his men into. History is full of civilians taking up swords and leading others into combat including other soldiers. If the motive is right and the leader charismatic enough the troops will follow.
The Constitution lists the president as the Commander-in-Chief, a military rank.
Kings and Queens had to be well versed in military matters if they wanted to maintain their kingdom. If you've never read "The Prince," I urge you to do so.
Drafted officers are still members of the military and must undergo officer training programs.
Mercenaries are not soldiers. They may have been at one time, but history shows how well mercenaries follow who pays them when a better offer comes around, or the job's too dangerous.
Uhm. I don't think that just because someone is listed on paper as having rank your normal grunt would nessasarilly see that person as a soldier. That and the officer training programs were cut very short in the past for wars such as the Civil War, and World Wars. Often officers just had one more week of boot camp and where just as green as the newest recruits. Reading stories from Vietnam vets there are many examples of soldiers having to follow green officers even though they know better.
Mon, 2005-02-14 07:53
#9
Military Leadership [General]
Non-soldier that soldier's would follow orders into combat:
A. The president of the United States
B. The King/Queen of your country.
C. A higher up officer that was just drafted too.
D. Someone who's paying them.
The job of a soldier is to follow commands. It doesn't matter if the commander is a soldier or not. In fact one of the officers that accepted the South's surrender of arms had never fought as a soldier before in the first battle that he lead his men into. History is full of civilians taking up swords and leading others into combat including other soldiers. If the motive is right and the leader charismatic enough the troops will follow.
The Constitution lists the president as the Commander-in-Chief, a military rank.
Kings and Queens had to be well versed in military matters if they wanted to maintain their kingdom. If you've never read "The Prince," I urge you to do so.
Drafted officers are still members of the military and must undergo officer training programs.
Mercenaries are not soldiers. They may have been at one time, but history shows how well mercenaries follow who pays them when a better offer comes around, or the job's too dangerous.
Mon, 2005-02-14 07:58
#10
Military Leadership [General]
Uhm. I don't think that just because someone is listed on paper as having rank your normal grunt would nessasarilly see that person as a soldier. That and the officer training programs were cut very short in the past for wars such as the Civil War, and World Wars. Often officers just had one more week of boot camp and where just as green as the newest recruits. Reading stories from Vietnam vets there are many examples of soldiers having to follow green officers even though they know better.
And knowing what I know of such officers, from friends who were in Vietnam, they weren't taken seriously beyond the punishments that would be enacted should they disobey orders from military officers. It's not the officers they care about, some units even killed such officers the first firefight they got into. You don't put green officers in a combat zone with veteran troops.
Again, if you've never been a soldier, you can't understand the mindset.
Mon, 2005-02-14 08:08
#11
Military Leadership [General]
Uhm. I don't think that just because someone is listed on paper as having rank your normal grunt would nessasarilly see that person as a soldier. That and the officer training programs were cut very short in the past for wars such as the Civil War, and World Wars. Often officers just had one more week of boot camp and where just as green as the newest recruits. Reading stories from Vietnam vets there are many examples of soldiers having to follow green officers even though they know better.
And knowing what I know of such officers, from friends who were in Vietnam, they weren't taken seriously beyond the punishments that would be enacted should they disobey orders from military officers. It's not the officers they care about, some units even killed such officers the first firefight they got into. You don't put green officers in a combat zone with veteran troops.
Again, if you've never been a soldier, you can't understand the mindset.
I suppose you are right on that. But that is the real world and does not change that Leadership is leadership no matter if the followers are military troops or not. Your normal condition in the feat is not the normal condition in the rules.
Mon, 2005-02-14 11:28
#12
Military Leadership [General]
Mercenaries are not soldiers. They may have been at one time, but history shows how well mercenaries follow who pays them when a better offer comes around, or the job's too dangerous.
Througout most of history wars were fought by mercenaries. With few exceptions, the idea of fighting out of patriotism was unheard of. Soldiers fought for a king or noble because he paid well; if he didn't they'd fight for someone else.
You're looking at medieval-style warfare from a perspective that is too modern. Just because you have modern military experience, doesn't mean you can acurately judge the mindset of a medieval fighting-man
Mon, 2005-02-14 17:10
#13
Military Leadership [General]
Listen, Xan, it doesn't matter what your impressive military career tells you about D&D combat. The point is that in this game there are no rules that prohibit someone with the Leadership feat from leading military troops. Nor is there a magical distinction in the game between who is a "military soldier" and who is not. If you have eight level 1 warriors as your followers, how is that different from military troops in anything except that one is in a country's standing army and the other is not?
The rules don't support this feat.
Mon, 2005-02-14 20:15
#14
Military Leadership [General]
Is this meant to be a flavor feat? Otherwise, why bother with 'military troops' as a player, when getting warriors (who don't happen to have military training) with leadership would work just fine? I suppose you could enforce it, but players wouldn't like it much... it adds an unnecesary layer, I'd say.
Tue, 2005-02-15 19:26
#15
Military Leadership [General]
Is this meant to be a flavor feat? Otherwise, why bother with 'military troops' as a player, when getting warriors (who don't happen to have military training) with leadership would work just fine? I suppose you could enforce it, but players wouldn't like it much... it adds an unnecesary layer, I'd say.
Two big reasons I can name off hand for Planescape: Acheron & the Blood War.
Wed, 2005-02-16 18:54
#16
Military Leadership [General]
Considering that the DM is in complete control of characters that are recruited through Leadership, and this doesn't have any mechanical benefit, this could better be handled through roleplaying. To require a feat for this is a waste.
Thu, 2005-02-24 18:00
#17
Military Leadership [General]
Considering that the DM is in complete control of characters that are recruited through Leadership, and this doesn't have any mechanical benefit, this could better be handled through roleplaying. To require a feat for this is a waste.
What is your reasoning for your belief?
Sat, 2005-02-26 12:11
#18
Military Leadership [General]
If the DM agrees with you on this matter, she can just tell the player that he cannot recruit military personel without RPing joining the military, or being assigned to work with the military. Requireing two feats for this instead of one is ridiculous.
Fri, 2005-03-04 13:37
#19
Military Leadership [General]
If the DM agrees with you on this matter, she can just tell the player that he cannot recruit military personel without RPing joining the military, or being assigned to work with the military. Requireing two feats for this instead of one is ridiculous.
Really, then I urge you to go and try to command some soldiers today.
Fri, 2005-03-04 16:04
#20
Military Leadership [General]
Look, I'm no longer debateing with you on wheather or not military personel will listen to non military personel. What I am saying now is that there are better ways to deel with this situation than by feats. Considering that there is no gameplay advantage for getting this feat (seeing as how military personel don't get any statistical advantages over non military personel) this situation is better settled through roleplaying.
I agree with Nemui. This feat is unneccessary. If a high level martial character has a high Charisma modifier and the Leadership feat, and has attracted a cohort and followers he has an army. Now, while this army is most likely a mercenary army, it is no less a military unit.