Theorycraft: How to build a "Machiavellian" fighter?

[Cynthaer]

(TL;DR: Got inspired to stat up a "Machiavellian" fighter, but can't think of a good way to do the concept.)

So, I recently used a character prompt generator just for kicks, and got a "Machiavellian dragonborn fighter who dreams of owning their own ship". The concept is interesting to me -- a LN noble fighter who (thinks that he) has a pragmatic, morally neutral insight into human behavior, and uses this to manipulate others both on and off the battlefield (for the greater good, naturally).

The problem is that I don't see a good way to do this in 5e without being absurdly MAD. What I really need, I think, is the 4e Int Warlord, but without that, a polearm Battle Master Fighter seems like the closest "control the field" martial build. But then you have a build that demands Str/Con/Wis, and a character concept that demands Int/Cha/Wis.

It wouldn't need to be a Fighter necessarily -- any martial class would work, so long as it has some way of getting the flavor that our hero is non-magically controlling the battlefield and doesn't force both Cha and Int to be dump stats. A melee Bard is close, but all of the combat manipulation comes from straight-up spell effects, which feels too far from the concept. Rogues can use a high Int, but they mostly use the advantages others set up rather than actually creating advantageous situations.

The closest ideas I've had so far:

• Polearm Battle Master Fighter with 16/10/15/10/10/14 after racial modifiers. This seems the most feasible, although it feels painfully MAD with no dump stats.
• Polearm Oath of Vengeance Paladin, which gives an excellent reason to have a high Cha score. It loses a couple of feat slots and the cool maneuvers the Fighter has uses to disarm/trip/etc, though, in favor of more direct spellcasting and smiting. Plus the Oath seems to conflict with the idea of a noble interested in the mechanisms of governance.

Is there something else I'm missing? Am I just overthinking this? Should I just accept that the Battle Master is what I'm looking for, and a couple of suboptimal stats are fine in service of a strong character concept?

[Kane0]

How about a bit of mastermind rogue for bonus action movement/helping plus an extra skill and expertise?

[Nifft]

I see Battle Master and Mastermind Rogue already suggested.

I was going to suggest combining those two. The optimal mix might be Mastermind 9 / BM 11, but I suspect you won't start play at level 20. I think you want Cunning Action early, to position yourself for the Pole Arm battlefield control -- before you get your 2nd attack, for sure.


Another neat way to go might be Shadow Monk 6 / Battle Master Fighter ++, but that might be too magical.

[Nidgit]

BM is obvious, but what about Oath of Conquest? Plays in to the military requirements of Machiavelli

[qube]

I have a symelar character (though lawful good)

• vhuman with noble background (well, the knight variant from PHB that gives you 3 retainers)
• battlemaster, defense fighting style, played sword & board
• made with the standard array:
  str 14+1race+1feat,
  dex 8
  con 15+1race
  int: 10
  wis: 12
  Cha: 13
• vhuman feat heavy armor mastery; lvl 4 feat inspiring speech
• battlemaster with commanding strike, usually on the rogue (as rogues get their sneak attack once per turn, as commanding strike is during your turn, they get theri sneak attack even if they already had it during their turn)

[Quoxis]

I see Battle Master and Mastermind Rogue already suggested.

I was going to suggest combining those two. The optimal mix might be Mastermind 9 / BM 11, but I suspect you won't start play at level 20.

I second this, if you're playing with official material you're golden at bm5/mm3.
Your maneuvers would be commander's strike ("quick, use this opening to strike!") and an assortment of party buffs/enemy debuffs (to taste: knock them prone to give advantage or get sneak attack on your second strike, "rally" your friends for temp hp, use distracting strike for the other rogue in the party etc etc), and aside from attacking you get to "help" as a bonus action - you can even provide two help actions in the same turn iirc.
You're more of a commander, like Macchiavelli: you understand the structure and mechanics of combat and lead from (not too far) behind instead of getting into the thick of it. That's below your standards, you're not a simpleminded fighter, you are the brain that coordinates the muscle.

[Dr. Cliché]

See, in my mind, a 'Machiavellian fighter' would be a man who carries a sword but arranges matters such that he never has to swing it.

[polymphus]

A fighter who is satirising terrible nobles and political elites, and is often erroneously considered as serious by the very people he's satirising?

Sounds like bard territory to me.

[Gignere]

See, in my mind, a 'Machiavellian fighter' would be a man who carries a sword but arranges matters such that he never has to swing it.

Are you suggesting a "god" wizard, but carry a sword?

My most recent character was a diviner elf wizard and he had elven chain and carried a sword and even a shield just for sh*ts and giggles.

[Dr. Cliché]

Are you suggesting a "god" wizard, but carry a sword?

No, I'm suggesting a 'chessmaster' sort of figure. Basically someone who manipulates others into fighting for him (but using words rather than magic).

It's not that he can't fight, it's that he manipulates things such that he never has to.

[smcmike]

No, I'm suggesting a 'chessmaster' sort of figure. Basically someone who manipulates others into fighting for him (but using words rather than magic).

It's not that he can't fight, it's that he manipulates things such that he never has to.

This is a very nice idea, but will probably run into a very big problem in most campaigns, where the DM sets you up to fight, and your companions want to bash some heads.

[Dr. Cliché]

This is a very nice idea, but will probably run into a very big problem in most campaigns, where the DM sets you up to fight, and your companions want to bash some heads.

Oh, I agree.

That's the thing though - I see a 'Machiavellian fighter' as being a character for a DM rather than for players.

[polymphus]

I mean, the idea of a Party Face is a whole thing. Pump charisma, try to grab double proficiency in deception/persuasion. Preferably go as a class who gets combat benefits from Charisma (bard, paladin, swashbuckler) then focus in on control/debuff stuff to lock down your enemies.

Battle Master 11/Swashbuckler 9, maybe? Pump Dex and Cha, have a rapier in a sword-cane, wear 'light armor' that's fine clothing.

[KorvinStarmast]

See, in my mind, a 'Machiavellian fighter' would be a man who carries a sword but arranges matters such that he never has to swing it.

Yeah.
for some reason, my brain went to "Purple Dragon Knight' from SCAG, but as I don't have that with me right now I am not sure if it fits.

That said, I think that an Eldritch Knight would be worth looking into. Every now and again in the D&D world a more powerful bit of persuasion (like suggestion) is what the Machivelian character needs to get people to do X.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

As a fan of Machiavelli and a player of D&D during more than 20 years, I feel enabled to put a great wall of text. WARNING!

The issue here is that the "machiavellian" adjective has been so much abused that it lost its true meaning. Let's put some order. I don't want to make an historical approach to Machivelli, as we are in D&D, just some spare notes (but real) to point the correct way.


What Machiavelli never said: he never said "end justifies the means", this is a later interpretation from his enemies. Machiavelli just stated how power functions, without any other moral regards. He just wanted his country to learn the lesson and be capable of free his own country from invaders. And for that it was necessary to understand power, in order to know how to wield it. This means that a machiavellian character doesn't need to be necessary evil. It would tend more to a Legal alignment in all the vertical axis.

What Machiavelli was: Machiavelli was the first political scientist. He is the first westerner in doing a rigorous scientific approach to the study of how power works, regardless of any moral judgement. He wanted Italy to be free from foreign invaders and build a new strong state (following the image of emerging states as Spain or France). For that, he wrote "The Prince", acting as an advisor to rulers (in this case to the Medici).

Character approach: So, your "machiavellian" character shouldn't be a theory crafter or an advisor (as that suits a NPC more than a PC), but a character that follows the machiavellian approach to power. So, this is more a roleplaying and class/skills/backgrounds choices approach than a "I don't have rolls high enough" one.

And this approach can be briefed in: “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”

A correct approach to power is be cunning as a fox and strong as a lion.

This exposition leads to a strategical PC, not to a tactical one (and here is why you are wrong in your tactical approach). Also, you aren't a field leader. Leadeship is for generals and commanders. You are the person who gives the orders to the generals, who manipulates them, or who can convince them changing the orders for the greater good. You don't lead in the battlefield, you prepare the battlefield and the contenders before hand.

A machiavellian fighter would understand fighting and socializing just as a tool to a greater goal. Of course, if he has to fight, he has to be good, and if he has to manipulate, deceive, intimidate, it would also be a tool, not something related to his personality. He has come to this interpretation through analysis and study, and so he has a racional approach to violence and political relationships. Of course, using violence is only the last resort, not because violence is morally wrong, but just because it's better to get your goal without creating enemies on your way to it, and with the maximum consensus possible. Only when violence is necessary is when you resort to it. And this means that if you resort to violence, you won't be fighting alone, because you have worked all your way to have allies (your companions or NPCs). And of course, if you resort to it, you must succeed, and therefore have a plan before hand.

With this approach, it seems to me that there are two fields of expertise to build your character. It can be built regardless of class. Let's do it with the fighter as you mentioned. A good approach is having a fighter who has studied in the best martial academies and the best academic institutions, with a great natural sagacity and intuition. He "wins combats" solving them without using violence. Of course he's not a pacifist, but when he fights, he wins (that's why he won't fight alone if he has a chance of failure). This sounds as a multiclass build to me.

With standard point buy:

You said it was a Dragonborn right? (if not, half-elf would do also, with Str 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 14 after adjustments).

Str: 14+2=16
Dex: 10
Con: 12
Int: 12
Wis: 13
Cha: 13+1=14

Background: Noble or Sage (you have studied this power theory and you are in practice, this two backgrounds are the best educated. I think Noble is better suited as it has access to the high society)
Class:
LION: Fighter - subclass: Eldritch Knight (because magic is just another resource to your tools. Also, Battlemaster is too tactical for our machivellian friend, magic can do better when needed. Try to have different kinds of spells: a subtle spell such as Suggestion, Charm Person or Hypnotic Pattern, a destroyer AoE like Shatter of Fireball, a protection such as Shield or Absorb Elements and a disabler such as Blindness, Dispel Magic or Counterspell. A Machiavellian character would be totally aware of the importance of having access to at least one spellcasting to cast "lion spells" and "fox spells").
FOX: Rogue - subclass: Mastermind (know your enemies better than themselves) or Arcane Trickster (again to use magic as a tool.
If you don't want to use magic, take Battlemaster and Mastermind (Swashbuckler is also ok to use your Charisma during a fight).

Skills: Perssuassion and Deception (way of the fox), History (know your allies), Insight (don't fall in your own game), Athletics (way of the lion). [If half elf, take also Religion and Intimidation]
Expertise: Perssuassion and Deception. Later on, take also Insight.

Feats that could work: Resilient (Wis) (to have dominion over yourself) or, if the UA skill feats are availabe, take one or two between Diplomat, Empatic, Historian, Menacing or Silver-Tongued (choosing from this feat list will give you more options with Expertise). Then one high OP combat feat such as GWM or Polearm Mastery, but not both. Then also take Luck and calle it "La Fortuna" (Machiavelli also said that Fortune only blesses those who dare enough).

Equipment: choose the best armor and weapon you can buy but keep at least one third of your wealth within you. Gold in the right hands is the key to open right doors.

Roleplaying: Do not forget that the most machiavellian flavour will come from your roleplaying, not from your game statics. Try to open your way through your goal with alliances, promises, meetings, pacts and silver tongue. If you can guess a fight is coming, try to convince your party that there is better way of approaching the situation and do it. If you can contact with the enemy, do it, and offer them a truce or a pact that benefits you (you don't care if you enemy benefits for the pact if it doesn't endanger your goal). If there is not a way, be sure to have a plan to face the combat. If forced to engage in combat, always try to identify the leader and destroy it first. Outside of combat, be the most generous person with your party, you want them to think that you are the best friend of every and each member of the party. Do not enter in serious problems with your party unless totally needed.

Try to give some quirks and mannerism to you character. For example, he always scratches his fronthead when thinking, and at night he takes out a quill and a book from his backpack and writes down important notes learned this day to be taken into consideration in a future and maybe publish a treaty.

[Cynthaer]

How about a bit of mastermind rogue for bonus action movement/helping plus an extra skill and expertise?

I see Battle Master and Mastermind Rogue already suggested.

I was going to suggest combining those two. The optimal mix might be Mastermind 9 / BM 11, but I suspect you won't start play at level 20. I think you want Cunning Action early, to position yourself for the Pole Arm battlefield control -- before you get your 2nd attack, for sure.

I second this, if you're playing with official material you're golden at bm5/mm3.
Your maneuvers would be commander's strike ("quick, use this opening to strike!") and an assortment of party buffs/enemy debuffs (to taste: knock them prone to give advantage or get sneak attack on your second strike, "rally" your friends for temp hp, use distracting strike for the other rogue in the party etc etc), and aside from attacking you get to "help" as a bonus action - you can even provide two help actions in the same turn iirc.

You're more of a commander, like Macchiavelli: you understand the structure and mechanics of combat and lead from (not too far) behind instead of getting into the thick of it. That's below your standards, you're not a simpleminded fighter, you are the brain that coordinates the muscle.

The issue here is that the "machiavellian" adjective has been so much abused that it lost its true meaning. Let's put some order. I don't want to make an historiacl approach to Machivelli, as we are in D&D, just some spare notes (but real) to point our way.

(snip)

This is all great stuff, exactly what I was hoping to get.

Blas_de_Lezo, your build is excellent, and I'm actually going to save that post as a character reference. You're absolutely correct that I was thinking in tactical terms, when the truly Machiavellian character works in the realm of strategy.

Ironically, reading that actually made me more fond of my single-class Polearm Battle Master, because it made me realize why I was thinking in terms of tactics in the first place.

Consider the way Magic: the Gathering integrates story and gameplay. They have settings with much, much more than straightforward fighting going on, but the actual game is mostly limited to combat. So they design cards and mechanics that get across the correct feeling, even if the mechanics don't quite line up. A healing mage gives the player life points instead of "healing" creatures, but it feels like a healer. Werewolves transform based on spells cast per turn instead of some "moon" mechanic, but the player feels the nervousness at their looming transformation.

I didn't mention it in the OP, but I was originally thinking in terms of an Adventurers League character, where (A) worlds are not very open, and (B) the majority of actual playtime is likely spent in combat. In that context, I interpreted "Machiavellian" very loosely and tried to make a build where the feel of "control through insight and knowledge, not magic" still comes across.

I like both of these as two separate characters that take the prompt in completely different directions. One is a scrappy, AL-ready area-control fighter who wants to be the captain of the party and (someday) her own ship. The other is an educated and ambitious political scientist who has designs on state-level influence and views violence only in terms of its strategic necessity.

Now that I think about it, splitting the concepts like this makes me more willing to let the "true Machiavelli" build venture further into magic, using the Eldritch Knight instead of the Battle Master -- or maybe even getting into a College of Swords Bard. I still like the idea of keeping them a melee fighter, since otherwise it's too obvious to just say "Machiavelli is a wizard, duh".

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think the real world political philosopher's ideas are applicable to an action-fantasy small unit tactics simulator. Well, perhaps if you squint hard enough that they start looking like general life advice instead of recommendations for a specific ruler in a specific time-period.

Besides, this game doesn't even have comprehensive rules for hirelings and mercenaries, much less for ruling.

Trying to copy The Prince during a 5e game will add about as much value as holding up a copy of The Art of War while playing Chutes and Ladders.

[KorvinStarmast]

He wanted Italy to be free from foreign invaders and build a new strong state

Florence but I get your point. When Nicolo was around, Italy still had the major problem of the Southern Half being part of a different Kingdom. (IIRC, Aragon?). Kingdom of Naples had been its own kingdom for longer than the US has been a country by that point, if we take the Angevin rule as a starting point (Some peole take it further back). The French and Spanish were fighting over Naples, as I recall, while Nicolo was alive.

A correct approach to power is be cunning as a fox and strong as a lion.

Nice summary, and all in all a great post. Thank you for taking the time to do that. I think that there is still sometimes an attitude (Umberto Bossi didn't get to where he got all alone) in central and northern Italy that "the third world starts somewhere a bit south of Rome" ... :p

I don't think the real world political philosopher's ideas are applicable to an action-fantasy small unit tactics simulator.

You are thinking of 4e.

Besides, this game doesn't even have comprehensive rules for hirelings and mercenaries, much less for ruling.

There's a lot more to this game than was ever written in the rule book, but yeah, the OD&D / 1e coverage of henchmen, strongholds, fortresses, etc is missing. (Sadly)

Trying to copy The Prince during a 5e game will add about as much value as holding up a copy of The Art of War while playing Chutes and Ladders.

Nope. I recommend hitting the PHB and reading up on what each tier of play represents. Here, I'll help you:

In the second tier (levels 5–10), characters come into their own.
Many spellcasters gain access to 3rd-level spells at the start of this tier, crossing a new threshold of magical power with spells such as fireball and lightning bolt. At this tier, many weapon-using classes gain the ability to make multiple attacks in one round. These characters have become important, facing dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms.

The characters already have access to people in high places since they are solving high level problems.

In the third tier (levels 11–16), characters have reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace and makes them special even among adventurers. At 11th level, many spellcasters gain access to 6th-level spells, some of which create effects previously impossible for player characters to achieve. Other characters gain features that allow them to make more attacks or do more impressive things with those attacks.
These mighty adventurers often confront threats to whole regions and continents

And in this role, they will interact with princes, kings, queens, and emperors.

At the fourth tier (levels 17–20), characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures

Still dealing with kings, queens, emperors, and stuff even more complicated.

All you need to use is a bit of imagination and world building, of which there is a plethora of advice in the DMG.

[Cynthaer]

I don't think the real world political philosopher's ideas are applicable to an action-fantasy small unit tactics simulator. Well, perhaps if you squint hard enough that they start looking like general life advice instead of recommendations for a specific ruler in a specific time-period.

I don't know that it needs to be that specific. Machiavelli may have been writing with a specific audience in mind, but he was laying out general principles of governance as he saw them.

To be "Machiavellian", a character simply has to subscribe to the same understanding of politics and power that Machiavelli had, and to let that understanding inform their goals and actions. That character could be a princess applying those ideas to secure her own rule, an ambitious noble using them to stage a successful coup, a sellsword using them to become a ship captain, a street urchin building her small-time gang into a multi-city crime syndicate, a bookish political scientist who only acts as an adviser to others...

Besides, this game doesn't even have comprehensive rules for hirelings and mercenaries, much less for ruling.

Well, that's one way to use these ideas in-game. Another way is to not try to become a ruler yourself, but consider them while interacting with others in the world who are rulers. If one of your goals as a character is to maintain a stable political order, and you subscribe to a Machiavellian view of politics, that's going to massively affect how you interact with the queen when she asks your party to go eliminate a cult of religious separatists who have gained popular support in several cities.

It's just like any other philosophy or worldview in that regard.

Trying to copy The Prince during a 5e game will add about as much value as holding up a copy of The Art of War while playing Chutes and Ladders.

I'd say it's more like using The Art of War while playing chess -- which is actually a really good idea, and people do it all the time.

But more importantly, I don't think this problem is unique to this character concept, and it all depends on how your specific D&D game plays out.

The more railroady and combat-heavy your game is, the less room there is to express your character's worldview outside of "does/doesn't try to avoid killing". That doesn't just apply to this case; it's true for any worldview.

[Dappershire]

A lot of good stuff posted so far, but I only saw one mention (and a minor one at that).

No matter how to come at the term "Machiavellian", wither the true, or the Hollywoody version, is there any reason why a Paladin is not perfect for this character?

5e has done a lot (sometimes unlikably)to stray from the stereotype for the Paladin. The new flavor can definitely hold up as a strategic warrior. Using tactics to outmaneuver opponents mentally. Faith to do the same on an emotional spectrum.

Their oaths can follow his advise word for word. Be seen to be virtuous. Cruelty should be under necessity, but always looking forward towards garnering the god will of the people. Paladins are almost universally respected, but nobody wants one knocking on their door, y'know?

Hell, one can even go traditional, with a twist. God fearing, Heavens Sword type deal. But with specific ideas on how a God should behave, both among its fellows, and to it's worshippers. You'd be the religious philosopher to your "Prince".

Plus you can always lay down the Smite when nobody listens.

[Asmotherion]

Well, let's break this down. You need:

-A High Charisma.
-Proficiency in Deception, Persuation, Insight.
-Since it's going to be a "Fighter" you can refluff that as any weapon-using character.

The easyest and less costly way to go for it in one Level is Hexblade Warlock with a Custom Backround to give you Persuation and Insight. :)

Plus, a neutral Warlock is kinda the ultimate Machiavelian idea: The ends justify the means.

[Corran]

@OP: I am seconding some sugestions (and expanding them with some of my thoughts):

How about a bit of mastermind rogue for bonus action movement/helping plus an extra skill and expertise?

This was my very first thought.
Bonus action help aside, rogues are SAD enough (especially if you play ranged, which IMO is best as far as the mastermind is concerned), to allow you to spare the points for decent mental stats (you can dump str). Standard human would work nicely.
Or you could go variant human, and pick inspiring leader as your starting feat, if it suits your concept.
ps: Expertise in all the relevant social skills will help you bring your concept to life.

BM is obvious, but what about Oath of Conquest? Plays in to the military requirements of Machiavelli

This is not a bad idea either.
Paladins do have spell support, which is something that you seem to want to avoid, but their auras (both protection and conquest) and their channel divinities are more like supernatural abilities than magic. You can even take feats like inspiring leader and shield master (the latter plays very well with the conquest aura and with your abilities that inflict the fear condition, ie wrathful smite, channel divinity, fear spell) which IMO suit the concept your are looking for. I would sugggest vhuman for race (to take the feats faster).
ps: If you are really set on dragonborn, its stat increases play well with the paladin class too.


ps: Whenever I am trying to bring a concept to life as a dnd character, and that concept has little to do with magic, I always try to adapt him to the dnd world, which has magic. So my character which might be inspired from a real world character, or from a book or movie where the book/movie world does not have magic, might end up being even a spellcaster. What I mean, is that IMO, you have to take into account how the dnd world works, and take that into account when realizing a concept of a character. Be prepared to make some necessary changes if need be, if that helps your concept live up to its standards and make sense into the dnd world. Or in other words, make sure the concept is close to what you would want your character to look like and be able to do in the dnd world, than to what the original character is in the real world (or in the movie/book world).

[Specter]

Battlemaster with a rogue level for Insight and Deception is what you want. With a point buy, do 16/14/14/10/10/11. Later on you can improve your Charisma with a feat like Diplomat.

Don't worry about excessive mental stats; Expertise is there for you, and most real people didn't have crazy scores to deal with.