Yeah, I've certainly made that caricature. It was an impression I got from the kind of person who...well, the kind of person who wrote that "On your feet, solider!" fluff. But it's really a derivative concern, not the primary objection.
As I recall, you conceived your animosity towards the class based on a first impression of the attitudes of those arguing for and against it..
Ok, fair enough. Although (correct me if I'm wrong) it's a bit edge case. Like, whether you can heal in an anti-magic zone, or if Counterspell prevents healing.
Sure. Like most differences of any import, it manifests most clearly on the margins.
And if your concern there is that it blows your immersion (although I hate that word) to have your re-fluffed non-magical healing Counterspelled,
Its not.
Oh, and this argument that I can always just refuse to allow the abilities to affect me is a load of crap.
It strikes me as at least as legit an RP option as murdering a PC for being the wrong race - with significantly less severe consequences.
Thanks, but given the choice to either subject myself to your Warlord's authority or be the jerk at the table (whether as a player refusing to play along with the fiction, or as a DM banning an official class from my table), I'll stick with vociferous opposition to the class itself and hope I won't get put in that spot.
To avoid possibly being seen as a jerk to one person, at one table, in the future, you will commit to being an jerk to many people, very biblically? I guess that whole internet shield of anonymity thing really does what they say.
Absolutely. Except...it doesn't really make a difference to me. Whether it's extraordinary talent or granted/earned position, your Warlord still ain't da boss of me.
Boss is a position. Your character would have to be extraordinarily short sighted and insecure to feel that a tactician creating an opening for him or an inspiring leader telling him how great he is, is somehow threatening his independence.
That said, nothing about any such abilities should force you to play otherwise, if you prefer.
"Warlord" is pretty terrible, too, but it's indicative of the problem, it's not the problem itself.
Not that D&D class names cleave closely to their RL meaning, but Warlord does not imply legitimate authority, while alternatives like "Marshall" or "Commander," do.
And Warlord is nicely genre-evocative.
Look, I have no problem conceptually with a support class. I don't really care about martial healing (2nd Wind is fine.) I sorta share some of those concerns about action economy and action granting, but I assume that could be cleared up.
The things I object to are:
1) Your character having authority over mine or granting "orders"
This objection is invalid, the class conveys no such authority.
2) It being dictated that my character looks up to yours as a "natural leader"
This objection is invalid. While a high-CHA character with mechanical support for leadership abilities may be conceived of as a natural (or trained) leader, nothing requires you to look up to those qualities. You could despise them, even, for a variety of reasons.
Just like, if you conceived of your 20STR Champion as a mighty hero, other players could choose to react to him as if he were a spineless weakling.
3) The implication that your character, regardless of level, is better at my job than I am. That I'm just a dumb grunt and I need you to tell me how to swing my sword or whatever.
That's "not even wrong."
If you (or others) can figure out how to describe all the mechanics you want so that none of the above are true
None of the above are true. One of them is nonsense that can't even be evaluated true or false, but none of them are true - at least of the extant class. I can just barely imagine a 5e version being botched badly enough to inflict one or two.
I'm not quite sure how the martial healing would be fluffed to avoid those, but I'm open to it.
Most of the objections to martial healing are centered on the misconception - cleared up in 1979 - that hps are some sort of fungible unit of structural integrity, like damage boxes in BattleTech or something.
Your objection is of a wholly different order, but is answered as long as receiving the effect is voluntary. If you want your character to be all "...k that, y'ain't da bossa me, I'm'a gonna die if I wanna..." I fully support your right to do so.
An earlier poster described the Sam Gamgee-like "Companion", which I know (from a history of going at it with you on this topic) was traditionally one way of portraying a Warlord. I love it. Bring it on. Let the people who fantasize about being Patton refluff the Companion into a Commander, instead of the other way around.
The vast majority of the genre & historical examples are of lead-from-the-sort of inspiration, it is heroic fantasy, after all, and as much as an ensemble cast of nominally co-equal heroes may chafe some egos, it's the obvious default.
But, personally, I /like/ the 'Princess' and sidekick and faithful retainer types of builds - I'm just disinclined to force them, so long as they're doable.
