Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Tony Vargas]

Here are the verbs that relate the warlord to his/her allies:

inspire *4

comfort, hearten, lift the spirit, rally, spur

lead the way

convince

command *2

direct *2​

I'm not seeing a very strong implication that the warlord is the party leader - of 24 powers, 2 allow the warlord to give a command (which the other PC may or may not comply with) and 2 allow the warlord to give direction (which the other PC may or may not follow. I don't see how the flavour of this is any different from 5e's existing battlemaster.

One minor difference is that it was all strictly fluff text, which 4e explicitly made mutable. So a player could re-fluff his character's powers to fit concept - perhaps making him less (or more) annoying to other players. 5e's presentation doesn't draw as clear a line and mostly leaves the ball in the DM's court...

We mostly have the warlord inspiring, heartening, rallying, spurring on, etc. That doesn't imply that the warlord is the party leader. Nor does it imply that the other PCs have any particular relationship with the warlord, other than being open to his/her heartening or inspiring words. And, again, if a player doesn't want his/her PC to accept the buff, why is s/he forced to?

They weren't forced to, in fact, powers were generally phrased to affect an ally (so you could repudiate that status - technically becoming an 'enemy,' but then, technically, you were your own enemy), and use a decision or action on the part of the target to have an effect, so they could always be declined. And, this is a case where the few applicable BM maneuvers work the same way.

Took me awhile to catch up with this thread. But this is really good. I will pull out only the powers that are problematic...

I'll only address the ones that you were right about...

All this IMHO of course.

So, we've already gone over in another thread this hypothetical issue where two players decide to be jerks to eachother, one by presenting his character in some theoretically offensive way, a second pointedly taking offense and sabotaging the other's effectiveness into the bargain. The former aspect is potentially an issue with any class or character (though if any pre-5e class has suffered from it, it was the Paladin), the latter is potentially more an issue with the Warlord because it's mechanics (even more than other 5e classes with the same role) have typically rested on the cooperation of allies (in 5e, the 4 or 5 most support-capable classes are able to push benefits on their allies, or even 'creatures,' with less cooperation required).

It's not a meaningful objection to the inclusion of the Warlord, and you only meant it as grounds that the Warlord be optional: Which is prettymuch a given, anyway, as the closest thing to 'non optional' is the Standard Game, and it's already set in stone with the publication of the PH.

 

[Lord Twig]

Took me awhile to catch up with this thread. But this is really good. I will pull out only the powers that are problematic...

I'll only address the ones that you were right about...

All this IMHO of course.

Ok. I laughed at this.

So, we've already gone over in another thread this hypothetical issue where two players decide to be jerks to eachother, one by presenting his character in some theoretically offensive way, a second pointedly taking offense and sabotaging the other's effectiveness into the bargain. The former aspect is potentially an issue with any class or character (though if any pre-5e class has suffered from it, it was the Paladin), the latter is potentially more an issue with the Warlord because it's mechanics (even more than other 5e classes with the same role) have typically rested on the cooperation of allies (in 5e, the 4 or 5 most support-capable classes are able to push benefits on their allies, or even 'creatures,' with less cooperation required).

It's not a meaningful objection to the inclusion of the Warlord, and you only meant it as grounds that the Warlord be optional: Which is prettymuch a given, anyway, as the closest thing to 'non optional' is the Standard Game, and it's already set in stone with the publication of the PH.

It has nothing to do with players being jerks to each other and everything to do with players disagreeing on how their characters should view each other and what kind of relationship they should have.

And no, it is not an objection to the inclusion of the Warlord. It should be available for those that want it. You should just realize what the inclusion of one entails.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It has nothing to do with players being jerks to each other and everything to do with players disagreeing on how their characters should view each other and what kind of relationship they should have.

If it's just a disagreement, politely addressed at chargen, it shouldn't become the issue you've posited in play. And that is the kind of basic consideration that bringing a group together entails, if you're actively trying to avoid being jerks about it.

Though, like I said, sometimes you just can't avoid having one in your group. Conversely, you often have a group that gets on fine and there's no need to have every character concept vetted. The Warlord wouldn't change any of those dynamics, it'd just be another player choice that might be affected by them.

And no, it is not an objection to the inclusion of the Warlord. It should be available for those that want it. You should just realize what the inclusion of one entails.

For a party it would mean the option of having a martial archetype that's common in genre contributing your party by providing hp-restoration, offensive & defensive (including damage mitigation) buffs, and other necessary support functions instead of a traditional Cleric-or-Druid or slightly-less-traditional Bard, in a way that leaves more agency than usual in the hands of the recipients (since you have more say in whether & how to use that support). For campaigns, opting into it would mean fewer obstacles to all-martial parties, and low-/no- magic (users) settings & sub-genres.

 

[Hussar]

On another note, how is the rogue not equally objectionable? After all, I'm forcing you to be distracted by my ally. Doesn't matter what that ally is, he automatically distracts you and allows me to sneak attack.

Why is that ok?

 

[Lord Twig]

If it's just a disagreement, politely addressed at chargen, it shouldn't become the issue you've posited in play. And that is the kind of basic consideration that bringing a group together entails, if you're actively trying to avoid being jerks about it.

Though, like I said, sometimes you just can't avoid having one in your group. Conversely, you often have a group that gets on fine and there's no need to have every character concept vetted. The Warlord wouldn't change any of those dynamics, it'd just be another player choice that might be affected by them.

For a party it would mean the option of having a martial archetype that's common in genre contributing your party by providing hp-restoration, offensive & defensive (including damage mitigation) buffs, and other necessary support functions instead of a traditional Cleric-or-Druid or slightly-less-traditional Bard, in a way that leaves more agency than usual in the hands of the recipients (since you have more say in whether & how to use that support). For campaigns, opting into it would mean fewer obstacles to all-martial parties, and low-/no- magic (users) settings & sub-genres.

You've said all this before. The arguments for and against haven't changed.

 

[Lord Twig]

On another note, how is the rogue not equally objectionable? After all, I'm forcing you to be distracted by my ally. Doesn't matter what that ally is, he automatically distracts you and allows me to sneak attack.

Why is that ok?

Uh... Because the Rogue and his ally are attacking their opponent? The whole point of combat is taking agency from your opponent (usually by making him dead). That's kinda the whole point.

 

[FrogReaver]

Uh... Because the Rogue and his ally are attacking their opponent? The whole point of combat is taking agency from your opponent (usually by making him dead). That's kinda the whole point.

Why if my wizard doesn't want to distract the goblin for the rogue?

 

[Hussar]

What if my fighter doesn't want to be distracted by the ruffian's ally? Note, not all thieves are pc's.

And, if my fighter lets your thief hit better, why don't I help anyone else?

Note, killing a target in no way takes away player agency. Just because the dragon breathed on you is not a loss of player agency for you. Otherwise all combat is a loss of player agency.

And, if you are helping my rogue stab someone why can't I help you stab someone? Why is it okay that I force you to distract my target, but it's not okay for me to distract a target for you - a typical warlord power- and let you hit better?

 

[Lord Twig]

Why if my wizard doesn't want to distract the goblin for the rogue?

Ah, this makes sense. I could see a wizard wanting to avoid melee combat so much that he doesn't even distract a foe. As a GM I would allow it.

Do note however that distracting the goblin does not require the wizard to admire the Rogue, or vice versa.

 

[mellored]

Ah, this makes sense. I could see a wizard wanting to avoid melee combat so much that he doesn't even distract a foe. As a GM I would allow it.

Using a DM ruling to fix a rare roleplaying corner case where that's outside the assumption of inter-party cooperation the rules bases itself on...

Seems like a valid solution. Even one that might be an existing rule.

So next time someone tries to cast bless or cure wounds on someone who rejects that persons god, i will also allow it to be denied.

Do note however that distracting the goblin does not require the wizard to admire the Rogue, or vice versa.

No ability requires you to admire anyone.

So that's just off-topic.