D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[nevin]

Examples would be helpful.

Actually the 1e rule book is clear that all the rules presented are for the DM to use or not use as they see fit. Not many contradictions, just several different ways to do things. Even simple things like XP in 1st ed have multiple options. The only blaring contradiction 1e I can think of is the Bard class that can't be created by the rules presented without death and reincarnation as a different race at some point along the way. But the rules I'm 1e are clear. DM gets final say even that contradiction has the ultimate loophole behind it

 

[nevin]

Because your description in that post was itself a False Equivalence, because that's not how the term "Leader" was being used. You were trying to change what "Leader" meant, so I ignored that attempt and actually responded to "Leader" as it was being used in the discussion.

Person 1: "It's horrible to be left behind by the party."
Person 2: "Being left behind isn't that bad, because you can just track the party and rejoin it later."
Person 1: " Being left behind is abandonment and that doesn't feel good."
You: "Maybe the party just went left at the intersection. Why is that bad?"
Me: "It's bad because being abandoned is emotionally harmful."
You: "False Equivalence! That's not what I said."

In 4e leaders direct others, pushing and pulling them, as well as giving other bonuses that represent the other PC doing as the leader directs.

Commander's Strike: "With a should, you command an ally to attack."
Furious Smash: "You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to match your ferocity."
Wolf Pack Tactics: "Step by step, you and your friends surround the enemy."
And on and on.

These are all examples of the leader directing the play of others. In some cases it can be ignored. In others the other PC has no choice but to do as the leader wishes.

Except things like Commanders strike in spite of the wording simply give you an extra attack. You can choose to not use it. You aren't even required to attack what the Leader tells you to attack. That's not taking your choices or controlling your actions, it's giving you more choices that you can take or leave as you see fit. No one in any of those situations is controlling you character.

 

[Gimby]

Except things like Commanders strike in spite of the wording simply give you an extra attack. You can choose to not use it. You aren't even required to attack what the Leader tells you to attack. That's not taking your choices or controlling your actions, it's giving you more choices that you can take or leave as you see fit. No one in any of those situations is controlling you character.

Correct - it's a bit of a subtlety

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.

As far as I can recall, all Warlord bonus push/pull/shift/heal targets allies rather than creatures. They all require willing targets. The warlord can't force any PC to do anything - they can just give them the option. This is notably different to Clerics, who can actually heal creature targets.

I get that people may not have read or understood this, but it's very important to how all leaders in 4e operate.

 

[CreamCloud0]

well, i know that i would rather choose to be less effective in what i wanted to do anyway to spite the fact that the opportunity was given to me by someone else than just take what's being offered.

right everyone?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Commander's Strike: "With a should, you command an ally to attack."
Furious Smash: "You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to match your ferocity."
Wolf Pack Tactics: "Step by step, you and your friends surround the enemy."

As far as I can recall, all Warlord bonus push/pull/shift/heal targets allies rather than creatures. They all require willing targets. The warlord can't force any PC to do anything - they can just give them the option. This is notably different to Clerics, who can actually heal creature targets.

"Oh no, the warlord is giving me the opportunity to be a more effective character by using an ability that requires a willing target! Whatever shall I do?"

 

[Maxperson]

Except things like Commanders strike in spite of the wording simply give you an extra attack. You can choose to not use it. You aren't even required to attack what the Leader tells you to attack. That's not taking your choices or controlling your actions, it's giving you more choices that you can take or leave as you see fit. No one in any of those situations is controlling you character.

So the option is to just waste someone else's turn and work against their choice of character class, or capitulate. And flavor does matter. The leader is ordering you around, even if you rebel against it.

It's far better to just not make a class that bosses other PCs around and let that sort of thing be a table choice.

 

[Maxperson]

"Oh no, the warlord is giving me the opportunity to be a more effective character by using an ability that requires a willing target! Whatever shall I do?"

It's the method that makes all the difference. The power bosses other PCs around, plain and simple. Remove the term leader and remove all language bossing others around, and it's not a problem.

 

[Gimby]

well, i know that i would rather choose to be less effective in what i wanted to do anyway to spite the fact that the opportunity was given to me by someone else than just take what's being offered.

right everyone?

The point being is that the choice is yours - you aren't being forced to do anything, you never lose control of your character. Now, the other characters (and possibly players) might think you are being unreasonable not taking the offered bonuses, but the choice is ultimately up to the player.

I've mentioned this before but making use of this effect added a lot to the dynamic of a party in a campaign I was playing in - my Warlord's bonuses would sometimes be rejected by at least one of the other characters depending on how their overall relationship was operating. This lead to the party's ability to work together to wax and wane with how well they were getting on with each other to be explicitly reflected in the mechanics in a way that I haven't experienced in D&D before or since.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It's the method that makes all the difference. The power bosses other PCs around, plain and simple. Remove the term leader and remove all language bossing others around, and it's not a problem.

you can literally just reflavour that. it is not that hard.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The point being is that the choice is yours - you aren't being forced to do anything, you never lose control of your character. Now, the other characters (and possibly players) might think you are being unreasonable not taking the offered bonuses, but the choice is ultimately up to the player.

I've mentioned this before but making use of this effect added a lot to the dynamic of a party in a campaign I was playing in - my Warlord's bonuses would sometimes be rejected by at least one of the other characters depending on how their overall relationship was operating. This lead to the party's ability to work together to wax and wane with how well they were getting on with each other to be explicitly reflected in the mechanics in a way that I haven't experienced in D&D before or since.

reminds me of some of those DnD horror stories about how 'the atheist party member refused to be healed by my cleric'