D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[mellored]

I still need to find some kind of icon for when threads devolve into semantic arguments.

 

[mellored]

Woah! I'm not sure you read what I wrote. But to answer your questions. A Cleric does not require you to worship her god when she heals you. The Cleric's god exists, it is an in game fact. That god channels power to the Cleric in the form of magic which the cleric uses to heal you. None of that requires my character to accept or do anything.

Clerics seem much worse to me as part of commanding things goes.

You compel Moradin to attack with a spiritual hammer.
You command Pelor to blast enemies with blinding light.
You demand Kord blast your enemies with lighting.

Warlords shouts are optional. But clerics can force their will on gods.

 

[Orlax]

The game mechanic result might be similar (or not quite, for instance, if the Warlord triggers HD, the result of being at full hps, but down some of your HD is very different from the result of being at full hps with all your HD still available after being healed by magic).
The narrative result, as well as the narrative mechanism, might be very different.

It sure sounded better than band-aid(tm) or 'healer,' though.

Support is a better terminology for what Clerics, Warlords, Bards, Artificers, Shamans & Ardents were doing in 4e, and what Bards, Clerics, & Druids do in 5e (on top of everything else they can do as full casters).

Nod. And the concept of a Cleric is worshiping & receiving supernatural power from a deity. A player might give a nod to that concept in how he RPs (or not), but he doesn't actually take up the worship of an imaginary pagan deity, demand the other players join him, and sacrifice a goat in the back yard.

The same is true of every class. Players aren't required to actually recite spells for their characters to cast them, get violently angry to activate their barbarian's Rage, and so forth. PC concepts involve a lot of stuff that happens only in the imagination.

That's really only part of it, inspiration and tactical planning also come into it, as well as personal martial skill, and, ideally, the class should be designed with enough customizeability that the player has alternatives, but, it should be a legitimate Warlord build or archetype to focus on 'command.' And, by the same token as the Cleric &c, above, the player of a Warlord might give an RP nod to 'giving commands' (or not) when he uses a class feature based upon such, conceptually, but he's not going to be bossing the other players around.

Except they are by base definition of how a warlord works. Let's say the warlord sits at a table and starts handing out extra attacks. That is entirely the warlord commanding another player character. Even if you make the extra attacks or movements optional that just makes it more of the player commanding another player because that player being commanded now holds the onus of the warlord's effectiveness. I could say no I'm not doing that every time for rp reasons but then I'm effectively making us play down half a party member.

 

[El Mahdi]

@Lord Twig

Maybe this will serve as an example of the difference between Leadership and Authority - one that doesn't get into the more philosophical or intangible aspects of Leadership.

Air Force CSAR (combat search and rescue) helicopter crews usually consist of four members (not counting PJ's - Pararescue Jumpmen - which are more interchangeable between flight crews). Those crew members are: Pilot (officer), Copilot (officer), Flight Engineer (enlisted), Gunner (enlisted).

There are obviously levels of authority involved, with the Pilot ultimately responsible for the aircraft and crew, and most likely the senior ranking crew member. However, every good crew treats everybody as equal members of the team, with equally valued inputs and equal authority to call a no-go. Many crews also make a point of stating this during their pre-flight brief as a reminder before every flight.

Every member of the crew, along with their specific in-flight responsibilities, also functions as a spotter. Helicopters fly at relatively low altitudes and can encounter a lot of hazards as a result. You can be certain that if the Flight-engineer on the right side of the helicopter sees a hazard (be it a power line, tree, or enemy), and directs "Break Left" over the com, the Pilot is not going to think "Hey, he's not in charge here! Who the hell does he think he is?!?!"

What the Pilot is going to do is break left - hard and immediately.


That's really no different from what a Warlord does.


The Fighter is a specialist in personal combat. The Warlord is a specialist in seeing the big picture.

Let's take the Battle Master's Commander's Strike as an example.

It says: "When you take the attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack's damage roll."

Direct is one of those words that can mean an authoritative order or just guidance.

Narratively it could be that the Warlord, with the benefit of distance giving a wider perspective, sees that the foe the Fighter is engaged with drops his guard just a tad after most parries. He also notices that the foe half-steps with his left foot every time he drops that guard. So when the Warlord sees it happening again, he let's the Fighter know by yelling "Andros...Stop-Cut Octave...Now!"

Is the Fighter under any obligation to do what the Warlord says? No.

Is the Fighter a subordinate or "animal companion" of the Warlord? Of course not.

Will the Fighter benefit by heeding the Warlord's guidance? Most Definitely!


That is Leadership, not Authority.

 

[El Mahdi]

Apparently I would always be able to perform at that level, but for some reason I wasn't able to until I was "Inspired" to do so.

Nobody functions optimally all the time, which is why we have D20 rolls and every hit isn't an automatic crit.

This is a fundamental flaw in the logic you're presenting.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well I don't want to be bogged down in semantics. I'm just trying to give some clarity to the anti-Warlord position. And I've offered some ideas on what would be more acceptable to me. As expected they aren't what Warlord players really want. And that's the problem. Neither side can come to a good compromise. So not either sides fault, just that the two sides are still too far apart to meet in the middle somewhere.

I will respond to this, which I found interesting:

There are some, including myself, that like to have the human spirit be the Magic without using actual Magic.

See, I just don't understand this. You are using the power of your spirit to push your muscles to the limit. Your spirit gives you the mental fortitude to continue on despite fatigue or fear, magical or otherwise. Why can't your spirit force the magic that is in your body, and in everything else all around you, to bend to your will and allow you to do the impossible?

If you lift an unliftable gate, does it matter that it is your muscles lifting it or the magic that resides in your muscles?

When a Barbarian goes into a rage, is it all just psychology, muscles and adrenaline? Why not some magic to allow him to go far beyond what is humanly possible?

Stepping back, I guess we just want different things. I need an explanation for everything. If that explanation is magic, that's fine.

A human can't take a pinch of bat guano and throw a Fireball, but a human with magic can. Likewise a human can't lift a 2 ton boulder, it doesn't matter how much spirit he has, the physics of our universe doesn't allow for it. But in a magical world a human with enough spirit can lift a 2 ton boulder, because in a magical world there is magic, and magic tells physics to take a hike and let the plucky adventurer lift that boulder. Because magic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except they are by base definition of how a warlord works. Let's say the warlord sits at a table and starts handing out extra attacks. That is entirely the warlord commanding another player character.

But it is in no way the player of the warlord commanding another player, the player still chooses his actions on his next turn just as if the player of the Warlord had done nothing (or wasn't even there). It is just using an ability to grant an ally an extra attack. That's a benefit. It's no different than casting Haste. When you choose to use Haste, your character casts a spell on an ally, you don't personally cast a spell on a fellow player (if you tried, that'd be a little Jack-Chick crazy). It's the same line (between player & character) not being crossed, either way.

Nor is a 'command' that gives an ally a momentary advantage in the heat of combat, the same as the Warlord 'leading' (making decisions for/having authority over) the ally or the party. It might be displaying leadership skill or talent (or not, depending on the specific character concept & build).

Even if you make the extra attacks or movements optional that player now holds the onus of the warlord's effectiveness.

That's true of all support abilities. If you cast haste on a melee type so he can go to town on the BBEG, he has to go through with it for that spell to have it's full effect, if he runs off, you might as well drop concentration on it, it's not doing anything.

I could say no I'm not doing that every time for rp reasons but then I'm effectively making us play down half a party member.

Yep, you could. You could turn down inspiration for RP reasons, you could turn down a buff spell for RP reasons, you could turn down Lay on Hands for RP reasons. Similarly, for RP reasons, a player could withhold support contributions from a specific character or just in general. Those are always possibilities, and sometimes it's expedient to stretch a point and let some implied/potential PC conflicts slide (Barbarian v mage or warlock vs cleric or paladin vs rogue or whatever) rather than doing either. Just a matter of having some basic respect for eachother.

 

[Lord Twig]

Nobody functions optimally all the time, which is why we have D20 rolls and every hit isn't an automatic crit.

This is a fundamental flaw in the logic you're presenting.

I understand that. The issue is that it requires someone else to tell me what to do in order to function optimally. No matter how optimal my character is. A 20th level Monk that has perfected his mind and body, is apparently still not optimal when a Warlord wanders by and points out how he can improve.

 

[El Mahdi]

See, I just don't understand this. You are using the power of your spirit to push your muscles to the limit. Your spirit gives you the mental fortitude to continue on despite fatigue or fear, magical or otherwise. Why can't your spirit force the magic that is in your body, and in everything else all around you, to bend to your will and allow you to do the impossible?

Because there is no Magic in your body. I was using Spirit as Courage, Heart, Focus, Intent.

Does Rocky win because of Magic?

Did the death of Mickey not inspire Rocky to greater heights?

Did the death of Apollo Creed not do the same?


There's no Magic there; and especially not when in D&D, Magic is a very real, tangible thing.

 

[El Mahdi]

I understand that. The issue is that it requires someone else to tell me what to do in order to function optimally. No matter how optimal my character is. A 20th level Monk that has perfected his mind and body, is apparently still not optimal when a Warlord wanders by and points out how he can improve.

It does not require someone else, but someone else can facilitate it.

A 20th level Monk that has perfected his mind and body, is apparently still not optimal when a Warlord wanders by and points out how he can improve.

Nobody is perfect.

Nobody is optimal.

Everybody can improve.

There's always room for improvement.