Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6754622" data-attributes="member: 996">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).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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification