Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[Lord Twig]

Depending on what 'it' is, the latter people are simply wrong. In 5e, for instance, it is entirely possible, without magic to: recover from 0 hps instantly (20 on a death save), to heal hps instantly (Second Wind), to recover all your hps (HD or overnight rest), to gain Advantage (help action), inflict Disadvantage (Protection Style), grant an ally an attack as a Reaction (BM Manuever), grant Temp hps (Inspiring Leader), and prettymuch everything that's supposedly a sticking point.

Some of these I have had more trouble with than others, but something was pointed out in the latest Sage Advice that helps a lot:

You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

1. the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
2. the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

* Is it a magic item?
* Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
* Is it a spell attack?
* Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.

So is Bardic Inspiration magic or not? Well it doesn't meet any of the four criteria, so it is not a focused magical effect. Therefore it is background, physics magic.

This is really useful to know so you can judge if it works in an anti-magic field, for example. And it is a clever way of nerfing Anti-Magic Field by still allowing background magic, like dragon flight, Second Wind, Inspiring Leader, healing with Hit Dice on a short rest and even Lay on Hands and Aura of Protection/Courage.

There was a lot of other stuff I disagree with or think is wrong in your post. But that's fine. I don't have the time to answer them all and we would just be arguing in circles anyway. So I'll just address this last point...

You had a perfect exit a few pages back: you want the Warlord to be added as an optional class. Classes are optional by their very nature (they are player options), and any non-core material (anything not already in the PH) is opt-in optional for the DM. The way 5e is set up, the Warlord can't be added to the game in any way that could be viewed as anything but entirely optional. You could have declared victory right then.

Looking at it more it is amazing how warlord-like you can make a Battle Master Fighter. When WotC said they were going to include all previous classes that were in a PHB1, I'm pretty sure they thought they had included the Warlord by including the Battle Master Fighter. That doesn't matter of course, Warlord fans want a dedicated Warlord that does even more support (and less damage) than the Battle Master Fighter.

I did say that a Warlord should be available as an option, and I am still on board with that. As long as it is in line with the amount of support that a Bard or Cleric does now, and taking into consideration that there are certain things that aren't going to be possible without actual magical magic (spell casting and magical abilities). But there is a lot of things that can be explained using the new clarification from Sage Advice. Even shout healing.

 

[Lord Twig]

What i want is a non-caster support class. With different flavor.

A spell-less, religion-less, paladin.
A spell-less, religion-less, cleric.
A spell-less, song-less bard.
A support, fiend-less warlock.

I have no issue with "magic" or "extraordinary" being there. Or not.

Seems to be.

I've seen no good evidence of it being about social issues, forcing someone to respect you, inspirational healing, attack granting balance (a reasonable concern, but nothing unfixable), or any of the other arguments presented.


But I have seen evidence that a few people get upset if they think your doing something without "magic".

Others do have a problem with "magic" being in the description. But as the new Sage Advice points out, just because it is not overtly magical, doesn't mean it isn't magical at all (dragon breath being the specific example).

And yes, others (myself included) have a problem with some effects not being magic. I mean, it doesn't matter how good a bricklayer you are, you aren't going to build a brick wall in 6 seconds, without bricks. Magic can though.

Likewise yelling at somebody to heal seems a bit silly. But I think Bards are silly. Doesn't stop them from being in the game.

If the Warlord can tap into the natural magic of D&D world physics with some well constructed encouragement, why not? Paladins can apparently heal at a touch using the background magic of the universe, why can't Warlords?

 

[pemerton]

Of course first you have to assume that the character's spirits are down and that they have lost hope. Which conflicts with a character who is an eternal optimist and never let's things get him down. It always conflicts with something. That's part of the problem.

I was thinking about this as I was running yesterday.

Rousing spirits isn't primarily about optimism vs pessimism. It is about energy, the will (and ability) to go on, etc.

As [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] comments also in response to this thread, D&D doesn't really let you build a PC who never gets tired or slows down - because there are hp mechanics, fatigue mechanics, etc.

And on a related point: the absence of a warlord from the game means that everyone also performs at their best regardless of being inspired or not. [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] made a similar point upthread, that it is not until the warlord is introduced that the issue of inspiration, and relationships between PCs in relation to inspiration, even comes up.

 

[mellored]

If the Warlord can tap into the natural magic of D&D world physics with some well constructed encouragement, why not? Paladins can apparently heal at a touch using the background magic of the universe, why can't Warlords?

Works for me.

Just as long as you avoid the "once per rest, you can ....". Unless there's a heavy balance reasons to not have it at-will. Like healing.

But even that i feel should be "once per rest, the target can..." like the healer and inspirational feat already do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So is Bardic Inspiration magic or not? Well it doesn't meet any of the four criteria, so it is not a focused magical effect. Therefore it is background, physics magic.

Well, almost. Therefore you can take it as 'background fantasy physics magic' if you feel the need. Does it take 'background magic' to explain someone being inspired enough to get a bonus to a roll down the line? That would make the character-trait Inspiration mechanic 'background magic,' too.

The same reasoning, actually, would make everything that isn't overt dispellable magic, background magic. Sun rises in the morning? Magic. That's not actually faulty reasoning, either, a fantasy world could have 'magic' completely supplant the laws of physics.

Whether the DM decides his setting is such a world or not, the idea gives anyone who wants it plausible deniability about something being magic or not. If you need it to be, you can believe it is.

Looking at it more it is amazing how warlord-like you can make a Battle Master Fighter.

Not even close. The BM gets 3 maneuvers at third level, all of which are used with/as an attack (so are, perforce, used as part of the Fighter's signature high-DPR attack action). Eventually he gets 3 more, still 3rd-level-appropriate maneuvers, from a list of around 18, perhaps 3 or 4 of those are arguably analogous to those the Warlord had. The Warlord had over 300, and leveling opened access to more powerful ones over 30 levels.

It's easy to draw an analogy between the BM & EK on one side, and the Warlord and Wizard on the other, and fair to say that the Warlord is no more represented by the BM than the Wizard is by the EK. It's actually overselling the BM substantially: for the EK to have as little wizard going for it as the BM has Warlord, it would have to have a spell list with only 17 spells, of which he could learn 6 over his career, and only 3-4 of which were even arguably similar to wizard spells.

I did say that a Warlord should be available as an option, and I am still on board with that. As long as it is in line with the amount of support that a Bard or Cleric does now

The Cleric has 7 sub-classes (Domains) in the PH, and more have been published and are likely to be published, the Warlord had 6 official builds, so that'd be a step up. The Cleric has about 100 spells in the PH, about as many as the Warlord had martial powers in the PH1, and more spells have already been published and it's reasonable to expect more on the way over the years. That level of support sounds just fine.

and taking into consideration that there are certain things that aren't going to be possible without actual magical magic (spell casting and magical abilities). But there is a lot of things that can be explained using the new clarification from Sage Advice. Even shout healing.

There's nothing the Warlord class has ever done that required spellcasting or 'actual' (dispellable) magic (Dispel Magic was in 4e, and didn't work on any Warlord powers), so there's no call for it. It's hard to imagine a hypothetical Warlord maneuver that might pass the test for magic given in that recent Sage Advice.

OTOH, it's not hard to imagine a Warlord sub-class like the EK ('Mage-Commander' perhaps) that actually did cast spells. Or an Ardent sub-class with Psionics, if the Mystic doesn't come through with one, for that matter. Not necessarily pleasant to imagine, but not difficult. ;P

 

[Tony Vargas]

Works for me.

Just as long as you avoid the "once per rest, you can ....". Unless there's a heavy balance reasons to not have it at-will. Like healing.

I could see there being a lot of such reasons.

But even that i feel should be "once per rest, the target can..." like the healer and inspirational feat already do.

This is one of the ideas to come out of these discussions that I really liked. It emphasizes the importance of allies to the Warlord, and the fact that it's still the allies' accomplishments, whatever support the warlord may provide them. And does so in a way that's consistent and mechanically workable.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well, almost. Therefore you can take it as 'background fantasy physics magic' if you feel the need. Does it take 'background magic' to explain someone being inspired enough to get a bonus to a roll down the line? That would make the character-trait Inspiration mechanic 'background magic,' too.

The same reasoning, actually, would make everything that isn't overt dispellable magic, background magic. Sun rises in the morning? Magic. That's not actually faulty reasoning, either, a fantasy world could have 'magic' completely supplant the laws of physics.

Whether the DM decides his setting is such a world or not, the idea gives anyone who wants it plausible deniability about something being magic or not. If you need it to be, you can believe it is.

Yes. This was my line of thinking.

Not even close. The BM gets 3 maneuvers at third level, all of which are used with/as an attack (so are, perforce, used as part of the Fighter's signature high-DPR attack action). Eventually he gets 3 more, still 3rd-level-appropriate maneuvers, from a list of around 18, perhaps 3 or 4 of those are arguably analogous to those the Warlord had. The Warlord had over 300, and leveling opened access to more powerful ones over 30 levels.

This is silly. Let's consider an 8th level Battle Master, Human variant.
Human feat: Inspiring Leader
Fighting Style: Protection
Maneuvers: Commanders Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, Rally
ASI: Feat: Shield Master
ASI: +2 to Str
ASI: Feat: Healer Feat (can't remember exact name)

There you go. It is a fighting Warlord, no doubt. He can shove an enemy as a bonus action and give an enemy Disadvantage when they attack an adjacent ally with a reaction every round. He can also grant temporary HPs, hand out attacks, give Advantage to an ally and allow extra movement a limited number of times a day. He can even do actual healing with a healer's kit as an action.

And yeah, the 4e Warlord had 300 powers (I'll just take your word for it, I really don't know), but 4e was a very different game. I assume they had Monks and Barbarians? How many powers did they have? How many do they have in 5e? Same thing.

So sure, there is room for more, but don't kid yourself into thinking you are going to get a 4e Warlord in 5e. Any more than we have 4e Monks or Barbarians.

It's easy to draw an analogy between the BM & EK on one side, and the Warlord and Wizard on the other, and fair to say that the Warlord is no more represented by the BM than the Wizard is by the EK. It's actually overselling the BM substantially: for the EK to have as little wizard going for it as the BM has Warlord, it would have to have a spell list with only 17 spells, of which he could learn 6 over his career, and only 3-4 of which were even arguably similar to wizard spells.

This assume a Warlord is equal to a wizard. It's not. I would point out that an EK isn't an EK until level 3. You can start getting martial support abilities at level one.

The Cleric has 7 sub-classes (Domains) in the PH, and more have been published and are likely to be published, the Warlord had 6 official builds, so that'd be a step up. The Cleric has about 100 spells in the PH, about as many as the Warlord had martial powers in the PH1, and more spells have already been published and it's reasonable to expect more on the way over the years. That level of support sounds just fine.

Wizard schools and Cleric domains really aren't on the same level as Fighter or Barbarian subclasses. And you just aren't going to get as many Warlord powers as there are spells. 4e was a different game. You are going to have to let it go.

There's nothing the Warlord class has ever done that required spellcasting or 'actual' (dispellable) magic (Dispel Magic was in 4e, and didn't work on any Warlord powers), so there's no call for it. It's hard to imagine a hypothetical Warlord maneuver that might pass the test for magic given in that recent Sage Advice.

I agree. I wouldn't expect any to. But the whole thing with Warlords yelling encouragement at a fallen ally, and the ally miraculously getting up, makes a lot more sense when you put it into the perspective that there is low-level magic running through everything that makes that kind of thing possible.

OTOH, it's not hard to imagine a Warlord sub-class like the EK ('Mage-Commander' perhaps) that actually did cast spells. Or an Ardent sub-class with Psionics, if the Mystic doesn't come through with one, for that matter. Not necessarily pleasant to imagine, but not difficult. ;P

Sure, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster (and the Bladesinger) are just ways of mixing classes together without multiclassing. So it makes sense to have a magical subclass for a Warlord so he doesn't have to multiclass in to Wizard, or whatever. You might not like it for one reason and I might not like it for another, but then neither of us would have to play that option at all.

(You keep dragging me back in! )

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is silly. Let's consider an 8th level Battle Master, Human variant.
Human feat: Inspiring Leader
Fighting Style: Protection
Maneuvers: Commanders Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, Rally
ASI: Feat: Shield Master
ASI: +2 to Str
ASI: Feat: Healer Feat (can't remember exact name)

There you go. It is a fighting Warlord, no doubt.

Not even close.

He can shove an enemy as a bonus action and give an enemy Disadvantage when they attack an adjacent ally with a reaction every round, and give Advantage to an ally and allow extra movement a limited number of times a day..

That's actually closer to a fighter in 4e, corresponding roughly to Tide of Iron and Marking (at-will), and Parry & Riposte and Get Behind Me (limited use) respectively.

He can also grant temporary HPs and hand out attacks,

Those two are particularly warlordy, yes. Two out of 18, with 3 choices up-front, so you can really make exactly one warlord-lite build with BM. As opposed to the 6 or 8 general builds the Warlord had, and the hundreds of choices that could define a specific one.

He can even do actual healing with a healer's kit as an action.

As can anyone. Meaningless. That's like saying you don't need a fighter class because anyone can hit something.

And yeah, the 4e Warlord had 300 powers (I'll just take your word for it, I really don't know)

334 over the run of the whole game, if you want to check the Compendium, you can, it'll find the names of each of those powers for you and a count of them, even if you're not a subscriber.
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx

but 4e was a very different game.

Sure. For instance the Cleric in 4e got a total of 393 'Prayers,' but only 82 in the PH1, compare just that 82 to the 99 spells the 5e Cleric gets and it's a lot closer (and note that the Cleric got /more/ at release in 5e, not less). Compare the BM's 17 maneuvers to the Warlord's 71 (and the Fighter's 78, since the BM /is/ a Fighter, and 14 or so of his powers are decidedly Fightery, not Warlordly) in the PH1 only.

Not only does the BM fall two orders of magnitude shy of the Warlord (3 maneuvers vs 300), it falls far short of the Fighter, as well. As badly as it upholds the 4e (and for that matter the 3.5) Fighter's legacy, asking the Battlemaster to also cover the Warlord is terribly unfair, and paints an unjustly negative picture of 5e as repudiating that edition.

So sure, there is room for more, but don't kid yourself into thinking you are going to get a 4e Warlord in 5e.

I am going to kid myself that 5e is not some sort of spiteful "h4ter edition" until such time as it categorically proves to me that I am not welcome as a fan. Existential as it may seem, that'll probably have be after the announcement of 6e. Until the last supplement has been printed, you never know what direction a game might turn.

This assume a Warlord is equal to a wizard.

True, I am not a caster supremacist, and I was not assuming that 5e was trying to cater exclusively to the small sub-set of fans who openly advocate for the strict superiority of casters.

Wizard schools and Cleric domains really aren't on the same level as Fighter or Barbarian subclasses.

IDK, a fighter Archetype gains spellcasting, which fighters don't otherwise have, but Wizards do. A Wizard Tradition and a Cleric Domain both grant Extra Attack, which those classes don't otherwise have, but Fighters do. They're all sub-classes. The parallel seems very strong.

And you just aren't going to get as many Warlord powers as there are spells. 4e was a different game.

Yes, 4e was a different game, but I am not yet willing to concede that 5e is as inferior and inflexible a game as you are implying.

But, hey, flip it around: The Bladesinger Wizard Tradition and War Domain Cleric, previously alluded to, are sub-classes that can wield a weapon more effectively than usual for their class, the War Cleric even gets heavy armor. Suggesting that the BM obviates the need for full Warlord class is on the same level as suggesting that the Bladesinger and War Cleric obviate the need for the Fighter class.

That is, on the assumption that 3-4 maneuvers tacked onto an otherwise DPR-focused class are as legitimate a replacement for a support-focused class with 300 such options, as tacking a single Extra Attack onto a spellcaster would be a substitute for a class with up to 3 Extra Attacks.

But the whole thing with Warlords yelling encouragement at a fallen ally, and the ally miraculously getting up, makes a lot more sense when you put it into the perspective that there is low-level magic running through everything that makes that kind of thing possible.

If that's the only way you can make sense of it for yourself, that's fine. It's a common issue among people who rejected 4e, but I hope that this rationalization (though it was plausible enough in 4e, as well), will help them better tolerate other folks getting what they want out of the game, this time around.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I appreciated Jeremy's take on "magic".

The magical but not "Magic"al Warlord nears completion.

... with the magic of friendship. And ponies. And beer.

 

[Lord Twig]

Not even close.

That's actually closer to a fighter in 4e, corresponding roughly to Tide of Iron and Marking (at-will), and Parry & Riposte and Get Behind Me (limited use) respectively. Those two are particularly warlordy, yes. Two out of 18, with 3 choices up-front, so you can really make exactly one warlord-lite build with BM. As opposed to the 6 or 8 general builds the Warlord had, and the hundreds of choices that could define a specific one.

As can anyone. Meaningless. That's like saying you don't need a fighter class because anyone can hit something.

334 over the run of the whole game, if you want to check the Compendium, you can, it'll find the names of each of those powers for you and a count of them, even if you're not a subscriber.
http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx
Sure. For instance the Cleric in 4e got a total of 393 'Prayers,' but only 82 in the PH1, compare just that 82 to the 99 spells the 5e Cleric gets and it's a lot closer (and note that the Cleric got /more/ at release in 5e, not less). Compare the BM's 17 maneuvers to the Warlord's 71 (and the Fighter's 78, since the BM /is/ a Fighter, and 14 or so of his powers are decidedly Fightery, not Warlordly) in the PH1 only.

Not only does the BM fall two orders of magnitude shy of the Warlord (3 maneuvers vs 300), it falls far short of the Fighter, as well. As badly as it upholds the 4e (and for that matter the 3.5) Fighter's legacy, asking the Battlemaster to also cover the Warlord is terribly unfair, and paints an unjustly negative picture of 5e as repudiating that edition.

I am going to kid myself that 5e is not some sort of spiteful "h4ter edition" until such time as it categorically proves to me that I am not welcome as a fan. Existential as it may seem, that'll probably have be after the announcement of 6e. Until the last supplement has been printed, you never know what direction a game might turn.

True, I am not a caster supremacist, and I was not assuming that 5e was trying to cater exclusively to the small sub-set of fans who openly advocate for the strict superiority of casters.

IDK, a fighter Archetype gains spellcasting, which fighters don't otherwise have, but Wizards do. A Wizard Tradition and a Cleric Domain both grant Extra Attack, which those classes don't otherwise have, but Fighters do. They're all sub-classes. The parallel seems very strong.

Yes, 4e was a different game, but I am not yet willing to concede that 5e is as inferior and inflexible a game as you are implying.

But, hey, flip it around: The Bladesinger Wizard Tradition and War Domain Cleric, previously alluded to, are sub-classes that can wield a weapon more effectively than usual for their class, the War Cleric even gets heavy armor. Suggesting that the BM obviates the need for full Warlord class is on the same level as suggesting that the Bladesinger and War Cleric obviate the need for the Fighter class.

That is, on the assumption that 3-4 maneuvers tacked onto an otherwise DPR-focused class are as legitimate a replacement for a support-focused class with 300 such options, as tacking a single Extra Attack onto a spellcaster would be a substitute for a class with up to 3 Extra Attacks.

If that's the only way you can make sense of it for yourself, that's fine. It's a common issue among people who rejected 4e, but I hope that this rationalization (though it was plausible enough in 4e, as well), will help them better tolerate other folks getting what they want out of the game, this time around.

Okay. I am certainly not saying that 5e is inferior to 4e. The fact that you think it currently is speaks volumes. It's clear that what you want is a new version of 4e. That's just not going to happen.

Unfortunately at this point I am coming to the conclusion that you will never be happy with 5e. But hey, keep the faith!