Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[Tony Vargas]

Okay. I am certainly not saying that 5e is inferior to 4e.

When you claim that 5e can't handle a class, or even concept, that worked neatly in a prior edition (all this "4e was a different game" nonsense) you're implying that it's innately inferior to that prior edition. And, you're wrong to imply that. 5e is a more open & fluid system than 4e ever was, it doesn't suffer from a constraining balance-first paradigm, it has parsecs of design space to utilize. It could handle the addition of a Warlord. Heck, 5e could handle virtually 'porting' every class that was in 4e over, and the only major problem would be that they'd mostly be sadly underpowered and resource-poor compared to 5e classes.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Battlemaster can do the Bravura Warlord - check.

I too believe that 5e has room at the table for a Warlord class - covering some flavor of the other 5 builds. A recurring theme is that 5e does not have room for a Warlord class, and I do think that would lessen it.

But I don't see that as an option because as a "Make it your own" edition we can make room for a Warlord at the individual tables.

 

[Lord Twig]

When you claim that 5e can't handle a class, or even concept, that worked neatly in a prior edition (all this "4e was a different game" nonsense) you're implying that it's innately inferior to that prior edition. And, you're wrong to imply that. 5e is a more open & fluid system than 4e ever was, it doesn't suffer from a constraining balance-first paradigm, it has parsecs of design space to utilize. It could handle the addition of a Warlord. Heck, 5e could handle virtually 'porting' every class that was in 4e over, and the only major problem would be that they'd mostly be sadly underpowered and resource-poor compared to 5e classes.

I argue that 5e already does handle the concept, therefore it is not inferior. You just don't like the way it was implemented. Even more can be done, sure. They added the Mastermind and Purple Dragon Knight after all. But I highly doubt whatever is added will ever meet your expectations.

We are just going to have to disagree on this.

 

[mellored]

I argue that 5e already does handle the concept, therefore it is not inferior. You just don't like the way it was implemented. Even more can be done, sure. They added the Mastermind and Purple Dragon Knight after all. But I highly doubt whatever is added will ever meet your expectations.

Nothing wrong with the PDK, battlemaster, or mastermind. They all have good warlord-y features.
Including inspirational healing. But they are all sub-classes.

So yes, the concept exists, but you can't get it without taking on other baggage. There's no way to make an illusionist without needing to spend some slots casting burning hands and fireball.

But if you say... bashed all the existing features together, even without any modifications, you'd end up with a pretty solid warlord class. Which is the core of what is being asked for. Not new mechanics, just a full class.

 

[Aldarc]

The character works fine with others, except the Bard and the Warlord. If you don't like those types of characters, fine, don't play them. I don't like Bards, so I don't play them. But I don't force other people to not play Bards, even though by playing them they force me to accept their silly Bard as an inspirational figure.*

Inspirational classes require all other characters to be inspired by them. One based on team tactics would require that the other characters accept their tactics, and, yes, magical characters require that the other characters accept their magic. Of those three I think it is fair to say that the last is an assumption of D&D. As you love to point out, the vast majority of character classes have some kind of magic.

If one based on team tactics allowed someone's character to do more tactically than they could do otherwise, wouldn't you accept their tactics too? That just seems common sensical. Why would you refuse it? Churlish pride? Stubbornness? You are welcome to cut yourself from the benefits of listening to sound advice. Lots of people do. But there are also many people who benefit from sound advice and act upon it. The warlord provides sound tactical advice to others.

Well--it probably doesn't help that people keep holding up Aragorn and/or Gandalf as examples. I mean, practically every good-aligned character in the books holds them in almost holy reverence, and the only one who doesn't (Denethor) comes to a very bad end.

Then how about a more morally ambiguous character in history? Julius Caesar. He's not exactly the warrior-type as we would think of the fighter but he still had plenty of combat experience as a commander, and he nevertheless deployed sound tactical and strategic thinking that led to victories. His presence inspired his troops in combat, and I doubt that all of his troops thought he was a saint or worthy of respect either. Sure, we can chalk it up to the fact that he was their commander and a consul of Rome, so he had authority, but people also don't tend to follow people with a history of losing.

 

[GreenTengu]

You know, it is interesting how people have a general aversion to this being done via a social stat, but have 0 problem with this being done via a physical stat.

A: "My character is an unstoppable juggernaut!!"
B: "I make a grapple check" <A fails save>
DM: You can't move and must make a check to escape

A: "My character will never give up or surrender!!"
DM: *rolls damage and reduces A to 0 HPs* You are unconscious.

I would really like to know where this disconnect comes from. Why is it your characters views and motivations and leanings and ambitions and desires are all 100% mutable in your mind regardless of what they could possibly come up against, but you haven't the least bit problem with all of those things being shaped and forces through in-game physical needs.

Why can you totally 100% without any reservation accept an undesirable outcome that utterly ruins your character's core principals if it is explained through overwhelming them via a physical stat, but the moment it comes to overwhelming them through a mental stat it becomes "controversial"?

If the game is going to treat physical and mental/social traits EQUALLY when a character chooses to invest in them, why should they not have equal game effect?

Because frankly, it seems to me like it is cheating to ignore the results of a bluff roll because of some piece of OOC knowledge when you would never ignore an attack roll because it is equally undesirable to you OOC.

 

[mellored]

You know, it is interesting how people have a general aversion to this being done via a social stat, but have 0 problem with this being done via a physical stat.

That's a pretty good point.

"You can't move my emotions without magic"
vs
"You can't move my body without magic".

both sound pretty ridiculous to me.

 

[Lord Twig]

You know, it is interesting how people have a general aversion to this being done via a social stat, but have 0 problem with this being done via a physical stat.

A: "My character is an unstoppable juggernaut!!"
B: "I make a grapple check" <A fails save>
DM: You can't move and must make a check to escape

A: "My character will never give up or surrender!!"
DM: *rolls damage and reduces A to 0 HPs* You are unconscious.

I would really like to know where this disconnect comes from. Why is it your characters views and motivations and leanings and ambitions and desires are all 100% mutable in your mind regardless of what they could possibly come up against, but you haven't the least bit problem with all of those things being shaped and forces through in-game physical needs.

Why can you totally 100% without any reservation accept an undesirable outcome that utterly ruins your character's core principals if it is explained through overwhelming them via a physical stat, but the moment it comes to overwhelming them through a mental stat it becomes "controversial"?

If the game is going to treat physical and mental/social traits EQUALLY when a character chooses to invest in them, why should they not have equal game effect?

Because frankly, it seems to me like it is cheating to ignore the results of a bluff roll because of some piece of OOC knowledge when you would never ignore an attack roll because it is equally undesirable to you OOC.

You see, people like myself keep responding to these posts because they continue to get the whole problem wrong. It's not just that they disagree, it's that they don't even understand the problem.

No one has a problem with social skills effecting characters. If you have an BBEG that uses Intimidation on my character and succeeds on his roll, then my character is frightened. That is acceptable because the BBEG is an enemy.

Now if another player character uses Intimidation on my character, then I have a problem. Your character is essentially attacking my character with his social skills. Mental violence is still violence. Bluff would be a problem because it is tricking or lying to a supposed friend or ally.

And none of this has any relevance to the issues with the Warlord. That's why I am saying you aren't even understanding the problem.

So what is the problem? The problem is the Warlord manipulating other characters' emotions, or requiring that other characters look up to him or are inspired by him in order for his powers to work. That's the problem.

Yes, history is full of inspiring leaders. But they lead inferiors. They lead their subjects or soldiers. So if you want a PC class that inspires NPCs. Great! Have at it! But don't expect my Wizard or Ranger or Rogue or Paladin or whatever to fall into line.

Or you can go with the other solution. You can accept that Warlords manipulate the low-level magic of the natural world to bolster the morale of his allies. Just like Bless, but without the overt magic that can be dispelled.

 

[mellored]

And none of this has any relevance to the issues with the Warlord. That's why I am saying you aren't even understanding the problem.

And yet, most of those arguments where used against the warlord.

So what is the problem? The problem is the Warlord manipulating other characters' emotions, or requiring that other characters look up to him or are inspired by him in order for his powers to work. That's the problem.

It would of been a much shorter conversation if this was stated at the front.

Well, you actually did on this thread. So points for you on that. But i mean in general.

If the anti-warlord people could of said what it was they didn't like, rather then making up a bunch of false justifications for their feelings, it could of been delt with much more directly.

Or you can go with the other solution. You can accept that Warlords manipulate the low-level magic of the natural world to bolster the morale of his allies. Just like Bless, but without the overt magic that can be dispelled.

5e currently has a mix.

"Borders on the supernatural" is used to describe the rogue evasion.
"your charisma becomes extraordinarily beguiling" for the swashbucklers taunt ability.

but "you learn how to inspire allies to fight on past their injuries" for the purple dragon knight. Which at least doesn't say anything about fixing the wounds, but otherwise says nothing about magic. Then again, nothing says it's not magic either. Of course, "magic" doesn't really explain anything either.

Though most abilities, like paladins aura, simply say "you get X bonus" without ceremony or explanation. Just "here's something cool."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I argue that 5e already does handle the concept

Simple numbers illustrate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the concept is represented to even a tiny fraction of the extent it was in it's original (and still, only) version. It might be handled to your satisfaction - but, as someone who wants the concept excluded entirely, 'to your satisfaction' could mean any handling no matter how poor or trivial, all the way down to 'none at all.'

Besides, the point was that you were claiming it couldn't handle the concept as 4e did because 4e was a different game. Not being able to handle a concept as well as another game is not exactly claiming even parity.
But you were wrong in that assertion: 4e was a different edition of the same game, and it was a much more structured one with more constrained design space. 5e is much more capable of incorporating and handling concepts from other editions, including, trivially, 4e.
Stop denying it that virtue.

Further, the agenda you own up to is merely that you want the Warlord class to be optional. You can rest assured it will be. You could have done so before participating in this thread, as there's no plausible scenario for a class becoming non-optional.

You know, it is interesting how people have a general aversion to this being done via a social stat, but have 0 problem with this being done via a physical stat.

A: "My character is an unstoppable juggernaut!!"
B: "I make a grapple check" <A fails save>
DM: You can't move and must make a check to escape

A: "My character will never give up or surrender!!"
DM: *rolls damage and reduces A to 0 HPs* You are unconscious.

I would really like to know where this disconnect comes from.

Probably from the early days of the game. There weren't a lot of social resolution systems back then, and the ones there were - morale, loyalty, reaction - applied exclusively to NPCs.

If the game is going to treat physical and mental/social traits EQUALLY when a character chooses to invest in them, why should they not have equal game effect?

Because frankly, it seems to me like it is cheating to ignore the results of a bluff roll because of some piece of OOC knowledge when you would never ignore an attack roll because it is equally undesirable to you OOC.

You make a good point. Resolution system in 5e are as functional if one of the 3 mental stats is involved as they are if one of the 3 physical stats is involved.

And the result of that is actually to expand player agency, since you can choose to play a character who is less like you in terms of those 3 stats. You could always play a barbarian much stronger than you, but playing a character smarter, wiser or more charismatic than yourself used to have little bearing on anything beyond spellcasting and henchmen. It's been slowly expanding. In 5e, checks can potentially model such characters quite nicely, assuming the DM rules appropriately when those stats might come up.