Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[Lord Twig]

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

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.


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."

You are right of course, most abilities don't say how they work. Paladin auras just work. The only official explanation is the one from Sage Advice, and I think it is a good one. In my opinion it makes sense and helps a DM decide what would be effected by Dispel Magic or an Anti-Magic Field.

I think magic does explain a lot of things. But the thing is, it doesn't matter. I think 5e left this kind of thing vague so everyone can decide for themselves if something has a magical explanation or not.

Thanks for the good post. Even if we disagree on things I at least get the sense that you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[jayoungr]

Gah, not enough time to respond to things, but just a quick clarification on the Tolkien example, since no one took me up on it.

Imagine any of them having 'Cleric' written on their sheet and it'll make even less sense.

What happens if Gandalf's player has "assassin" written on his/her PC sheet? Events play out differently, I guess. I don't really feel the force of the question.

The reason I asked how any of the others could inspire the Fellowship if he's a Warlord and Aragorn and Gandalf are not was to get a concrete example of the Warlord who inspires when he's neither the party leader nor the major focus of positive feelings. For example, if the warlord has Boromir's rather off-putting personality, how does he inspire?

 

[Bawylie]

Well, we don't look to Denethor for inspiration while he's in the throes of a mental breakdown.

Let's try King Theoden of Rohan. Rallying his people for a charge on Mordor's flank. Or Eomer's cries for Death spurring his tiny forces into a frenzy of destruction. Some good text there describing what's going on.

 

[Lord Twig]

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.'

Numbers don't prove a concept. There are not numbers for happy-go-lucky, good natured, do-gooder. But you can play that concept.

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.

This is a slippery slope argument. First you say I claimed that 5e couldn't handle the Warlord concept the same. I didn't say that, I said it wouldn't handle it the same. Then you slip this line in: "Not being able to handle a concept as well as another game is not exactly claiming even parity." I did not say it couldn't handle it as well, you did. I said it would handle it differently. Not better or worse. Differently.

5e can handle the concept fine. It is (and will) be represented differently in 5e than in 4e though. Or are you saying you want the entire Warlord class, with all 300+ powers, ported over wholesale?

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.

This is dipping towards edition warring. There is no doubt that the mechanics of 4e was a huge departure from what went before. Just as 3.x was a big change from 1e and 2e. They are effectively different games. And so is 5e.

I am not going to get sucked into arguing over the merits or flaws of each edition. They all have their pros and cons.

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.

My agenda is that it should be optional and that there should be some understanding that the Warlord class effects the other characters it is played with in ways that no other class does. Or at least not to the extent that it would. For example, Bards have the same issue, but not to the same degree.

They had to put all kinds of explanations in 4e that Leader characters were not actually the default leaders of the group and that they can't command other characters and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The Warlord class would require (IMO) the same disclaimer. And maybe some explanation of how his inspiration powers could be described so that it doesn't conflict with other characters.

 

[Lord Twig]

Gah, not enough time to respond to things, but just a quick clarification on the Tolkien example, since no one took me up on it.



The reason I asked how any of the others could inspire the Fellowship if he's a Warlord and Aragorn and Gandalf are not was to get a concrete example of the Warlord who inspires when he's neither the party leader nor the major focus of positive feelings. For example, if the warlord has Boromir's rather off-putting personality, how does he inspire?

Well, we don't look to Denethor for inspiration while he's in the throes of a mental breakdown.

Let's try King Theoden of Rohan. Rallying his people for a charge on Mordor's flank. Or Eomer's cries for Death spurring his tiny forces into a frenzy of destruction. Some good text there describing what's going on.

And you came up with King Theoden leading his soldiers and Eomer, a noble that was the leader of his warband.

So... try again?

 

[mellored]

I think magic does explain a lot of things. But the thing is, it doesn't matter. I think 5e left this kind of thing vague so everyone can decide for themselves if something has a magical explanation or not.

I don't think magic explains anything. In fact, that's kinda the point of it. That there is no explanation, or need for one.

Why can i wiggle my fingers, say a few words, and create a ball of fire, yet only do it a few times a day? How does that work? Don't care. I just do.


While i like vaugness generally, it doesn't always work.

Inspiration for example. "something that makes someone want to do something."
That's a pretty vague definition. But for you, it apparently means must admiration. But that's not the same conclusion i came to.


Also... Inspiration came from root words meaning "divine guidance", and "breath life or spirit into the human body". "In" + "speration" compared to "respiration" (to breath out), or "perspiration" (to breath out of pores).

So "Inspiration" is divine magic by (1300 century) definition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The reason I asked how any of the others could inspire the Fellowship if he's a Warlord and Aragorn and Gandalf are not was to get a concrete example of the Warlord who inspires when he's neither the party leader nor the major focus of positive feelings.

Nod. Class systems never emulate genre characters that well, even when based on a specific genre character, like the Ranger on Aragorn. Aragorn in 4e might've been a Warlord with a Legendary Monarch epic destiny, for instance. In 1e he was obviously meant to be a Ranger. In 3e he'd've been very multi-classed. Each different, but capturing elements of the character for an approximation.

For example, if the warlord has Boromir's rather off-putting personality, how does he inspire?

By example?

Another example, not of characters being of a class (they could always have a feat or MC if we want to get technical) but simply of inspiring in spite of being neither leaders nor having warm feelings for eachother, would be Gimli and Legolas counting kills thus each spurring the other to greater efforts.


On a tangent: ideally, a 5e warlord would be a flexible enough design that a player could choose to go all-in on inspiration or all-in on tactics or resourcefulness or command or other aspects of the class, or mix them in a more 'tradtional' way (considering all almost-8-years of warlord tradition ;P ) or in whatever proportion fits the specific concept. Ideally.

 

[Bawylie]

And you came up with King Theoden leading his soldiers and Eomer, a noble that was the leader of his warband.

So... try again?

No.

While the social strict and esteem played a role in the story, we're looking at the moment.

King Theoden and his forces arrived late to the siege. The army they faced outnumbered them maybe 20 to 1. But he rode his line and rallied his men before they charged, and the description is that they were so furious that their anger broke the enemy lines before they even made contact.

Contrast with Denethor, steward of Gondor (they hadn't had a king in what, 800 years), top dog. He literally commands his men to flee for their lives, to give up and choose to die in what way seems best to them.

Both men are in positions of indisputable authority. Both issue commands to their subjects. One of those commands is self-serving (flee and save yourself if you can). One is suicidal (Now we ride for wrath and ruin to our own destruction!). The suicidal one got obeyed. Why?

Inspirado.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Numbers don't prove a concept.

They prove degree of support for it.

I said it would handle it differently. Not better or worse. Differently.

OK, that's what you intended to say. So we're back to there being no problem with adding the Warlord. Or are you pretending that exactly one possible set of maneuvers for a 3rd level battlemaster equals 30 levels of lavish support for the Warlord? Those are certainly 'different.' One is also certainly better than the other.

Or are you saying you want the entire Warlord class, with all 300+ powers, ported over wholesale?

Both less and more. It's not like having numbers of maneuvers comparable to those of spells would break the game. But, while 4e classes had plenty of spells/maneuvers/etc to choose from, they actually got relatively few to use per day, and the power level was different, as well. So a direct port would tend to be under-flexible and under-powered compared to other support classes (all of whom are casters, and most full casters), choice-rich as it might be compared to a Battlemaster from a chargen standpoint.

This is dipping towards edition warring.

The Warlord is a sort of poster boy for 4e, because it was the only class invented for that edition to appear in it's PH1. You can't conduct a smear campaign against it without looking like a h4ter, and I can't campaign for it's inclusion without looking like a 4venger. Nature of the discussion. In your defense, your spurious objections to the class were not heavily used during the edition war, they're comparatively new.

I offer no defense. I was a card-carrying 4venger and repudiate nothing. And, while I'm happily running and openly supporting 5e (and even arguing how it's superior to 4e, right here in this thread), I still like a lot of what 4e had to offer, including something things that 5e doesn't offer yet. Same goes for 3.5, actually.

There is no doubt that the mechanics of 4e was a huge departure from what went before. Just as 3.x was a big change from 1e and 2e. They are effectively different games. And so is 5e.

I don't agree that different editions of the same game are different games. They have differences, they have similarities.

I am not going to get sucked into arguing over the merits or flaws of each edition. They all have their pros and cons.

Exactly, and 5e is trying to appeal to fans of each prior edition. Adding a Warlord, in addition to adding a common heroic fantasy archetype I'd really like to see available in D&D again, and expanding the range of supported playstyles, should appeal to fans of 4e, and would send the message that 5e is not intentionally trying to exclude them.

My agenda is that it should be optional and that there should be some understanding that the Warlord class effects the other characters it is played with in ways that no other class does.

The former is both fine and inevitable. The latter is a personal opinion about a hypothetical that, requires to players to act like jerks (MHO of what constitutes 'jerk' behavior, anyway) to even theoretically have a chance of happening. It'd be just as easy to imagine such things happening with any combination of class & character concept, you just have to manufacture a concept hostile to a particular class.

They had to put all kinds of explanations in 4e that Leader characters were not actually the default leaders of the group and that they can't command other characters and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The Warlord class would require (IMO) the same disclaimer.

Tend to agree, really. I can't recall at the moment, does the 4e Cleric have a disclaimer that he doesn't have to proselytize or insist his allies worship the same deity? Same sort of thing.

And maybe some explanation of how his inspiration powers could be described so that it doesn't conflict with other characters.

Not so much. While it may seem like a big issue, here, in a temporary sub-forum dedicated to whingeing over the Warlord, in the grander scheme of the whole game, it's a pretty trivial consideration. Inspiration already exists in the game in at least three, separate, unrelated sub-systems without any such explanations.

 

[pemerton]

The reason I asked how any of the others could inspire the Fellowship if he's a Warlord and Aragorn and Gandalf are not was to get a concrete example of the Warlord who inspires when he's neither the party leader nor the major focus of positive feelings. For example, if the warlord has Boromir's rather off-putting personality, how does he inspire?

Two responses.

First, someone with an abrasive personality might still inspire by example. Or by force of will. Look at Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos.

Second, though, what makes you think we can hold personality constant and change class? Who thinks, for instance, that a classic paladin can have the same personality as a classic assassin? Or, in 4e, that an avenger and a barbarian would have the same personality? Or, in 5e, that a druid of the land and a Cthulhu-serving warlock would have the same personality?

Even if one treats class just as training, it's not in general true that every personality type is well-suited to every occupational type (eg some occupations require more patience than others).

Once one acknowledges that class extends beyond training to archetype, class and personality are clearly related in certain ways. Eg what how could it mean be true that a fighter of level X and 14 CHA is just as charming in personality as a rogue or bard of the same level with Persuasion expertise and 14 CHA?

history is full of inspiring leaders. But they lead inferiors.

And you came up with King Theoden leading his soldiers and Eomer, a noble that was the leader of his warband.

This is where we have a collision of genre. (And maybe of politics, but that goes beyond the scope of the forum discussion.)

In Tolkien, for instance, a leader is not superior - and hence others are not inferior - simply in virtue of formal occupation of an office. A very important them in Tolkien is that of fitness for office (qv Feanor, Maedhros, Fingon, Thingol, the Numenorean kings, Sauron and the Ringwraiths, Theoden, Saruman, Eomer, Boromir, Faramir, Denethor et atl). A monarch or similar office-holder is called upon to prove him-/herself.

Hence capacity to inspire does not follow from office. Rather, genuine entitlement to office follows from capacity to lead and inspire. (This is all an elaboration of Bawylie's post contrasting Theoden and Denethor.)

That's a very pre-modern, Romantic European conception of leadership.

In what I would think of as a more American tradition, we have the notion of democratic leadership, grounded not in office (which may or may not be formally occupied) but from being the acknowledged first among equals. This is the model of inspirational leadership exhibited by Nick Fury, Captain America, and arguably even Conan among the Kozaks (though the latter is more complicated because it also draws in REH's views about racial and cultural superiority).

In the context of a RPG, the warlord doesn't need to enjoy formal authority to exemplify either of these tropes, or any sort of blending between them. The mechanics do make it true that the warlord is inspiring in personality (just as, eg, mechanics make it true that the bard is charming).

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.

And this is where we really part ways.

The notion that inspiring someone is manipulating their emotions is anathema to me.

Yesterday, at work, one of my colleagues said something that made me smile and laugh. That wasn't a manipulation of my emotions. It was just making me amused for a moment. Another colleague complimented me for something that I said - that brought me pleasure, but it wasn't manipulation.

The inspirational warlord rouses his/her companions spirits. Restores hope, when it is flagging. Reminds them of what is at stake, and why it is worth struggling for. Etc. None of that need be manipulation (and, in the context of the genre tropes, is not - the cynical, manipulative Nick Fury of, say, the Avengers movie is not a warlord in the spirit of these tropes).

If one can't think of the emotional dimensions of human relationships and interactions except via the notion of manipulation - which is the atomistic conception that I have referred to upthread and in other threads - then of course there is no room for the warlord. And presumably, on this model, the cleric and paladin are just variant wizards or fighter-mages.

But there is nothing in 5e that confines it to this conception, and leaves no room for those other, staple, genre tropes and archetypes.