Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[ChrisCarlson]

Anyone can.

It's even in the rules. The DM can give you advantage on 1 roll for good roleplaying, and you can give that role to someone else.

Perfect. Exactly. Now anyone can roleplay being inspirational to their allies and get a mechanical benefit asd seems to be required.

You mean that their class provides their mundane words an extraordinary mechanical effect that is not available to just anyone and only PC's who take that class get?

That's just more of not what a cleric is/does.

 

[mellored]

That's just more of not what a cleric is/does.

I'm pretty sure that's what clerics do.


They wave their holy symbol in a way, make some vocalization, and get a mechanical effects well beyond what someone who isn't a member of the class get's.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

All on their own, huh? Just because? Because they want it to happen that way?

Is there an argument coming that the cleric robs their deity's agency by telling the deity to like them and give them powers?

 

[mellored]

All on their own, huh? Just because? Because they want it to happen that way?

Because they took a level of a class (or feat), which let's them do it.

It's not like you need anything to be a cleric besides 13 Wis and to kill some kobolds. A PC just needs to decide they want to be special in that way.

Is there an argument coming that the cleric robs their deity's agency by telling the deity to like them and give them powers?

You can argue that if you want.

Makes about as much sense as any other "agency" argument. And the DM can say "no, you pissed of your deity and can't cast any more spells" if needed.

You know, roleplaying. Though again, the game runs on the general assumption that your deity/allies is ok with buffs.

 

[mellored]

Hmm...

New class Minor Deity:
Your allies must pray to you, their faith allows you to grant them blessings in return.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Because they took a level of a class (or feat), which let's them do it.

It's not like you need anything to be a cleric besides 13 Wis and to kill some kobolds. A PC just needs to decide they want to be special in that way.

Frankly this is not the kind of D&D I play. Nor anyone I know. I can safely say the devs, either (since I've read of their games exploits, watched them play in videos, etc.). But to each their own. If this is the kind of D&D you play, more power to you. I'm just not sure you should be advocating for system features when you are using the system so aberrantly.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Hmm...

New class Minor Deity:
Your allies must pray to you, their faith allows you to grant them blessings in return.

You have a typo there in the class name spelling. Its spelled: W-A-R-L-O-R-D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not talking about personality, although I did use that word in my query

Oookay....

I'm talking about inter-party relations. I keep hearing that mundane inspiration can work no matter how the rest of the party relates to the Warlord.

Sure, there are different ways someone might be inspired. Their relationship or lack of one to the person trying to do so would have a bearing. You might be inspired by a speech given by a politician because you're both patriots, even though you don't agree with many of his policies. You needn't see him as a larger-than-life hero, either, he can have feat of clay and still get something across to those listening. You might be inspired to greater efforts by a rival in an attempt to out-do him, or prove you're more capable than he's snidely suggested. Superficially similar, but with a different underlying relationship, what look like insults could actually be encouragement ('good natured ribbing'). You might be inspired by a 'lead from the front' hero doing great deeds that you can barely hope to match - or by a much less capable ally trying his best to keep up with you. You could be inspired to rush to the aid of virtual non-combatant in danger. You could be inspired by the honor of serving a social better, or the duty of aiding a social inferior.

That said, and for what it's worth, I think classes come with certain baseline implications about personality, but there's still a spectrum of possibilities for each one.

Some classes more than others, but even then only about some specific traits, not the whole personality. A Cleric can be expected to be pious, a bard outgoing, a wizard studious, sure. But a wizard could be introverted or arrogant, obsessive or circumspect, seeking knowledge for the sake of power or power for the sake of knowledge. Heck, that most classes are open to any alignment illustrates that they don't much constrain personality or RP choices. The Warlord didn't have any alignment constraints, and we've discussed wide variety of possible ways that just an Inspiring Warlord might've done his thing - and there were a number of other builds, as well.

If you think there's no way Boromir could be a Warlord, why not?

Classes are mostly narrow enough in competencies that it'd be hard to fit most fictional characters into only one of them.

And do we agree that at most tables, the rogue or bard would be discouraged from using the Persuasion expertise on another party member?

I think this is where the line between player and character becomes an issue. Players try to persuade eachother, as a matter of course, with all that entails, and players do, ultimately, make decisions for their characters. So a player who is on board with an idea, but feels his character wouldn't be, could use a persuasive ally as a rationalization, for instance.

This is where I see the bigger problem, actually. I would venture to say that most players of D&D come from cultures that like to think of themselves as meritocracies. We like to think that positions of authority are granted to those who display the greatest capability to lead--and if they are not, then an injustice is being done.

We also eventually come to know better.

And, most D&D characters are from a medieval society, so, oh well.

So when a player shows up with a character concept whose entire heart is "I have a marvelous capacity to lead, better than anyone else in the party, and it doesn't even come from magic but just from my own natural qualities," the obvious corollary is "Therefore, I deserve to be placed in a position of leadership, and if I'm not, then an injustice is being committed."

Most PC classes wield remarkable magical powers, any of them could claim that as marking them for greatness. "Check me out as a Channel Divinity and even Raise the Dead, clearly the Gods have chosen me to be your leader!" And, of course, simply picking a Noble background could give you legitimate - within that culture - authority.

So, no, even if that extreme hypothetical, which is at odds with the explanation of both the class and the 'leader' role from the Warlord's PH1 appearance, you're not pointing out a problem unique to the class, but a problem you have with a sort of character concept that can already be pulled in a variety of ways in 5e, if one were so inclined.

But what do you say if I want to be able to decide for myself whether what another character says is something my PC would find inspiring?

You can't hear what that other /character/ is saying or how he's saying it, because the interaction isn't really happening. You have some game mechanics, and a player and/or DM description to go off.

I hope it's more than "Just decline the buff," because while that's a possible solution, it doesn't strike me as an ideal one.

It's a complete solution, and arguably more flexible/accommodating than analogous mechanics for a variety of existing abilities in that regard.
What would make it 'ideal?' Someone tries to help you, you can accept that help or decline it. What's missing?

would it be somehow against the concept to play a Warlord like Nick Fury

The mechanics could cover quite a range of concepts, so it might be contrary to one concept, but well within another. Maybe he just didn't like the 'manipulative' version of Nick Fury, for that matter.

Which means that I struggle to see how the opposition to the class is one to the pieces that make it up rather than being a direct opposition to the class on grounds I can only see as incoherent.

Sometime the point of opposition, is opposition, itself.

Can you go into more detail about the "comic relief inspiring warlord"? This is the first I've heard of that concept. Would this be like, say, Jar Jar Binks accidentally killing battle droids in The Phantom Menace? (Note, I say this as someone who actually likes the Star Wars prequels, so that comparison is not intended as a slur.)

Another thing we can agree to disagree about. But, given that PoV, sure, that could be a way you could imagine, say 'lead by example' sorts of mechanics. Or, for that matter tactical ones, especially the reactive sorts, your bumbling PC inadvertently distracts enemies, leads them out of position by being a seemingly easy, low-risk target, and thus sets them up for his allies. Oddball, but too much of a stretch, nor entirely contrary to genre.

 

[mellored]

Frankly this is not the kind of D&D I play. Nor anyone I know. I can safely say the devs, either (since I've read of their games exploits, watched them play in videos, etc.). But to each their own. If this is the kind of D&D you play, more power to you. I'm just not sure you should be advocating for system features when you are using the system so aberrantly.

then go ahead and tell me. Why can a cleric say a few words and wave his symbol to get an extraordinary effect, but a devoted fighter can't?

 

[GreenTengu]

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.

Guess what? Your real life friends and family have been lying to you about various things since the day you were born. Some of those lies you realize are lies and accept, others you likely don't realize were lies until this day.
The game world should be no different. Just because you have OOC knowledge that the party member isn't being honest with you does not mean your 6 Wisdom Barbarian gets to automatically get to pass all sense motive checks all the time against all PCs. That is rather twinkish behavior.

Honestly, if they are "friend or ally" and you are dense enough for you to expect everything they say, they should never have to roll any bluff check in the first place because you are never trying to discern whether what they say is the truth and just accepting it all at face value.

But-- let's take another situation. Let's say that the party is meeting with the friendly king of the region and this king is vital for the future of the campaign. But being the kind of person who uses OOC knowledge liberally in-game, demonstrated by your aversion to other PCs lying to your character, you figure the king has very few hit points but is worth a lot of XP. So you decide to derail the entire campaign to run across the room and stab the king in the face for your big XP payday.

Well, the other PCs, should they be able to beat your initiative, should have the option of using both a Strength check to stop you using the grapple rules or a Charisma check to stop you using the social rules. Both should be similarly difficult to overcome.

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.

You are complaining about mechanics that already exist in the game. It is the most core component of the Bard, ingrained in a few abilities the Paladin picks up and a key component of many of the Battlemaster Fighter maneuvers. In fact, technically all friendly Cleric spells also work that way, most importantly the Bless spell.

You want to ignore the cheers or the tactical advice or the tempo of the battle that your team's tactical officer/coordinator is giving out? You are the kind of soldier who shuts off his com unit and ignores the rest of his squad during battle? Well- you have that option.

If you are a self-involved arse who doesn't listen to anyone, you are always able to refuse to take the bonus. You do have the option of refusing to be healed, of not bothering to add that extra die to one of your attack or skill rolls before the time is up or deciding that despite the ability making you immune to fear, that you are going to intentionally fail that roll just to spite the other PC.

Yes, you are going to suffer more and succeed less than those who do not do these things, but by all means you can choose to not to accept friendly actions if that's what you want to do. Eventually they will just stop wasting their buff opportunities on you and you can pretend to be your own little wretched island that can only have negative interactions with others.

You have the option to do all these things. Sure, if a Warlord has debuff abilities, you can't really refuse those ones-- but that is just how things go, you cannot ignore hostile actions by "disbelieving" them just because they use one attribute rather than another.