Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[mellored]

Though now i want to play a war cleric who wants to be a fighter, who doesn't respect any god, but his god keeps taking away his agency by inspiring him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is possibly relevant that I didn't start with D&D. The group I first started playing with about ten years ago prefers classless point-buy systems such as GURPS.

GURPS tends towards the - I hate to say simulationist, because I don't much care for GNS - mechanistic, maybe, end of the spectrum. 'Reality checks' and such. I don't recall it having an issue with, for instance, PCs using skills on eachother. But I haven't been roped into playing it since the late 80s.

I didn't get to play/run much D&D until I acquired a second group online, about two and a half years ago.

So that would have been the 'Next' playtest? PF?

 

[jayoungr]

GURPS tends towards the - I hate to say simulationist, because I don't much care for GNS - mechanistic, maybe, end of the spectrum. 'Reality checks' and such.

True, although we played a lot of other classless systems as well; BESM was the game of choice for a while, for example. We've tried out a fair number of narrative games too, Fiasco and the like, as well as very mechanical "small" games like Battle Dragons. We've been all over the map since I joined them, really, except D&D.

So that would have been the 'Next' playtest? PF?

One campaign in D&D 3.5, which was their game of choice at the time. They never played 4E, more due to inertia and lack of desire to invest the money than dislike of the system itself. When 5E came out, I said I'd run "Lost Mine of Phandelver" if they wanted to try it out; they liked it, so we've stuck with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmmm... so one difference is that you've been playing D&D mainly on-line, vs others in person? Or are they both on-line groups?

 

[jayoungr]

Hmmm... so one difference is that you've been playing D&D mainly on-line, vs others in person? Or are they both on-line groups?

Well--group #1 is always face to face, and they play D&D (5E) occasionally. Group #2 plays D&D exclusively, usually online, but we get together in person a few times a year and spend a whole weekend around the table. It's fair to say that I've probably logged more actual hours playing D&D online, but I feel like I have a good feel for how it works in person.

 

[pemerton]

There is no apriori reason why, in the fiction, those beloved of the war god should not be the greatest warriors. That is how it looks in the Iliad, for instance.

As [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] has posted, the reason why, in D&D, a cleric can't also fight as well as a fighter (eg all the extra attacks, fighting style etc) is a reason of balance. Not integrity of the fiction.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Fighting style.

You seem to have a low bar (or perhaps too specific a bar?) for what you consider an "expert warrior".

That's like saying a wizard can be an expert fighter if he's inspired by a bard.

Really? So now you need two PCs pooling resources as justification? Besides, bardic inspiration wouldn't really help the wizard all that much. A bonus to a single attack roll, using a sub-par weapon, to deal middling damage even if successful? Meh.

So.. you answer is there is no answer?

I recall providing an answer. You just didn't like it.

So you'd be fine with me bringing a fighter 20/cleric 20 to your game?

Are we really changing the topic to 40th level play? But okay, it really wouldn't matter anyway. I'm confident I would still make the game fun for everyone. Even you.

1d8+3+2 (dualist) > 1d8+3
= 23.5% more damage.

First, applause for the clever use of statistical math to make the modest increase look bigger than it really is (and more impactful than it would prove at the table, as well). But why is the cleric required to use a weapon chosen specifically because the fighter gains a benefit from it? Regardless, and more importantly, you forgot that that first level war cleric can occasionally make two attacks in a round? The first level fighter only ever gets one. That would impact your math rather significantly. And makes the fighter look pretty lame by comparison. Because that's something he can't do. Not even once a day (the minimum number of times the cleric can do it).

12 HP + 6.5 second wind > 10 HP.
= 85% more survivable.

Okay. But the cleric actually has 10 HP + 2d8+4 (or maybe +6). So they are really pretty close.

So yea, fighter is defiantly a better warrior.

Another strawman. I never said he was not. I contested your unsupportable claim that a war cleric is not an expert warrior.

I'm starting to see the issue. You appear to have a very binary opinion of classes (see current example). There is only ever first place, and all the rest are in last place. No wonder you are seeking some kind of kitchen sink warlord class. It needs to be the best because all the current options, no matter how playable, are "basic" to this mythical warlord's "expert" (to use your own categorizational standards).

I just don't think you are going to ever see that. Officially at least.

Speaking of which, how is your homebrew warlord coming along?

 

[jayoungr]

There is no apriori reason why, in the fiction, those beloved of the war god should not be the greatest warriors. That is how it looks in the Iliad, for instance.

*scratches head* Who's to say the war god doesn't bestow different types of gifts to different followers? Some become awesome fighters and others get divine magic. Seems simple enough to me.

 

[pemerton]

*scratches head* Who's to say the war god doesn't bestow different types of gifts to different followers? Some become awesome fighters and others get divine magic. Seems simple enough to me.

Sure, you can retrofit an in-fiction rationale over the mechanical system. But the mechanical system was invented first, for obvious balance reasons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] has posted, the reason why, in D&D, a cleric can't also fight as well as a fighter (eg all the extra attacks, fighting style etc) is a reason of balance. Not integrity of the fiction.

Classic feel, fast combat, class differentiation, taking the best from prior editions, support for varied character concepts, niche protection, appealing to fans of prior editions, DM Empowerment, support for varied styles, bounded accuracy, and, at the risk of repeating myself, tradition - and, quite possibly 'integrity of the fiction,' too - might all be factors that could have gone into why one class got more of one goodie than another in 5e.
Though I suppose 'balance' might also be in there, somewhere.

Sure, you can retrofit an in-fiction rationale over the mechanical system. But the mechanical system was invented first, for obvious balance reasons.

Maybe. Who knows in what order Gygax & Arneson came up with ideas between Chainmail and D&D?