Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[mellored]

You really do need to read through the 5e PHB. Statements like this reveal your lack of system knowledge.

Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target’s speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns.


So no, you cannot cast haste on a creature if they don't want you to.

There's plenty of other examples of "willing" as well.

Word of recall.
You and up to five willing creatures within 5 feet of you instantly teleport to a previously designated sanctuary.
Wind Walk
You and up to ten willing creatures you can see within range assume a gaseous form for the duration,
Water Walk
Up to ten willing creatures you can see within range gain this ability for the duration.
Water breathing
This spell grants up to ten willing creatures you can see within range the ability to breathe underwater until the spell ends.

Similar with the battlemaster.

That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack,
That creature can use its reaction to move up to half its speed

No must, but can.

There's also "friendly". Which while not explicitly optional, no one forces you to be friendly with the other PC.
choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature gains...

I feel compelled to once again direct you to the OP explaining the premise of this thread.

That a PC who uses controlling abilities against unwilling PC's is a social issue?

I agree with that.

And saying "magic" does not make it any better.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You are either missing the whole point of this thread, or moving the goalpost to prove some point irrelevant to the topic.

You can use attitude adjusting spells (and abilities and social skills) on a target when they are not willing. Please stay on topic.

Are you interested in getting back to the discussion at hand, or are you bound-and-determined to derail this thread to serve an agenda better served in the other thread here?

 

[mellored]

You can use attitude adjusting spells on a target when they are not willing. Please stay on topic.

Do you think it would be ok if enchanter Mike constantly cast charm person on Jim's character?
Or cast mass suggestion over the entire party every day?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No. For the exact same reason its not okay for Mike to passively-aggressively coerce everyone else at the table, into accepting his leadership and inspiration, because not doing so is to not let him play the character he wants to play.

Then there is, as you like to keep professing, no difference at all between magic and mundane effects. So now it would seem you are equally opposed to warlord abilities influencing other characters. After all, its no different than a caster using those spells on his allies...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But let me drag you back to topic, kicking and screaming if need be:

Do you allow players to use the application of their PC's social skill(s) to influence how another player's character thinks or feels?

 

[mellored]

No. For the exact same reason its not okay for Mike to passively-aggressively coerce everyone else at the table, into accepting his leadership and inspiration, because not doing so is to not let him play the character he wants to play.

Then we can agree on something!!

Do you allow players to use the application of their PC's social skill(s) to influence how another player's character thinks or feels?

Not without the other player's consent.

If you don't want to be intimidated by another PC. Your not.
If you don't want to be inspired by inspiring leader. Then your not.
If you don't want the charisma bonus from a paladin. Then you don't get it.
If you don't want a bard's to cast heroism and have you "imbued with bravery". Then she can't.
If you don't want a wizard to cast haste on you. She can't.

The same would applies to a warlord (and did in 4e). If you don't want to take the granted attack, then you don't. If you don't want to be inspired, then your not.

I would also houserule bless and cure wounds to require friendly/willing targets. Though it's never come up.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Your first response is contradictory to your second.

 

[jayoungr]

Do we all agree that there is social pressure on players not to use spells or skills that influence PCs' minds or feelings without the consent of the targeted PC's player?

Is it also fair to say that there is social pressure on a player to accept a proffered mechanical benefit to a PC?

 

[FrogReaver]

Do we all agree that there is social pressure on players not to use spells or skills that influence PCs' minds or feelings without the consent of the targeted PC's player?

Is it also fair to say that there is social pressure on a player to accept a proffered mechanical benefit to a PC?

That is my take for the most part. Though certain skills that do such thing are often given a free pass if the mechanical benefit is acceptable or if the source is an enemy.

A dragon can mechanically frighten players and no one bats an eye. That takes away player agency as well.



I think you are looking for a black and white line here where there is only shades of gray.

 

[jayoungr]

A dragon can mechanically frighten players and no one bats an eye. That takes away player agency as well.

I think you are looking for a black and white line here where there is only shades of gray.

Not really; that's why I put "PC-on-PC" in the thread title. For better or worse, having one side of the equation be an NPC changes how people look at it. Probably because the players have a different relationship with the GM/environment than they do with each other.