Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[ChrisCarlson]

Then don't advocate banning the warlord...

I'm not. I'm willing to accept all the warlords already found throughout 5e. So, it would seem, do the vast majority of 5e players. You should join us. It's much more fun playing 5e than complaining about it for not being something it was never intended to be.

...because Mike was playing one and demanding to be in control of everyone.

That's a mischaracterization of the argument. Mike isn't "choosing" to play a warlord in such a way as to alter his allies attitudes and feelings. The warlord you are advocating for has all that baked in. I suppose he could gimp himself by playing a warlord who never uses any of his abilities, making efforts not to rob his fellow player' agency, but what's the point in that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

In what sense are Persuasion and Intimidation negative? Wouldn't that depend on what they're being used for?

They might be 'for your own good,' in theory, but they don't actually offer any sort of mechanical benefit or 'carrot' for going along with them (a DM might offer inspiration of it was in-character for a certain use of Persuasion or Intimidation to affect your PC for some reason, I suppose).

To be clear, when you say they don't offer "any sort of benefit," you mean any sort of mechanical benefit, right?

We are talking about a mechanic - a persuasion or intimidate check - yes. You might try to persuade or intimidate a character into taking a course of action that's "for his own good" but against his nature, for instance. You're essentially offering an IC excuse for the player to take what he probably knows is the better course of action, an 'out' from RPing to the point of stupid, I suppose. You could consider that a non-mechanical 'benefit' - or not, depending on how you felt about it.

Again, you mean a mechanical positive, right?

Certainly mechanical and probably narrative. Intimidation is pretty clearly negative in concept as you're threatening, persuasion can be (you can appeal to fear, greed, etc as well as more positive emotions or ends), while inspiration is a positive thing by it's very nature, at least for the one being inspired (though, you can re-skin or RP things how you like: an Orc Warlord might 'inspire' his troops by threatening to torture them).

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?

It's an area that can be touchy for some players, but it's far from the only one. There are many potential sources of friction among players, and some classes, like the Paladin (or any 'religious' class) or Thief or Warlock, or any caster, really, can be at the center of it. It's not a great reason to exclude classes, and if you did, you wouldn't have many left. Fighter(Champion), prettymuch'd be it.

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

A little less fair than it is to say that there is social pressure on a player to proffer needed mechanical benefits to the other PCs, but, yes, certainly. It's a cooperative game. The pressure on a Cleric to heal allies (even if they're ungrateful heathens) is greater than the pressure on the allies to accept being healed (even if they despise the Cleric or his deity for some reason). Doesn't mean there shouldn't be Clerics or support classes in general. Parties need support contributions to succeed, so there need to be classes that can make adequate contributions in those areas. Ideally, they should also do other things. A War Cleric or Valor Bard can handle some melee, as the Warlord could, for instance, and with the extreme flexibility of neo-Vancian casting, all the existing support classes can easily make alternate contributions very effectively, as well. The 5e martial options need to be able to move beyond the current tanky-DPR and DPR/exploration-skill-monkey contributions, and the Warlord is a prime candidate to get that ball rolling with a non-caster alternative to the existing support classes. Heck, with 5e's expanse of design space, it should have some modicum of their flexibility, as well - something that'd be very appropriate to a class that includes tactics in its bailiwick, as tactics have to be adaptable...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be Clerics or support classes in general.

There it is again. Cleric isn't a "support class". Because there are no "support classes".

 

[mellored]

I'm not. I'm willing to accept all the warlords already found throughout 5e. So, it would seem, do the vast majority of 5e players. You should join us. It's much more fun playing 5e than complaining about it for not being something it was never intended to be.

I do enjoy the 5e warlord features.

In fact, i enjoy them so much, i want to be able to play a full time warlord, instead of just 1/3 of the time.

That's a mischaracterization of the argument. Mike isn't "choosing" to play a warlord in such a way as to alter his allies attitudes and feelings. The warlord you are advocating for has all that baked in. I suppose he could gimp himself by playing a warlord who never uses any of his abilities, making efforts not to rob his fellow player' agency, but what's the point in that?

A warlord cannot rob any of his fellow player's agency. There is no class feature that forces you to look upto him, respect him, obey him, or let him fill you with bravery. Warlords do not cast charm person.

It's your choice weather to accept the warlord's inspiration or not. Just simply say no.

And yes, a warlord player who can't work with his team is going to suck. It's entirely appropriate for a class who's all about teamwork to suck when there's no teamwork. It's a roleplaying game after all.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I do enjoy the 5e warlord features.

I find this hard to believe.

In fact, i enjoy them so much, i want to be able to play a full time warlord, instead of just 1/3 of the time.

This is the part where you keep missing the fact that you are asking for more than 5e ever intended. At least as far as the devs (you know, the ones who wrote the system) are concerned.

A warlord cannot rob any of his fellow player's agency. There is no class feature that forces you to look upto him, respect him, obey him, or let him fill you with bravery.

You (and others) have been challenged repeatedly to present a set of inspirational warlord class features that avoid such things. It could not be more telling that we are still waiting.

It's your choice weather to accept the warlord's inspiration or not. Just simply say no.

Bingo. Are you starting to see it? You insist it's a "choice" to invalidate your friend's character choice. That Mike should just sit there and see all his beloved class features go to waste because the other PC's don't wish to be manipulated. And you think that's a valid "choice".

And yes, a warlord player who can't work with his team is going to suck. It's entirely appropriate for a class who's all about teamwork to suck when there's no teamwork.

This is a false dichotomy. You are implying there can be no teamwork without warlord mechanics. This is clearly not the case.

It's a roleplaying game after all.

So why ask for a class designed to tell other players how to play their role?

 

[mellored]

This is the part where you keep missing the fact that you are asking for more than 5e ever intended. At least as far as the devs (you know, the ones who wrote the system) are concerned.

I still havn't seen any evidence of that.

You (and others) have been challenged repeatedly to present a set of inspirational warlord class features that avoid such things. It could not be more telling that we are still waiting.

Warlords still do not cast charm person. No agency is removed.

Bingo. Are you starting to see it? You insist it's a "choice" to invalidate your friend's character choice. That Mike should just sit there and see all his beloved class features go to waste because the other PC's don't wish to be manipulated. And you think that's a valid "choice".

If your "friend" attempts to dominate your character, then yes, it's valid to tell him to stop.

This is a false dichotomy. You are implying there can be no teamwork without warlord mechanics. This is clearly not the case.

I didn't imply that. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Clerics, bards, and some sorcerer builds are all good support classes that depend on teamwork.
If a bard cast hynpotic pattern on 5 people, then a wizard cast fireball on 5 people and wakes them all up, his entire feature is also wasted. Or if he cast cloud of daggers, and then have the druid thorn whip the creature out of it.

So why ask for a class designed to tell other players how to play their role?

I'm not.
Giving someone an extra attack, extra movement, or some THP does not rob any agency away from that player.

Particularly when they can simply refuse it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I still havn't seen any evidence of that..

Check out the 5e PHB. Its in there.

Warlords still do not cast charm person. No agency is removed.

The only explanation for the above statement is that you clearly do not understand what "agency" means.

And again, if magic and mundane are exactly the same thing by your measure, then warlords do cast charm person. They inspire and lead their allies. Sounds like the allies like him. One could say they are charmed by his inspirational leadership skills...

If your "friend" attempts to dominate your character, then yes, it's valid to tell him to stop.

And you want to build a whole class around that concept. Seems wrought with peril.

I didn't imply that. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

From the parts of the conversation where you say its okay for a warlord to impose his personality to inspire, lead, and instruct his allies.

Clerics, bards, and some sorcerer builds are all good support classes that depend on teamwork.

There are no support classes. And all classes benefit from teamwork. Teamwork that exists, and has always existed, before warlords were ever a thing.

If a bard cast hynpotic pattern on 5 people, then a wizard cast fireball on 5 people and wakes them all up, his entire feature is also wasted. Or if he cast cloud of daggers, and then have the druid thorn whip the creature out of it.

So your justification for needing a warlord is that people can chose to play using poor teamwork or actively interfere with each others abilities? That's a strange reason for a class.

I'm not.

I disagree.

Giving someone an extra attack, extra movement, or some THP does not rob any agency away from that player.

You are drifting into boardgame land again. How is he giving them these things? What must they do to facilitate the acceptance of said benefits?

Particularly when they can simply refuse it.

Let me rephrase that so you can see what you are saying from another person's perspective:

"Particularly when they can invalidate their friend's choices and make them feel useless."

Mike: I spend my action granting Bill's fighter an attack.
Bill: I don't see how you can know more about fighting than me. That's silly. There's no way.
<next round>
Mike: I use my action this round to give inspirational healing on Jim's barbarian.
Jim: My barbarian is still miffed about that prank you pulled on him in camp last night. I don't think so.
<next round>
Mike: Gosh. This sucks. I feel like I'm a fifth wheel here. Fight is almost over and I've wasted every round doing nothing.

Yeah. You can just say no. That's an option. I see that now.

The real question is, who's the bigger jerk? Bill and Jim for invalidating their friend's choice of character by exercising their agency? Or Mike for putting them in that position in the first place by making a character designed to rob them of said agency?

 

[mellored]

"Particularly when they can invalidate their friend's choices and make them feel useless."

Mike: I spend my action granting Bill's fighter an attack.
Bill: I don't see how you can know more about fighting than me. That's silly. There's no way.
<next round>
Mike: I use my action this round to give inspirational healing on Jim's barbarian.
Jim: My barbarian is still miffed about that prank you pulled on him in camp last night. I don't think so.
<next round>
Mike: Gosh. This sucks. I feel like I'm a fifth wheel here. Fight is almost over and I've wasted every round doing nothing.

That's a social issue yes. But still has nothing to do with the warlord class.

Mike: I cast hypnotic pattern.
Bill: It's dishonorable to fight an incapacitated foe. I will wait until they awake.

Mike: I use my action to cast cure wounds on Jim's barbarian.
Jim: My barbarian hates your magic. I don't think so.

Mike: I sneak up on the sleeping dragon getting close enough to stab it.
Jen: My barbarian yells a loud roar as she challenges the dragon to a fight.

Mike: I grapple the enemy holding him down.
Sarah: I cast thunderwave, blasting the enemy away.

Mike: I'm going to drop a fireball on them.
Malinda: My monk shadow teleports into the middle of the group.

and i come up with the same conflicts for every class in the game. heck, you don't need a class.

Mike: I want to go north.
Bill: I want to go south.
Jim: I want to go east.
Jen: I want to go down to the underdark.
Malinda: I want to stay here.

Which one is removing agency from the other?

The real question is, who's the bigger jerk?

The real question is why can't you cooperate?
Maybe D&D isn't the right game for you.

I suggest paranoia. Where the goal is to get the other players killed, by traps, faulty weapons, or framed for one of the many silly crimes (they'll come back as clones).

 

[jayoungr]

Can I please just say that this thread has nothing to do with "banning the warlord"?

It's only about the implications and potential difficulties of one mechanic: PC-on-PC inspiration. Which exists in things like the Inspiring Leader feat as well.

Thank you.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That's a social issue yes. But still has nothing to do with the warlord class.

It's a warlord issue because what you want in a warlord necessarily creates this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont situation.

Mike: I cast hypnotic pattern.
Bill: It's dishonorable to fight an incapacitated foe. I will wait until they awake.

...Mike then goes over and slits the orcs' throats himself.

Mike: I use my action to cast cure wounds on Jim's barbarian.
Jim: My barbarian hates your magic. I don't think so.

Not how healing magic works. You sure that's an example you want to use?

Mike: I sneak up on the sleeping dragon getting close enough to stab it.
Jen: My barbarian yells a loud roar as she challenges the dragon to a fight.

More bad faith examples to justify bad class design? Why?

Mike: I grapple the enemy holding him down.
Sarah: I cast thunderwave, blasting the enemy away.

The enemy gets a save first. Not that you should let the rules get in the way of a good rant.

Mike: I'm going to drop a fireball on them.
Malinda: My monk shadow teleports into the middle of the group.

So Malinda had declared her readied action to teleport if Mike cast fireball? How very odd.

and i come up with the same conflicts for every class in the game. heck, you don't need a class.

But guess what? Not one of your flimsy examples used a class mechanic designed specifically around informing any of the other player's options. Unlike your warlord. That's the thing. Your warlord is built around setting up these terrible play scenario examples where people are forced to choose between agency and their friend's enjoyment. Your class does that for a living. That's bad design. Full stop.

Mike: I want to go north.
Bill: I want to go south.
Jim: I want to go east.
Jen: I want to go down to the underdark.
Malinda: I want to stay here.

Which class features are they using to do this?

Which one is removing agency from the other?

More evidence of your lack of understanding of "agency". That's not what it means at all. That you consider a group's roleplaying, of disagreeing on which way to go, to be agency robbing, points once more to you being better served playing boardgames.

The real question is why can't you cooperate?

Define "cooperate".

Maybe D&D isn't the right game for you.

That's rather open ended. Which edition? 5e fits me perfectly. Are you suggesting I'm less well suited for your 4e? As much as I enjoyed 4e for what it was, I would certainly agree it is less a good fit that my beloved 5e. And since I've been plying D&D longer than you, and with more people over the years than you, perhaps I know better? Just a theory.

I suggest paranoia. Where the goal is to get the other players killed, by traps, faulty weapons, or framed for one of the many silly crimes (they'll come back as clones).

Having played Paranoia many times since the late '80s, I agree its quite fun. Not sure how any of wht you said is relevant to your need to play a character designed around forcing the other players to respect and look up to you in order to receive your good graces and handed-down bennies...

And since we are making suggestions: For you, perhaps Candyland would be a better fit? No pesky decisions to make and no annoying rolepaying to get in the way.