Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ChrisCarlson" data-source="post: 6826879" data-attributes="member: 6801216">Check out the 5e PHB. Its in there.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...And you want to build a whole class around that concept. Seems wrought with peril.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. There are no support classes. And all classes benefit from teamwork. Teamwork that exists, and has always existed, before warlords were ever a thing.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 disagree.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?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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />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?</blockquote>

Verification