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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6835971" data-attributes="member: 87792">That depends on how those social skills are written. The D&D ones are far too clunky. I do however allow social skills like Apocalypse World's go aggro which influence without hard-coding what the response is. ("Bring it on" is always a legitimate response to go aggro).Should one PC trying to intimidate another influence how they behave? Categorically YES.  (Do the rules of D&D represent this well? No - all the D&D social skills suck). How they decide to respond should be up to them.Indeed. Most of us enjoy playing a role. Most of us however don't want that role to be inhuman, uninfluenced by those around us.And if you do, you can turn down the buffs. Which would be an interesting approach to take. But you point blank refuse to follow the logic of your character through in any way where it might possibly be a drawback so far as I can tell.The comic relief inspiring warlord shouldn't get much respect. But they can inspire people - while screwing up and hopefully getting laughed at.And to put things simply the Battlemaster is further from the Warlord than the Eldritch Knight is from the wizard. The problem with citing the Battlemaster and the Bard is that it means that if you accept both almost all the conceptual work has been done that people would want to argue.  In order to be consistent about an opposition to warlords you'd need to take out the Bard and the Battlemaster and Bardic Inspiration. The bridge has been crossed just as allowing eldritch knights and arcane tricksters would allow Vancian magic into a game while leaving out the traditional Wizard. 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.</blockquote>

Verification