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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7377922" data-attributes="member: 996">...to leave the effect optional at the player level.  For instance a phrasing like '...the ally may spend a HD, and receive additional hps equal to your CHA mod...' leaves it entirely up to you how your character feels about it. That actually was how Warlord exploits tended to be phrased, healing or otherwise.  That's not just telling another player how his character feels, it's telling him who he is.  And, I don't see how you could make it voluntary so easily ... Intimidation, obviously, but using social skills on other PCs is often frowned upon, you're supposed to be allies, and intra-party conflict can be bad for the table dynamic. There already has been a huge compromise: the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH.  Any Warlord class is going to be opt-in optional, so anyone disliking the idea has been met more than half-way.  From the announcement of Next, the idea has been to support more play styles.  That was in response to 'playstyle' becoming a rallying cry against 4e in the edition war.  As you suspect, it's never really been entirely about wanting a playstyle to be supported in the sense that the game allows those who wish it to play in that style, rather it was about the affirmation of a traditional style as correct(really D&D), or the over-rewarding of another 'style' (system mastery).That was also some of the same underlying stuff as DM vs Player 'Empowerment' - the classic game heavily empowered DMs, the prior WotC eds, players.  5e Empowers DMs, and the playstyle supported by 5e D&D at a given table will be, for all practical purposes, chosen by the DM.</blockquote>

Verification