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: 6727103" data-attributes="member: 996">So it's an academic game-design philosophy issue.  That I really can say I 'get' without irony.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  But, while it's a valid concern, it's not a meaningful objection to the class existing, there are already many mechanics like that.  5e gives the DM tools to overrule those mechanics when he feels it's worth it, and there are also matters of degree.  An intimidate check can be used to set a common baseline for how intimidating an NPC is, without it necessarily dictating player reactions, for instance.  Though a DM might consider RPing being 'realistically' (in his view) intimidated to be 'good RP' and give you (no irony intended) Inspiration.  A DM might also rule that you must abide by the results of a check.  The 5e DM prettymuch always has the ball in his court.And, the game has at times explicitly given you that option (I can't recall, atm, if 5e is one of them, it's probably a DM call).  Thing is, the Warlord's abilities in 4e were generally phrased in such a way that the player of the ally was never forced to surrender his agency.  Inspiring Word allowed an ally to spend a surge.  He could decide he had better things to do with that surge later, and not spend it.  Commander's Strike (after probably the biggest internet nerdstorm among 4e fans over rather it had an implied range or not, and a round or two of errata) required a free action from the target, making it voluntary (among clearing up a number of other problems, like being able to use it on a stunned enemy!).  A 5e Warlord would presumably also be voluntary - even if they weren't you could opt out of being an ally, passive-aggressive as that might seem.  So the Warlord says/does something to inspire you, and you still have the agency to decide whether he did or not.  There's certainly a 'carrot' to respecting his character concept and deciding to be inspired, but there's no stick.  The DM could even grant you Inspiration for rejecting it, if it's in keeping with your character's personality traits, diSo it's a valid concern, but it's not a serious objection.  Such mechanics already exist and can be handled.  The Warlord could certainly be designed to avoid them being arbitrary so player agency of allies is preserved, and I would readily agree that would be the better design, and give strong feedback to any playtest ability that forced an action or benefit modeling a change in state of mind, rather than granting one at the option of the subject.But I hope you'll consider, going forward, voicing this concern as a concern, not an objection, and addressing it as a way of making the Warlord a better, more playable class.</blockquote>

Verification