D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

[Guest 6801328]

And accepting that a fellow PC might be a decent guy worth listening to in a tight spot is a pretty darn small amount of agency to cede. I mean, does mastermind rogue cause that same amount of agita when he uses the help action to give you advantage? "Gosh darn it, I don't accept your PC is actually smart enough to help me in combat!"

There's further evidence you don't understand.

Go read the fluff for "Master of Tactics" and show me where it implies anything at all about how the target PC feels about the rogue. The only fluff relates to the Rogue him/herself, not his/her relationship with the other PC. Which means it can easily be narrated as interfering with the monster. Or just about any other way, depending on how the other player wants to participate.

The reality is that in practice, I would be totally happy to let the Rogue give me expert guidance, or whatever. I just don't want that interaction built into a particular class.

 

[Aldarc]

No, because the magic makes me invisible. It does not specify feelings I must hold regarding the Wizard, or the emotional reaction I have to his casting.

As it so happens, the Warlord's words make you inspired; it does not specify feelings you must hold regarding the Warlord or the emotional reaction you have to their words or actions. (Also I will fully note here how you ignored the other examples.)

It's increasingly clear to me, based on your responses, that you (plural) don't understand what I'm saying, although you clearly think you do. And I'm not sure whether that's because I'm doing a particularly bad of explaining it, or whether it's because to acknowledge the argument would undermine a deeply held conviction. But either way it doesn't seem to be improving.

While you are gone, it's worth reflecting whether these accusations don't equally apply to your own opposing position regarding the warlord.

See above. It's not /just/ hypothetical with the warlord, it's already an issue with Inspiring Leader, social skills, backgrounds, saving throws, and even something as unalterably core as having a CHA score, at all.

That's why some DMs rule that CHA skills can't be used 'against' other players.

It's not clear to me what you are arguing here. Would you mind elucidating your thoughts a bit more?

Traditionally, the D&D community gives total dispensation of all possible complaints about a mechanic, so long as it's modeling magic. Because magic.

Which is certainly a hypocritical cop-out answer. We may as well say that it's equally okay for the Warlord too "because heroic fantasy."

Grey area. Has the jury ever delivered a verdict on whether Bardic Inspiration is magical?

It's not magical according to Jeremy Crawford at least, though a DM may rule otherwise, which is an option that has always been the case. I suppose this means that the bard now goes into Elfcrusher's rage-quit pile of classes. Though this also runs both ways, so I don't see why someone like Elfcrusher couldn't just rule that the Warlord's abilities are a subtle magic or have that as their personal head canon if they were playing alongside a warlord PC.

No, because it didn't affect /your character's internal life/ in any way.

However, this would be similar to many, if not most, warlord abilities that provide tactical advantages for allies. This example is less about how they feel but about their agency in regards to tactical advantages that their allies may intentionally provide other allies.

The concern should be more than adequately addressed so long as the player can decline a benefit if he deems his character is 'not feel'n it.'

Which seems like an extreme edge case scenario for maybe all but a trifling handful of players.

But for internet anonymity, he'd've watched it vanish over the horizon years ago. I suspect he's a very different fellow in person, and sincerely doesn't want to seem like a jerk at the table.

I would hope that most nice, reasonable adults would have grown out of rage-quitting playing at a table only because someone is playing a class that offends their roleplaying eccentricities. If someone is constantly having to wrestle with the possibility that they may be that "jerk at the table" in such a scenario, then I think that the person in question should earnestly reflect on why that's the case and how they could stop. I don't think that doubling-down on the jerk-like behavior and accusing everyone else of being wrong is a feasible solution.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, I'm bored. I'll respond.

As it so happens, the Warlord's words make you inspired; it does not specify feelings you must hold regarding the Warlord or the emotional reaction you have to their words or actions.

If "inspired" is not a feeling or emotion, it's...what? A virus?

(Also I will fully note here how you ignored the other examples.)

My response applied equally to all of them. Except maybe Bard. I don't love that Bard ability. Or Inspiring Leader. Which I've mentioned many times.

While you are gone, it's worth reflecting whether these accusations don't equally apply to your own opposing position regarding the warlord.

Mmmm. Good idea. I'll do just that.

(...jeopardy theme song...)

I'm back. Nope, they don't.

It's not magical according to Jeremy Crawford at least, though a DM may rule otherwise, which is an option that has always been the case. I suppose this means that the bard now goes into Elfcrusher's rage-quit pile of classes. Though this also runs both ways, so I don't see why someone like Elfcrusher couldn't just rule that the Warlord's abilities are a subtle magic or have that as their personal head canon if they were playing alongside a warlord PC.

Gosh, I think I forgot in which post I said I'd stomp away from a table in anger if the Warlord became official. Could you help me and provide a link?

I would hope that most nice, reasonable adults would have grown out of rage-quitting playing at a table only because someone is playing a class that offends their roleplaying eccentricities. If someone is constantly having to wrestle with the possibility that they may be that "jerk at the table" in such a scenario, then I think that the person in question should earnestly reflect on why that's the case and how they could stop. I don't think that doubling-down on the jerk-like behavior and accusing everyone else of being wrong is a feasible solution.

Wow, I'm really glad that you put all that into the "hypothetical 3rd person singular" form, because otherwise I might have though that entire insulting paragraph were directed at me.

Wait...I guess it couldn't have been me. I'm only accusing 3 or 4 people in this thread of not understanding my argument. The person you are talking about is "accusing everyone else of being wrong." Wow. What a jerkwad that guy is.

 

[Nevvur]

In my system, which draws heavily on 4e's class and role structure, I use the terms Defender, Striker, Augmentor, Controller. Just thought I'd throw another term into the wordstew which is this latest warlord conversation.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue with your rock band analogy. Would you mind rephrasing it in a more straightforward manner?

Hard to put it any more straightforward than I already did, but how's this:

The currently-named 'leader' role in a party is similar to that of the bass player in a band: the support person that lays down the foundation for everyone else to build on, but whose absence would immediately lessen the overall effect (in a band) or effectiveness (in a party).

The currently named 'defender' role in a party is similar to that of the lead vocalist in a band: the out-front person who draws the most attention (usually) and is the most visible and-or obvious. The group's 'leader', if you will, as seen from the outside; even if the internal dynamics are in fact quite different.

Hence, I say it makes sense to switch these two names to better indicate their function within the party.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the principle you're talking about is more specific to the classic game, and, especially to 5e, and is derived from Player Agency concerns. When the DM holds virtually all agency over the game, and Player Agency is tightly circumscribed to making decisions for his own character, /any/ external agency that intrudes on that, even indirectly, by offering an inducement, can be concerning.

See above. It's not /just/ hypothetical with the warlord, it's already an issue with Inspiring Leader, social skills,

Yes, which is a part of why these also have problems.

backgrounds, saving throws, and even something as unalterably core as having a CHA score, at all.

I don't see how backgrounds matter here; they're chosen by the player for the character and thus the player retains agency throughout that process. Saving throws come under "the game does bad things to your character sometimes" - fact of life.

That's why some DMs rule that CHA skills can't be used 'against' other players.

Or their characters.

But no, this would have to be solved by at-the-table roleplay. That's what players are for.

 

[Lanefan]

In my system, which draws heavily on 4e's class and role structure, I use the terms Defender, Striker, Augmentor, Controller. Just thought I'd throw another term into the wordstew which is this latest warlord conversation.

Augmentor - that's actually not bad at all.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

In my system, which draws heavily on 4e's class and role structure, I use the terms Defender, Striker, Augmentor, Controller. Just thought I'd throw another term into the wordstew which is this latest warlord conversation.

Not bad. I personally stole from the Roles from FFXIII when explaining the 4ed roles to my table because I found the name more evocative:

Striker -> Commando (single target DPR) or Ravager (AoE Blaster)
Defender -> Sentinel
Controller -> Saboteur
Leader -> Synergist

 

[Aldarc]

If "inspired" is not a feeling or emotion, it's...what? A virus?

I will repeat myself and maybe you will bother reading this time: "[the Warlord's words do] not specify feelings you must hold regarding the Warlord or the emotional reaction you have to their words or actions". This is paramount to saying that you react to what the Warlord does, but their abilities do not dictate your particular emotions or how you feel. If someone inspires you, regardless of the reasons why or how or even who they are in relation to you, they are not dictating what you feel to you or how you feel about them.

I'm back. Nope, they don't.

I'm impressed that my call for serious introspection of your arguments about this matter only required a little less than 50 minutes between my post and your response.

Wow. What a jerkwad that guy is.

That seems like an accurate assessment of someone who regularly trolls any thread or mention of the warlord. As Tony Vargas mentions, he may not like psionics, but at least he's not a jerk about it. The same is true for many people in these forums. They can oppose things without being regular jerks about it. But you? We don't even have someone playing a warlord on the table, and you're already behaving like "that jerk at the table." I'm not sure why I should even be sympathetic to your argument when you draw such unreasonably hard lines in the sand while acting in the manner that you do.

Hard to put it any more straightforward than I already did, but how's this:

Hence, I say it makes sense to switch these two names to better indicate their function within the party.

I get what you are saying, but I don't necessarily think that the analogy is entirely apt, particularly in the context of 4e roles. If the "leader" is the positive rebranding of "walking band-aid," I'm fairly certain that "defender" was meant to be the positive rebranding of "meat shield." Part of the active role of playing a defender was to defend their allies by drawing attention to them and punishing enemies who didn't through the use of your abilities that reinforced that role, hence the name.

 

[Garthanos]

Pointing out that yes a lot of people still really want a Warlord sure brings out the e-war crew that had it removed from the game.