Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6733764" data-attributes="member: 59506">Support is a part of its archetypal role.  It's also very explicitly labeled a Leader.Leadership is an explicit part of the concept, and one we've been working on modeling in the Warlording the Fighter thread with a very real mechanical effect.Sorry if that bothers you...<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=":(" />Why is that?  Did understanding of and focused training in Leadership not exist until modern times?  Does real-life not inform the game?I didn't realize that the concept of a Soldier originated in and was defined by the fantasy genre...I didn't say otherwise.  You however implied that the Soldier background automatically meant Sergeant or General.  ("Congratulations, you are now 'an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant.'") As I said, that is Wrong.You are correct that rank and authority are explicit in the background; but what rank you get is not.  Low rank is rank also, and Authority is not the same thing as Leadership.  Conflating authority with leadership is a common mistake; a mistake that leads many to not want a Warlord class, falsely believing it would be a character predicated upon telling everybody else what to do.Simply gaining an understanding of what Leadership is can alleviate that error in perception.So, as I said before, there is no narrative or mechanical expression of Leadership in the Soldier background.A 1st Level character being a Sergeant or General, or anything other than Basic Soldier/Private, would be an inconsistent narrative.  There's nothing in the rules saying one can't, but the rules also don't protect one from running a game in a silly, inconsistent manner.Imagine how silly The Empire Strikes Back would have been if Luke and Han were Generals instead of Captains a mere three years after the Battle of Yavin.The chart doesn't list sergeant, and officer is not a rank.And again, I didn't say a DM couldn't allow you to be a Sergeant or General at 1st level.  The game's rules do not protect anyone from creating a silly or inconsistent play environment.Also, ask any 2nd Lieutenant how much authority they actually have.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  Most would tell you they're the OIC of Paperwork and Unit Functions (Thanksgiving/Christmas party, Ceremonies, Open Houses, VIP visits, etc...)You have my sincere sympathies.Yeah, I'm not buying this argument any more.If someone has a problem with inspirational recovery at this point, they're never going to be a fan of the Warlord.  Period.  Simple immutable fact.The Warlord class is for those who do want a Warlord, not for those that don't.  Therefore, inability to understand or accept inspirational recovery is not pertinent to the discussion of how to present a Warlord.  I'll certainly discuss it with these people, if they're interested in discussion, and do so in an attempt to change their minds, but it will not inform for me the direction of the class design.  Frankly, being bothered by inspirational recovery because of choosing to hold a view of it as being imposed upon their characters is a specious argument.  It's no more imposed on a character than magical healing by a Cleric is.  If one has a problem with that aspect of Clerics, then they have a valid argument.  If they don't, then no.And inspirational recovery does not carry martial baggage, that is unless you consider the Bard a martial class... (excepting 4E...)No.  Just No.If you don't understand why, I suggest you ask a moderator.</blockquote>

Verification