Tony Vargas
Legend
The implication of rank is here in 5e with both the Soldier (military rank) and the Noble (social rank) backgrounds. Level titles in AD&D implied rank, too.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll
- Thread starter El Mahdi
- Start date
Soldier is iffy, imo--you could just as easily have been a rank-and-file private. But point taken. (And isn't there an Officer background anyway? I don't have my books handy right now.)
Somehow the backgrounds feel like they have less effect on how a character interacts with the rest of the party, though. Maybe because the background ranks don't grant the character authority over the other PCs unless their players agree to it? (I.e., one character may have been a general in the army, but even if he's still on active duty he doesn't have the right to court-martial a random bard who might be from a completely different country.) But a Warlord isn't a Warlord unless he/she is affecting how the rest of the party operates.
IIRC those went up as your level did, though, so they were more earned than adopted from the start.
Tony Vargas
Legend
The soldier background grants a military rank as a perk, so it's essentially an Officer background. :shrug:
Of course, you could choose a lowly rank, but then, you could have chosen to build a 'lazy' Warlord who was just a stereotypical victim in constant need of rescue, so the option not to take the implied rank obviously has nothing to do with the imagined problem, either.
They are mostly fluff, but then, so is the implication of 'rank,' in any case.
Nope, that can't be it. Noble, for instance, could grant one PC legitimate authority (as their culture sees it) over others of less privileged birth, so long as they were in the right area. And, past implications of rank, like the names of classes or level titles carried nothing of the sort. Unless you actually built a stronghold and claimed territory, of course.
Nod. Still a stronger implication of rank - even if he's left the military, he at least /had/ authority at some point.
Sure, unlike 5e Backgrounds, which you start with.
Heck, if you wanted to play a Warlord who had an actual rank or some sort of innate authority, you'd want to take the Soldier or Noble background to establish it.
Last edited:
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Every post I see, I want it to be called captain more and more. There is no reason the character needs to be in charge. Although, making it a companion class, with a ppl as a companion/minion would be cool.
Not sure what that would look like--do you just refluff the extra actions from "You're so inspired by the Warlord that you're able to do more" to "You're so worried about the Warlord that you're able to do more"? If so, the Warlord still has the ability to say that the party focuses on him/her, which is a sort of control.
That's what I mean by "unless the players agree to it." If a player doesn't want his/her PC to be under the authority of the local noble family, all he/she has to do is make a character who doesn't come from the noble's jurisdiction. This is especially true if the campaign leaves the area that the noble's family rules. If the player makes a PC who is from the noble's territory, then the player is agreeing to the noble PC's authority, to whatever level that means in their campaign.
I don't think that typically bothers people who are bothered by the Warlord (though I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who disagrees). I'm trying to figure out a possible reason for that phenomenon.
And again, I think people who are bothered by the Warlord are typically not bothered by authority gained during play.
I would say the ability to inspire the party to extra-heroic deeds (or however you fluff it) does constitute innate authority; in fact, I'd say that's exactly what "innate authority" is, in the sense that it comes from within the Warlord's being and not from something outside, like a social or military structure. The question is how that interacts with rank, or whether it should. Also whether "authority from within" creates a feeling of rank within the group, and whether that's avoidable.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
We are talking about 'implied rank,' which is only fluff to begin with, yes.
On their land could very well be 'in their jurisdiction,' so if the adventure leads there, there's very little 'choice' involved. With a Soldier holding an old rank from the military, there's more choice. Another PC could have been part of the same military hierarchy or not. Unless they end up in the Soldier's home territory, drafted or under martial law when his rank is re-instated, there's nothing to enforce that rank. The degree of player choice is even greater with the Warlord, since any sense of 'rank' is at most implied by the Warlord's concept, the other PCs can choose whether they accept it, and, mechanically, whether they wish to accept whatever benefits the class provides it's allies with.
It's probably not worth it to try to read between the lines. It's easy to see a weak or invalid objection and conclude that the 'real reason' is something malicious or shameful, but there's no way of knowing. It's more polite to just accept the objection as sincere, even if it is clearly weak or invalid.
The Soldier and Noble backgrounds, however, represent authority not gained during play, yet are already in 5e (in basic, no less), and no objections were raised to them on that basis, either in the playtest nor upon release.
How is it authority? You get, say, a bonus to a certain action. You can still take the action or not or a different one. Incentives are not authority. When a department store offers you 20% off, you're not submitting to their authority. ;P
I would have to disagree with that. That's not within the definition of authority, nor any sort of natural language implication. What might be confusing you is that starting from a place of authority might be one way to inspire people. If you can say you speak for god, or if you have worked your way up a merit-based hierarchy, or have an impeccable pedigree in a society where that matters, or whatever, you can leverage that when trying to inspire people under you (or even equals or superiors, for that matter). But, it's not the /only/ way to inspire people, and an innate talent for inspiration would be one of the alternatives to authority when it comes to providing leadership.
In other words, in the sense that it is in no way authority, at all.
Innate talent for inspiring others - or for tactical acumen, or other leadership qualities - like simply having a high CHA in D&D terms, is something that is desirable in persons who have authority, but having those qualities does not confer authority in itself, nor are they required. You can have someone in a position of authority who is terrible at exercising it. You can have someone inspiring people who are in a position of authority over him.
They're closely related, but one doesn't determine the other.
"Feelings" are, of course, personal and subjective. They're not avoidable, but each group can take the feelings of it's members into account, personally. It's not something that should dictate how everyone plays the game.
But that's a biggish "if," and it's really up to each table to figure out their comfort zone in that area. There are easy ways around it if the table doesn't want to play that way: say the noble is dispossessed, or traveling in disguise, or far from home, just for three quick examples. Also, if you wind up in a situation where a noble- or soldier-background PC would have authority and another PC goes against that authority, the consequences come out in roleplay; they're not mechanical.
I don't agree that the Warlord gives the table more choice, at least not in every sense. Whatever rank is implicit in the concept is, well, right there in the concept!
Just to be clear, I don't think the reason why some people dislike the Warlord but don't object to the Noble or Soldier backgrounds is "malicious or shameful." I suppose by that you mean that their reason is related to edition warring? That actually didn't even occur to me. So I was trying to see what the difference in play is between a class and a background, and some of my thoughts on the subject are in this and preceding posts--briefly, that backgrounds are "softer" mechanically than class choices, and that how they affect the rest of the party can be controlled or softened by more variables.
Yeah, you've made me realize that part of the problem in this whole discussion is that it's easy to conflate power, control, authority, and rank. Which is part of why the name is important.
A loose definition of authority is "the right to control other people's actions." A Warlord most definitely exerts a kind of control over other people's actions, and the "right" to do so comes from within the character; that's why I would say it can be called innate authority.
How would you definite innate authority?
I see you separate authority from leadership here. So, just so I can be sure I know where you're coming from, can you give me an example of leadership that is not authority? Also, is there a way for a character to provide leadership that doesn't turn the rest of the group into followers? Because if we could find a word that expressed that, we might have the perfect name for the class. (ETA: And if not, then we might as well give up looking for a word that expresses the concept.)
You appear to be using "authority" interchangeably with "rank" here. Do you see a difference between the two, and if so, what is it?
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
True, and more true of the Warlord, since any authority or rank is at most implied, not explicit as it is with the backgrounds. There's no situation the party can get into where the Warlord will have authority over other PCs that will be recognized & enforced by the existing power structures in the setting, because his class is Warlord. With the Soldier or Noble background, that could happen. It's not inconceivable it could happen with spellcasting characters visiting a magocracy or a cleric in a theocracy.
It's not obligatory that a warlord have a rank or any perceived authority. It is obligatory for a Soldier (though you could always choose a very low rank) or Noble (though he could be currently out of favor).
Backgrounds are more fluff and less crunch than classes, certainly. Rank is 100% RP fluff, as is any sort of authority in the context of the campaign setting.
Another issue is that nothing about the warlord, mechanically confers power (relative to other PC classes), control, authority, or rank, at all. And, whether a concept involves any RP rank or authority or political power is a matter of fluff, and in no way required. Other classes - every caster class, for instance - has significantly more personal power than the Warlord. The fighter and barbarian have more combat power, the rogue more skill and personal DPR potential. Mechanically, more so than any of the 'Leader' classes implemented in 5e, the Warlord is a support-oriented character whose contributions flow to his allies, rather than coming in the form of personal power. It might be a very good idea to change that, considering how different 5e is from 4e, and give the Warlord more options to trade in ally-boosting abilities for personal ones (for instance, via maneuver selection) so that he has something to do when acting alone or with recalcitrant allies.
Other class & background names imply rank or traditional or other forms of authority. Cleric & Druid imply membership in a religious hierarchy, Druid implying a high one. Paladin implies nobility and rank (knighthood - Soldier & Noble put together), and the actual Paladins were the Charlemagne's personal Knights, below the Emperor himself, alone, in their social hierarchy. In contrast, the name Warlord, like Rogue and Barbarian, implies exclusion from or rebellion against such hierarchies, though nothing about those classes actually model or require anything of the sort (even a 'Thief' might have a legitimate background rather than 'Criminal' for instance, like a Guild-Artisan locksmith, or an agent of some benevolent organization).
Hardly a dictionary definition, but OK, for the sake of discussion...
Not true. Any class that provides support to the party influences the actions of the party. Drop a debuff on an enemy, your party's going to attack that enemy if they're smart. That's not control or authority, it's teamwork. Control is a spell that dominates, multiple classes have those. Authority is a social construct, a couple of backgrounds confer it, existing classes & class names imply it. The Warlord class did neither, there's no reason it'd have to in 5e.
If you want to define a class that influences it's allies actions by providing them benefits, then most caster classes have that kind of innate authority, and traditional support classes like the Cleric, Druid, Bard and Paladin have it in spades. In addition, they have overt magical power that can control the actions of others.
If 'innate authority' is what you define it to be, and if 'power' is problematic, and the Warlord has too much of both, then half the classes in the game are even /worse/.
So, no, there's nothing that makes sense it that line of reasoning.
Most uses of 'authority' are in regards to a society or social interaction, 'innate,' in that context, is almost an oxymoron. The most nearly sensible literal meaning therefore might be 'autonomy.' I think what you're getting at is authority outside the context of rank in a hierarchy and not enforced from outside the social interaction in question. That is, the Soldier or Noble have authority because there is a social hierarchy they exist in and there are those below them in that hierarchy - that is, rank. The Warlord doesn't have that, at all. Most classes don't, though a case could made for classes like the Paladin, Cleric & Druid strongly implying it, while, in contrast, the Barbarian and Rogue imply a lower social standing or an existence outside such hierarchies (in the latter sense, so does the Warlord).
Three conventional sources of Authority are: Political/Legal, Legitimate/Traditional, and "Charismatic." When you say 'innate' you're probably thinking of the last sort, in which someone claims authority on some extraordinary personal grounds, such as being "Chosen by God," inspired by a higher power, able to work miracles, or possessing some extraordinary gift, power or skill, or simply by virtue of mass acclaim. Obviously, many classes could claim such authority quite dramatically.
Easily. Imagine a group of acquaintances walking down the street who come across an emergency situation, like a fire in residential building, say. They might all just gawk at it, they might mill around unable to decide what to do, they might all run off and do different things - one runs off looking for help, one rushes into the building, another tries to get a window open, etc - or, one of them might take initiative and get them all organized, or even just take initiative, act first, and the others follow that 'lead.' They're all equals, none have authority over another, but one displays leadership.
The opposite example is also easy to come up with. Think Mutiny on the Bounty. Bligh, as the captain of a British Naval vessel at sea, had absolute authority, but, though he was a skilled navigator and sailing master, he failed to provide adequate leadership, and his crew mutinied.
Yes. It happens naturally enough in most groups if there's any planning or initiative taken, at all. Leadership 'by example' is a very obvious example and one often invoked in the original Warlord. Heck, the Warlord might very well /be/ very much a follower depending on the relative concepts involved and the styles of the players.
You have class and background names that imply all sorts of authority, already. Any divine class has an extreme claim of authority just from being agents of the gods on earth. Objecting to the name is entirely spurious.
No, I switched to 'authority' because it's a little broader than 'rank.' Rank /generally/ confers some sort of authority in some context, however narrow and specialized. 'Position of authority' I used as a synonym for Rank, it seemed more rhetorically effective at the time. The point is that there are qualities that can make an individual more effective at exercising authority, and those qualities are independent of either rank or authority. Bligh lacked such qualities, for instance, even though he held the highest rank on his ship and possessed an extreme degree of authority. Many people possess such qualities, but only ever 'lead' equals over whom they have no authority, at all.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
Yes, but they're maaaaaaagic....
Similar Threads
