D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, but they're maaaaaaagic....

It's not assault if he's enchanted...?

But seriously: if it's wrong for the Warlord to "force" people to accept the bonuses/extras she hands out, why isn't it wrong for any other class to take partial control over another person's body with magic? Wouldn't that be worse, since at least in theory the Warlord's benefits can be ignored if you want, but magic can't be?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

So I'm sure you guys would be totally fine if you were playing a warlord at a table, and every single round you spent your action "offering" an ally a bonus/extra, and they turned it down because you are not the boss of them. Or for whatever other in-game RP reason they didn't feel comfortable accepting your imposed authority or leadership. I'm sure, seeing round after round of your turn being wasted, you'd be totally okay with how things are going. After all, you were just providing an optional benefit they don't have to act on. Since it's not a matter of authority. AmIright? Uh-huh. That's totally how it works.

That's why that line of reasoning leads to the most passive-aggressive aspect of the whole debate:

"Darn it guys, I'm playing a warlord specifically so I can offer you guys these cool benefits and you're not taking advantage of them! That makes me feel useless and inadequate. I'm just wasting my time here. That's not fair. You guys need to accept these benefits in order to validate my character's existence. You guys don't want to ruin my fun do you?..."

 

[mellored]

So I'm sure you guys would be totally fine if you were playing a warlord at a table, and every single round you spent your action "offering" an ally a bonus/extra, and they turned it down because you are not the boss of them.

A warlord without teamwork is supposed to suck.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Exactly. There in-lies the fatal flaw in your argument. And why it sets up a passive-aggressive situation that pressures the other players into accepting your warlord's authority.

 

[mellored]

Exactly. There in-lies the fatal flaw in your argument. And why it sets up a passive-aggressive situation that pressures the other players into accepting your warlord's authority.

I don't see it.

Then maybe i just play with more mature people.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Subtle. But I think your first sentence is more telling than the second. Shortsightedness isn't just a physical impairment.

 

[mellored]

Subtle. But I think your first sentence is more telling than the second. Shortsightedness isn't just a physical impairment.

Any class, or character, can claim they are in charge. And any character can have a skill or ability that messes up someone elses.

Be a barbarian and attack the wizard if he trys to cast a spell.
The barbarian can run into a group of enemies that the wizard wanted to fireball.
A monk could stun something and say "hit it while you have advantage", and the rest of the party could go off in a different direction.
A bard could cast hypnotic pattern, and the paladin could refuse to attack because it would be dishonorable.
An illusionist could setup an illusion, only to have the barbarian run right though it.
A rogue could want to sneak up and scout and sir clank-a-lot could spoil it for him.
The fighter could knock someone prone for the rogue, who runs away.
etc...

What does any of that have to do with a warlord class?


And the second sentence was about my limited experience. Not an attack. I have only played with more mature players. I have not played with less mature ones. I havn't seen anyone do that kind of thing.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Strawman. Followed by backpedaling. Interesting.

 

[mellored]

Strawman. Followed by backpedaling. Interesting.

What's the strawman?
Bards and clerics also suck without teamwork. And several wizard or sorcerer builds as well.

What do you find different about the warlord saying "go attack that guy and get a bonus" vs a rogue saying "go attack that guy so i can get sneak attack"?


And what back peddling?

 

[Tony Vargas]

And the second sentence was about my limited experience. Not an attack. I have only played with more mature players. I have not played with less mature ones. I havn't seen anyone do that kind of thing.

I've run for and played with plenty of younger players - including, of course, being one of the younger players, myself, when I started. That level of peevish animosity isn't really all that common among them - nor is it confined to a certain age range. It's not worth worrying about when designing a system, though, as it's simply the kind of disruptive behavior that has to be dealt with on the interpersonal level rather than in-game. As you point out, a jerk could fixate on any sort of character that way.

What do you find different about the warlord saying "go attack that guy and get a bonus" vs a rogue saying "go attack that guy so i can get sneak attack"?

Who gains the benefit is one obvious difference.

Bards and clerics also suck without teamwork.

Not really, because they can just prepare different spells. There might be a relatively minor feature or two that ends up unusable without a willing ally, but most of their resources can be turned to their own benefit or contribute more directly. Teamwork isn't as encouraged in 5e as in 4e, so it'd make some sense for the Warlord to, similarly, be able to make maneuver and other resource choices to contribute more directly when teamwork isn't an option.