NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6793462" data-attributes="member: 996">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.  ;PI 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.</blockquote>

Verification