Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6794234" data-attributes="member: 996">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.</blockquote>

Verification