Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[jayoungr]

So the problem is distasteful fluff to explain how the Warlord's abilities work.

To be fair, the concept is already in the game thanks to the Inspiring Leader feat. But that feat does a lot less mechanically than a Warlord would, hypothetically.

 

[Lord Twig]

To be fair, the concept is already in the game thanks to the Inspiring Leader feat. But that feat does a lot less mechanically than a Warlord would, hypothetically.

Yes, and it is the same with Bardic Inspiration.

And really it isn't that it is universally distasteful fluff, it is just situationally distasteful. A lot of people would enjoy the role-playing that inspiration and leadership would bring to the table, the problem is that it requires everyone else at the table to be on the same page. If you bring in an inspiring leader, then everyone else has to be inspired by your character. That's why I said before that it is a class that requires the approval of the rest of the players.

The second issue, in my opinion, is that there are currently no full support classes in the game. You can make characters that do support, but they will still have at least a secondary focus on damage (or other hindering effects). Nobody does support full time. I don't see why the Warlord should be an exception to this.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, and it is the same with Bardic Inspiration.

And really it isn't that it is universally distasteful fluff, it is just situationally distasteful. A lot of people would enjoy the role-playing that inspiration and leadership would bring to the table, the problem is that it requires everyone else at the table to be on the same page. If you bring in an inspiring leader, then everyone else has to be inspired by your character. That's why I said before that it is a class that requires the approval of the rest of the players.

The second issue, in my opinion, is that there are currently no full support classes in the game. You can make characters that do support, but they will still have at least a secondary focus on damage (or other hindering effects). Nobody does support full time. I don't see why the Warlord should be an exception to this.

If bardic Inspiration doesn't cause that disconnect you speak of then neither would a warlords inspiration based abilities.

 

[Lord Twig]

If bardic Inspiration doesn't cause that disconnect you speak of then neither would a warlords inspiration based abilities.

Bardic Inspiration does cause the same disconnect.

The difference is if I want to role-play my character as a music hater I only lose +1d6 to my roll and the Bard can always use it on other characters. He only gets up to 5 uses of it a day anyway. The Bard still has full spell casting and plenty of other stuff to be useful.

The Warlord... That's all he has. If he can't use his inspiration abilities he is basically worthless. So I either have to submit to the idea that I am inspired by the Warlord, or I shut down his character completely.

So why is this different than if I refuse any help from a Cleric? Well the Cleric doesn't require me to do anything. I don't have to revere his god (or goddess). I don't have to think he is special or inspiring. I don't have to like him. Or even think he is competent. It doesn't matter what I think of him, his magic will still work.

 

[Hussar]

If bardic Inspiration doesn't cause that disconnect you speak of then neither would a warlords inspiration based abilities.

The point you're missing is that bardic Inspiration is maaaagic and therefore we can completely ignore any disconnect.

I mean, if you can ignore the idea that the follower of two opposed dieties can affect each other with beneficial spells with zero consequence, then, ignoring magical singing is pretty easy.

Of course, it all falls apart if you drill down even a little because it makes zero sense for a Paladin of Bahumat to accept the blessing of a priest of Wee Jas. But, then, treating clerics as just like wizards is pretty much par for the course - the paladin isn't accepting anything, he's simply the target of a magical effect, no different than a wizard casting Haste. The fact that it's divine magic, comes from a divine source and that divine source is intelligent, aligned, and comes complete with a belief system, doesn't matter. A spell is a spell is a spell. :/

Me, I find it utterly baffling that we can accept flying barbarians, teleporting paladins, and fighters that can grant you temporary HP after hitting an enemy, but, apparently, a warlord is a bridge too far.

If you have an issue with warlords granting buffs or additional actions, how do you justify Battlemasters in your game?

See, this is the whole problem in a nutshell. EVERYTHING that a warlord could do in 4e can be done in 5e. It just can't be done by one class, nor can it be done very often. But, any criticism you can make about 4e warlords equally applies to 5e. It's so bizarre. "Warlords create this disconnect ... but .. I have no problem with a stranger smashing an orc and granting me a d6 bonus temporary HP."

I just wish those that have an issue with warlords were actually consistent in their arguments. How can you possibly bitch about a warlord but accept a Battlemaster?

How is my Mastermind Thief granting you advantage on your attacks every round? Why don't people have an issue with this? I can do it at range - so, for some reason, my complete stranger, standing beside you archer, makes you a considerably better archer, every round, all without magic. And this is okay, but a battle master is bad? WTF?

The only thing I can think of is this is just edition warring with a funny set of glasses and a fake moustache.

 

[FrogReaver]

The point you're missing is that bardic Inspiration is maaaagic and therefore we can completely ignore any disconnect.

I mean, if you can ignore the idea that the follower of two opposed dieties can affect each other with beneficial spells with zero consequence, then, ignoring magical singing is pretty easy.

Of course, it all falls apart if you drill down even a little because it makes zero sense for a Paladin of Bahumat to accept the blessing of a priest of Wee Jas. But, then, treating clerics as just like wizards is pretty much par for the course - the paladin isn't accepting anything, he's simply the target of a magical effect, no different than a wizard casting Haste. The fact that it's divine magic, comes from a divine source and that divine source is intelligent, aligned, and comes complete with a belief system, doesn't matter. A spell is a spell is a spell. :/

Me, I find it utterly baffling that we can accept flying barbarians, teleporting paladins, and fighters that can grant you temporary HP after hitting an enemy, but, apparently, a warlord is a bridge too far.

If you have an issue with warlords granting buffs or additional actions, how do you justify Battlemasters in your game?

See, this is the whole problem in a nutshell. EVERYTHING that a warlord could do in 4e can be done in 5e. It just can't be done by one class, nor can it be done very often. But, any criticism you can make about 4e warlords equally applies to 5e. It's so bizarre. "Warlords create this disconnect ... but .. I have no problem with a stranger smashing an orc and granting me a d6 bonus temporary HP."

I just wish those that have an issue with warlords were actually consistent in their arguments. How can you possibly bitch about a warlord but accept a Battlemaster?

How is my Mastermind Thief granting you advantage on your attacks every round? Why don't people have an issue with this? I can do it at range - so, for some reason, my complete stranger, standing beside you archer, makes you a considerably better archer, every round, all without magic. And this is okay, but a battle master is bad? WTF?

The only thing I can think of is this is just edition warring with a funny set of glasses and a fake moustache.

Bardic Inspiration
"You can inspire others through stirring words or music..."

Nope Bardic inspiration on its own doesn't sound very magical to me. Maybe there's some fluff in the 5e Players Handbook associated with it that I am missing?

 

[FrogReaver]

Bardic Inspiration does cause the same disconnect.

The difference is if I want to role-play my character as a music hater I only lose +1d6 to my roll and the Bard can always use it on other characters. He only gets up to 5 uses of it a day anyway. The Bard still has full spell casting and plenty of other stuff to be useful.

The Warlord... That's all he has. If he can't use his inspiration abilities he is basically worthless. So I either have to submit to the idea that I am inspired by the Warlord, or I shut down his character completely.

So why is this different than if I refuse any help from a Cleric? Well the Cleric doesn't require me to do anything. I don't have to revere his god (or goddess). I don't have to think he is special or inspiring. I don't have to like him. Or even think he is competent. It doesn't matter what I think of him, his magic will still work.

Now we are getting somewhere. Bardic Inspiration does cause the same disconnect that our theoretical Warlord powers would. Bardic Inspiration is already in the game. So are many other Warlord-esque powers and feats. Many of these have already been mentioned so I won't tread down that path.

But the point is that you are no longer arguing a purely ideological stance, instead you are simply arguing for your opinion on what degree is acceptable.

Even more importantly is that there is nothing ability wise that says you must like the music the bard plays to inspire you. Fluff wise it can be the most God awful music you have ever heard and you simply fight that much better to get him to stop faster. I mean this is a cooperative game of imagination. If the power says it gives a bonus you can still accept the bonus and find some other rationalization for how such a thing works for your character.

And Ultimately, do you think in actual DND games that are being played that excluding character concepts that are incapable of being inspired to fight better would be a major detriment considering virtually no one plays such a character currently? Don't you also think that virtually the only time you would see it crop up in the future would be as part of an active anti warlord plan?

 

[Lord Twig]

The point you're missing is that bardic Inspiration is maaaagic and therefore we can completely ignore any disconnect.

I mean, if you can ignore the idea that the follower of two opposed dieties can affect each other with beneficial spells with zero consequence, then, ignoring magical singing is pretty easy.

I wish Bardic Inspiration was magic, and honestly I house rule it that way. But, as I just stated above, I have the same problem with the non-magic bardic inspiration.

Of course, it all falls apart if you drill down even a little because it makes zero sense for a Paladin of Bahumat to accept the blessing of a priest of Wee Jas. But, then, treating clerics as just like wizards is pretty much par for the course - the paladin isn't accepting anything, he's simply the target of a magical effect, no different than a wizard casting Haste. The fact that it's divine magic, comes from a divine source and that divine source is intelligent, aligned, and comes complete with a belief system, doesn't matter. A spell is a spell is a spell. :/

Yes, a spell is a spell, regardless of its source. Why doesn't that make sense?

Me, I find it utterly baffling that we can accept flying barbarians, teleporting paladins, and fighters that can grant you temporary HP after hitting an enemy, but, apparently, a warlord is a bridge too far.

If you have an issue with warlords granting buffs or additional actions, how do you justify Battlemasters in your game?

Barbarians using spirit magic to fly? Fine. Paladins with magical teleportation? Fine. Fighter giving you extra hit points for no reason? Not fine.

I am not able to justify Battlemasters. I do not like them any better than Warlords. Well, no, I like them better in the sense that they don't do the things I don't like nearly as often as a Warlord would. They are at least limited by their dice pool*. Most of the time they are just going to be hitting things like a regular sensible Fighter.

*Which also doesn't make sense. Why can't you disarm this guy? Oh right, you disarmed those four guards earlier and now you can't disarm anyone again because... uh... just because! Dontworryaboutit! Ugh.

See, this is the whole problem in a nutshell. EVERYTHING that a warlord could do in 4e can be done in 5e. It just can't be done by one class, nor can it be done very often. But, any criticism you can make about 4e warlords equally applies to 5e. It's so bizarre. "Warlords create this disconnect ... but .. I have no problem with a stranger smashing an orc and granting me a d6 bonus temporary HP."

I just wish those that have an issue with warlords were actually consistent in their arguments. How can you possibly bitch about a warlord but accept a Battlemaster?

The Battlemaster is unfortunately already in the game. It is a done deal and there is nothing we can do about it. It doesn't make anymore sense than a Warlord would, but at least it is a secondary thing that I can mostly ignore.

How is my Mastermind Thief granting you advantage on your attacks every round? Why don't people have an issue with this? I can do it at range - so, for some reason, my complete stranger, standing beside you archer, makes you a considerably better archer, every round, all without magic. And this is okay, but a battle master is bad? WTF?

I do have an issue with it! You even say it yourself: "for some reason, my complete stranger, standing beside you archer, makes you a considerably better archer, every round, all without magic." How does that make any sense?!? It is just stupid!

Okay, calming down...

So to recap. Battlemaster, not good. Mastermind Thief, even worse. Warlord, the embodiment of all that is wrong with inspirational effects.

The argument, "We already have these things you dislike, so what is wrong with a class that is focused on doing all those things you dislike" is not a good argument.

The only thing I can think of is this is just edition warring with a funny set of glasses and a fake moustache.

It's funny how the only people bringing up edition warring are the people that support the Warlord.

 

[Lord Twig]

Now we are getting somewhere. Bardic Inspiration does cause the same disconnect that our theoretical Warlord powers would. Bardic Inspiration is already in the game. So are many other Warlord-esque powers and feats. Many of these have already been mentioned so I won't tread down that path.

But the point is that you are no longer arguing a purely ideological stance, instead you are simply arguing for your opinion on what degree is acceptable.

Even more importantly is that there is nothing ability wise that says you must like the music the bard plays to inspire you. Fluff wise it can be the most God awful music you have ever heard and you simply fight that much better to get him to stop faster. I mean this is a cooperative game of imagination. If the power says it gives a bonus you can still accept the bonus and find some other rationalization for how such a thing works for your character.

And Ultimately, do you think in actual DND games that are being played that excluding character concepts that are incapable of being inspired to fight better would be a major detriment considering virtually no one plays such a character currently? Don't you also think that virtually the only time you would see it crop up in the future would be as part of an active anti warlord plan?

I don't care for any of it. What is already there, is there.

And yes, you can come up with RP reasons for most things. But I would have to spend more than half my time playing coming up with reasons for why a Warlord works. It is not something I care to do.

How do you arrive at the conclusion I have bolded? Based on your own games?

No, it is not only an anti-warlord plan. I don't need to do anything at all for any of my characters to work with any other class except the Warlord (and the classes with Warlord-lite abilities).

Look, I don't like the Warlord, but I recognize that others do like them. So go ahead and include it, but it needs to be optional. If anyone in the party has a problem with it, then you shouldn't force it on them. It is the same as playing a Lawful Good Paladin that is going to force a morality code on his party or a Chaotic Evil Assassin that is going to murder every villager he meets. If anyone in the party has a problem with those characters then they should not be allowed. The Warlord is in the same camp.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny how the only people bringing up edition warring are the people that support the Warlord.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...re-Nor-any-drop-to-drink/page29#ixzz40Jd5UBWG

Ummmm, well, yeah. Because, for the life of me, I cannot understand the argument. You're willing to let the other stuff go, but, are going out of your way to block warlords. And, not just you. Numerous people are doing the same thing. Repeatedly. It's okay to ignore the flavour of clerics because it's magic, but, apparently, imagination only goes so far.

... divine magic. These spell casters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power.

No, cleric spells are not "just spells". They are cast through the auspices of the cleric's deity. Yet, apparently, it's perfectly okay to ignore that whenever convenient. Tiamat helps that paladin of Bahumat hit better and that's not a problem at all. No worries, borrowing magical power from an evil god is perfectly acceptable for a paladin apparently. No problems. But, someone, through training or natural inclination being able to see strategies that others miss? Oh, hell no. Can't possibly happen. Totally impossible. Completely unbelievable.

Sorry, but, people's ability to "believe" things is far too convenient for my taste. Funny how we can totally ignore blindingly huge conceptual holes but, something that happens every freaking day? Naw, unpossible. I mean, who'd ever believe that someone who has never actually played NFL football could possible coach a team to six Superbowls.