Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Manbearcat]

Real long post, so I think it deserves a response. Unfortunately all I can say is anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

I don't watch much sports, it's not my thing. But the few times I have seen an NBA game I don't recall seeing one player yelling at the other players telling them what to do. But I will fully admit I am no authority on sports. Quite the opposite in fact.

This is not anecdotal evidence. The only bit of autobiographical information in there is my age (implying I'm not exceedingly young, hence I've crossed paths with more than a few people...which rather follows!).

It is analysis of readily available observational evidence. I only posted because I thought you seemed to have a level of certitude that I figured was born of direct experience or analysis of that available observational evidence.

I do appreciate your response and your humility.

What I love about these sports analogies is that it always implies one of the players on the field (or the coach, whomever) is a "warlord" for inspiring and motivating his players to play harder/better.

Yet I, as an avid sports fan, often see a player step up and take on that role in a particular moment, only to have a different player do so a few games later when the situation or circumstances present themselves.

Hrmmm, I guess every player on the field/court is potentially a warlord...

What I wrote upthread directly isolates and analyses the factors of grit, cool, "want-to" (the combination of which yield moxie; the intangible "It" factor that is often qualified with recent attempts to quantify it with WAR and GRIT statistics), situational awareness, and tactical acumen (coupled with the ability to impart information in digestable chunks in-situ) on combat sports and the small tactical skirmish of basketball in real-time.

It was a focused rejoinder addressing a specific contention about the implausibility of a thing. You can apply, or not apply, any conclusions you might broadly draw from it to the discussion at hand.

There are very specific things that you can engage with, analyze, and dispute there (rather than taking the abstract, "drive-by quip" approach that addresses nothing of consequence of what was said in the post). I would urge you to do so. Your "avid sports fan" take on yourself means nothing to me. The number of "avid sports fans" who have a very shallow understanding of the machinery at work of what they're watching (or even physically engaging in) is legion (something as trivial as the OPS stat in baseball or the differences between a 4-3 over front versus 4-3 under is utterly lost on them). You need to show me, don't tell me.

One thing of note. A rookie and novice to a group is typically not going to be able to inspire the veterans to play better or fight harder in real life.

Agreed. And yet, as some would have it, a newly introduced 1st-level warlord would be able to do so to an established higher level party the moment he arrived on scene. Cuz mechanics...

I'll agree with this because of typically (my bolded). However, while PCs are not "typical Joes and Sues" in D&D, neither are Jameis Winstons in real life (except JWs in real life are much more typical than PCs in D&D). You have an entire organization (10+ year vets in Logan Mankins and Vincent Jackson included) gushing openly over his competitive/"never-say-die" will, his grit/toughness, his tactical acumen, his "arrive-first/leave-last" approach, the way he always holds himself accountable and expects the most out of himself and everyone around him...he has that intangible "it factor"...and how he has organically become the leader of that locker room because of it.

On the opposite side of the ball, the same thing was being said about rookie middle linebacker Kwon Alexander. Meanwhile, Gerald McCoy (the best player on the team for the last several years) has been routinely decried for his lack of "it factor"...his inability to lead, inspire, and raise the level of play of his teammates (in contrast to his Hall of Fame predecessor Warren Sapp who, again, took over the locker room immediately).

 

[Manbearcat]

Re: "Nothing else makes it stand out": hasn't [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] stated (months ago, in a different thread), that he created a lot of NPCs using the Warlord class -- almost always the LazyLord -- and it was such a perfect fit for what he wanted the NPCs to do that it constituted a distinct improvement over any other way of creating those NPCs? (I don't have a link, sorry.)

If that was really turn, then there's another thing that makes the Warlord class stand out; so your statement that its being in a PHB is the only "really" thing that does is simply false.

This is correct. The majority of Companion Characters in my 4e games ran off Princess or Lazylord build mechanics. This allowed players to play characters that were thematically in-line with Frodo (the "heart" of the fellowship) while still maintaining relative mechanical parity with the rest of the PCs.

These build components also allowed me to leverage them as NPC Minions with combats that had "Escort/Save the Princess Tropes" at their core.

And again, you're correct. The availability of the Princess and Lazylord build (coupled with Minion mechanics and other system synergies such as tight encounter budgets, Encounter Powers, and the tactical mobility/forced movement built into the engine,) entirely enabled these archetypes and tropes to manifest in play (the synergy of the thematics and the mechanical parity).

 

[jayoungr]

In 5e it is an Enchantment effect - much like Charm and Fear tend to be enchantment effects. According to p 80 of the Basic PDF, "Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior." So it seems to me that Bless works by calling upon the divine presence or spirit to influence other PCs - namely, by inspiring them!

Okay, but what relationship does it require or create between the target of the spell and the caster (and/or the caster's deity)? Does it fill the target with reverence toward the deity, or maybe should it require the target to already feel at least friendly to that deity? And how does it make the target feel toward the cleric who casts the spell?

 

[Umbran]

it's something even other h4ters tended to agree on

The quality of discourse in this sub-forum (and elsewhere on the site) would rise significantly if everyone stopped using the cutesy and dismissive derogatory names for groups of people.

Treat others as if they were intelligent beings with their own reasons for holding opinions, rather than parts of a herd - you know, like *you* probably preferred to be treated. Golden Rule, and all that.

 

[pemerton]

Okay, but what relationship does it require or create between the target of the spell and the caster (and/or the caster's deity)? Does it fill the target with reverence toward the deity, or maybe should it require the target to already feel at least friendly to that deity? And how does it make the target feel toward the cleric who casts the spell?

Well, it's an Enchantment effect with no save.

I can think of two possible interpretations of that; maybe there are others.

Maybe it lets the casting cleric override the will and desires of the target character - dispelling, with no save, that character's instincts of fear and self-preservation. Generally intra-party mind control is frowned upon, but if people tolerate it in this case because of the buff, then maybe they would tolerate the correlative consequences of having a warlord in play.

Or maybe it generates "vibes" of encouragement and courage that a willing character can be swayed by. In this case, it seems to raise the same issues as the warlord: for the buff to work, the player has to allow that his/her PC is swayed by those vibes (which, presumably, are coloured by the the cleric's god, or - for an Eberron-style world of distant gods - by the cleric him-/herself).

To be blunt, it seems to me that the implications of a hypothetical warlord for PC characterisation and roleplaying have been explored far more thoroughly than the implications of this actual, ubiquitous buff spell. I'm not sure why that is. Some posters upthread have conjectured that the outrage over the warlord's implications is not entirely sincere; it certainly seems to me that the warlord generates a degree of scrutiny (over the relationship between mechanics and emotions/relationships; over the interaction between character level and capability; over the silo-ing consquences of a class system) that isn't applied to other elements of the system. And it's not just about "legacy", either, because the warlock has no more legacy than the warlord, and (given its flavour and mechanics) seems equally open to such scrutiny, but doesn't appear to receive it.

 

[Hussar]

And, there's an additional point I was trying, with limited success, to raise as well. We accept that Bless can come from any source - treat it the same as a wizard spell in that respect - but, this isn't a wizard spell - it's divine. Being a divine spell, it comes tightly wrapped with specific flavour - it comes from the deity of the caster. In a very real sense, every spell that a cleric casts is aligned with the deity of that cleric. When a War Domain priest drops a +10 on your attack using his domain power, there's no doubt, (is there?) that this is coming directly from that War Deity.

The implications of this apparently, though, get a free pass. My priestess of Tiamat can grant that paladin of Bahumat a +10 attack, directly from my goddess, and it's perfectly fine. Never minding that Tiamat might have something to say in this matter. And the paladin of Bahumat must accept that blessing, again, with zero implication, and that's perfectly fine.

But, my warlord being trained in tactics and whatnot spots an opening for you and lets you make an extra attack and that's completely unbelievable? That's infringing on your character?

I'm really having a problem seeing the difference here. It looks an awful lot like a double standard.

 

[Aldarc]

And, there's an additional point I was trying, with limited success, to raise as well. We accept that Bless can come from any source - treat it the same as a wizard spell in that respect - but, this isn't a wizard spell - it's divine. Being a divine spell, it comes tightly wrapped with specific flavour - it comes from the deity of the caster. In a very real sense, every spell that a cleric casts is aligned with the deity of that cleric. When a War Domain priest drops a +10 on your attack using his domain power, there's no doubt, (is there?) that this is coming directly from that War Deity.

The implications of this apparently, though, get a free pass. My priestess of Tiamat can grant that paladin of Bahumat a +10 attack, directly from my goddess, and it's perfectly fine. Never minding that Tiamat might have something to say in this matter. And the paladin of Bahumat must accept that blessing, again, with zero implication, and that's perfectly fine.

But, my warlord being trained in tactics and whatnot spots an opening for you and lets you make an extra attack and that's completely unbelievable? That's infringing on your character?

I'm really having a problem seeing the difference here. It looks an awful lot like a double standard.

Because "magic." The handwaving does not just apply to somatic casting the spell, but also the double-standard.

 

[jayoungr]

Well, it's an Enchantment effect with no save.

I can think of two possible interpretations of that; maybe there are others.

Maybe it lets the casting cleric override the will and desires of the target character - dispelling, with no save, that character's instincts of fear and self-preservation. Generally intra-party mind control is frowned upon, but if people tolerate it in this case because of the buff, then maybe they would tolerate the correlative consequences of having a warlord in play.

Or maybe it generates "vibes" of encouragement and courage that a willing character can be swayed by. In this case, it seems to raise the same issues as the warlord: for the buff to work, the player has to allow that his/her PC is swayed by those vibes (which, presumably, are coloured by the the cleric's god, or - for an Eberron-style world of distant gods - by the cleric him-/herself).

You haven't quite answered the question I was asking, although you have answered part of it.

Do you think the "Bless" spell would work on an unwilling target? Why or why not?

Do you think the "Bless" spell would work on a target who is hostile to the cleric's god? Why or why not?

Do you think the "Bless" spell would work on a target who personally dislikes or disrespects the cleric? Why or why not?

To be blunt, it seems to me that the implications of a hypothetical warlord for PC characterisation and roleplaying have been explored far more thoroughly than the implications of this actual, ubiquitous buff spell.

I would suggest that the reason is because maaaaagic allows people not to have to worry about it in ways that aren't possible for mundane interpersonal relationships. Possibly there are tables where the caster of the spell is envisioning one thing and the recipient is envisioning another, and they never even find out that this is so.

Some posters upthread have conjectured that the outrage over the warlord's implications is not entirely sincere

I have said on another thread that assumptions of bad faith aren't likely to lead to productive discussion, and I still believe that.

 

[mellored]

Can the paladin do that for himself?

Paladin's don't get cantrips. So no.

And a level 2 paladin can cast heroism on a level 20 cleric. Something a level 20 cleric can't do.

Not to mention concentration limits you to 1 spell. Sanctuary, bless, shield of faith, and protection from evil would take 4 clerics working together. Plus a bards can give insperation dice and cast heroism, and 2 druids for longstrider and jump. Irreverent of their level differences. That's just level 1 characters.

At level 2, ranger get's pass without a longstrider and jump, and paladin get's several options.

At level 3 battlemaster has several options, warlocks with invisibility and spider climb, mastermind rogues can advise your attack at 60', wolf barbarian gets to be the "leader of hunters", and even the monk can cast darkvision.

So by level 3, every class has at least 1 option to make a level 20 sword angel better.
Not even counting the help action everyone has.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm missing the point of the snark.

Clearly. Did you read the part I responded to? Because it had nothing to do with the rest of your response just now (which is why I cut it out of your quote here).

What you originally said, in efforts to bring into question how a low level bard can magically inspire a high level paladin, was:

As soon as we look beyond the mechanics to the fiction, what are we supposed to imagine is actually taking place?

I could not help but to point out the glaring irony in such a statement. Can't you see it?

When asked how non-magical inspiration is supposed to work without treading on agency, we hear back that it's just a granted benefit. A bonus to be accepted. Not to think to deeply about it. Then you come around and say something like the above quote. I found it funny and worth pointing out.

Because, when it comes to non-magical inspiration, as soon as we look beyond the mechanics to the fiction, what are we supposed to imagine is actually taking place?