Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

No it didn't. Or, if that was your intent, it failed. At least as I read it.

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.

Wow. Do you talk like this in real life?

And no it wasn't. It was a ham-handed attempt to justify a made-up class, via a flimsy sports analogy, because teams have a "leader". To which, I've since shown the analogy to have bigger holes than Philadelphia's run defense.

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.

No offense, but if you'd quit trying to hard to sound hyper-intelligent, maybe your points would become more concise and relatable.

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).

In spite of the fact that all this continuing to side-step and avoid my point, that your "sport team leader" = warlord analogy fails, more shockingly you've proven it even more so with your further analysis and examples. You've just shown that leadership is a personality trait, not a position/training/occupational trait. Claiming we need a warlord class flies in the face of your own analysis.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

Okay? But not really relevant to the claim you originally made.

Aldarc stated:
"The low-level BM can tell the high-level champion how to fight better."

You then added:
"And a level 1 cleric can give divine guidance to a level 20 paladin who is so holy that he sprouted angle wings."

Those are not comparable. Aldarc's example is one warrior showing a more experienced warrior how to do something he is already capable of doing, only more and better.

But your cleric is giving the paladin something he is otherwise unfamiliar and incapable of doing for himself.

 

[mellored]

Okay? But not really relevant to the claim you originally made.

Aldarc stated:
"The low-level BM can tell the high-level champion how to fight better."

You then added:
"And a level 1 cleric can give divine guidance to a level 20 paladin who is so holy that he sprouted angle wings."

Those are not comparable. Aldarc's example is one warrior showing a more experienced warrior how to do something he is already capable of doing, only more and better.

But your cleric is giving the paladin something he is otherwise unfamiliar and incapable of doing for himself.

How is that not comparable? A paladin doesn't have guidance and a champion does not have commander's strike.

Any low level class can improve any higher level class. Heck, a peasant using the help action can improve a level 20 fighter's chance to hit. No matter how experienced you are, you can always do better.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

How is that not comparable? A paladin doesn't have guidance and a champion does not have commander's strike.

Uh, correct? Not sure what you are fishing for. I can't make you see the differences.

Any low level class can improve any higher level class. Heck, a peasant using the help action can improve a level 20 fighter's chance to hit. No matter how experienced you are, you can always do better.

Awesome. Then any character can already "warlord". No need for a class. Crisis averted.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Are you saying that non-magical inspiration - that is, inspiration of the sort that actually occurs in the real world, and is the real-world reference point for such game abilities as Bardic Inspiration and the Bless spell; inspiration of the sort that is seen in a whole range of non-fantastic genre fiction - is inconceivable?

This is why I don't get the point of your snark - I find it inconceivable that someone would find non-magical inspiration (that is, inspiration in the strict sense) inconceivable.

 

[pemerton]

But your cleric is giving the paladin something he is otherwise unfamiliar and incapable of doing for himself.

How is a 20th level paladin unfamiliar with divine guidance and blessing? Isn't the bulk of his/her proficiency bonus a result of that divine guidance and blessing?

You've just shown that leadership is a personality trait, not a position/training/occupational trait. Claiming we need a warlord class flies in the face of your own analysis.

5e classes aren't solely, or even primarily, about training or occupational traits.

Being blessed by the gods is not an occupation or an element of training.

Entering into a pact with infernal powers is not an occupation or an element of training.

Being really angry isn't an occupation or an element of training.

Being the enchanted child of a dragon isn't an occupation or an element of training.

The class system is a vehicle for allocating and silo-ing capabilities, not for modelling training.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

There is a well-established double standard, magic vs martial, in the D&D community in general and in the game, itself. Always seems to have been there, maybe the virulence ebbs and flows with the passing years, a little.

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

Heh.

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?

From just the wording of the spell, sure. It says "up to three creatures of your choice within range," not 'three willing creatures' or 'three allies' or anything of that nature. It would be silly to cast it on an enemy, though, obviously, but an unwilling ally, sure. Teach him the value of your God's blessings, whether he likes it or not. A little humility does the soul good &c...

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

Again, by the book, sure. DM can rule otherwise, particularly if he envisions the gods being more closely involved in his world and second-guessing their Cleric's use of the gifts they gave them.

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

Nothing in the wording of the spell implies otherwise. Of course, he might still be a believer, in spite of his personal feeling about the cleric.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Are you saying that non-magical inspiration - that is, inspiration of the sort that actually occurs in the real world, and is the real-world reference point for such game abilities as Bardic Inspiration and the Bless spell; inspiration of the sort that is seen in a whole range of non-fantastic genre fiction - is inconceivable?

No. I'm saying that such a thing should not be relegated to a class. Because in the real world, as shown in these sports team examples, most players would be a warlord because they largely all have the ability to inspire their teammates.

Speaking of putting words in other people's mouth... Are you saying a barbarian, paladin, cleric, wizard, or any other class, should not be capable of inspiring his allies? That's the take-away I get from your arguments for a warlord.

Because that's what your desire for a class will do. Exclude everyone who isn't a warlord.

This is why I don't get the point of your snark - I find it inconceivable that someone would find non-magical inspiration (that is, inspiration in the strict sense) inconceivable.

Me too. So quit strawmanning.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

How is a 20th level paladin unfamiliar with divine guidance and blessing?

He can do those things? That's news to me.

Isn't the bulk of his/her proficiency bonus a result of that divine guidance and blessing?

More new news.

5e classes aren't solely, or even primarily, about training or occupational traits.

So quit trying to force a warlord into one?

Being blessed by the gods is not an occupation or an element of training.

Neither is being inspirational or a leader.

Entering into a pact with infernal powers is not an occupation or an element of training.

Neither is being inspirational or a leader.

Being really angry isn't an occupation or an element of training.

Neither is being inspirational or a leader.

Being the enchanted child of a dragon isn't an occupation or an element of training.

Neither is being inspirational or a leader.

The class system is a vehicle for allocating and silo-ing capabilities, not for modelling training.

Says you. My reading of the 5e PHB seems to differ from yours.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

There is a well-established double standard, magic vs martial, in the D&D community in general and in the game, itself.

Odd that, for whatever reason, you seem to be describing the difference in a divisive/derrogatory way. Why is that?

I would contend: Your bug, most peoples' feature.

The reason I find it somewhat perplexing to view it in the way you do, is that you seem to be efforting to strip magic of anything that makes it... well... magical.

As if, you are steering towards 4e's unique power source matrix, where "martial", "arcane", "primal", etc. were all equal, interchangeable flavor descriptors. But there's a great system that does that already. Not sure there's a need to redirect a newer edition backwards towards emulating its predecessor. When 5e naturally does things much differently.