Being able to fly a foot off the ground at a couple of miles per hour for a whole five minutes every day would be magical. Magical and Powerful aren't the same thing. Though insisting they are is very common among a particular faction of D&D fans.
Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink
- Thread starter ChrisCarlson
- Start date
Being able to fly a foot off the ground at a couple of miles per hour for a whole five minutes every day would be magical. Magical and Powerful aren't the same thing. Though insisting they are is very common among a particular faction of D&D fans.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
I guess. I could see wonderous applications for such magic. Though it seems an odd feature to create just to fixate on for your purposes.
Agreed. Of course.
Are there? Do "they"? And what does that have to do with anything?
I confess to being unsure whether you accidentally quoted me or not. Where these some form of counter-argument or examples related to my point?
No. Clearly bards can, and so can clerics and paladins (via various manifestations of divine grace). Also battlemasters, on one reading of some of their abilities.
But a warlord would be better at it, yes. Just as a cleric is better at praying, and a warlock better at making deals with the devil.
You really think being a dragon-blooded sorcerer is a matter of occupation or training? That entering into a pact with infernal or otherworldly cosmic powers is a matter of training?
And what do you think a paladin's proficiency bonus represents, if not the effect of divine guidance or blessing?
In his DMG (pp 111-12), Gygax observed that "the accumulation of hit points and the ever-greater abilities and better saving throws of characters represents the aid supplied by supernatural forces." Surely that is doubly true for a paladin.
When you ask "why or why not?" are you asking about the mechanics or the fiction.
By the mechanics, it works on an unwilling target regardless of attitude towards the cleric or the cleric's god. Given that the spell is an Enchantment, the most natural explanation for this, in the fiction, is that the spell controls the mind and emotions of the target. (Though it is odd that this would be one of the few mind-control spells in the game that does not permit a saving throw.)
Personally I think that makes for a very weak fiction that is completely divorced from the archetype that the cleric is meant to be expressing: in tales of holy knights, and fighting under relics of the True Cross, etc, it is not mind control that makes the soldiers fight harder, but inspiration and religious devotion and the presence of divine grace.
In 4e clerics have a healing ability called Healing Word, which allows the recipient to expend a surge to regain hit points. It seems to me obvious that when a cleric speaks a healing word, s/he is not using magic to reknit bones and close wounds (that's what the various Cure . . . Wound spells are for). Rather, s/he is infusing herself with divine grace which then lifts the spirits and martial resolve of the recipient character (and perhaps the grace flows into the recipient - there's plenty of room for interpretive flexibility).
I have always thought of the Bless spell in the same way - the cleric performs a ritual which inspires the recipients and infuses them with grace and valour. (3E formalises this by making the bonus a Morale bonus.)
What happens if the cleric tries to use Healing Word, or Bless, on an apostate? In my view the game rules don't cover this - it's the sort of corner case they're not concerned with. In classic dungeon-delving D&D I think the notion of a character being an apostate isn't really on the table - we take for granted that the PCs are happy to receive the blessings of the divine which their cleric companions call down upon them.
In more "roleplaying"- or "story"-oriented games, the possibility becomes a live one, but I think it is left for the table to sort out. If the table wants to just handwave it away as "maaagic" or mind control that doesn't allow a save, I guess they can. What I find puzzling is that a table would be happy to handwave that away, but want to drill down super-deep into the mechanical and motivational logic of a warlord. It seems to me that a player who is really concerned about the implications, in the fiction, of a warlord being able to inspire his/her PC is likely to be equally worried about the implications, in the fiction, of a cleric being able to mind control his PC with a 1st level spell that doesn't allow a saving throw. And the obvious solution would be to allow a save vs Bless for apostates, or even rewrite its targeting to only affect willing allies; and a warlord could be handled the same way.
Page 6 of the Basic PDF says that:
Class broadly describes a character’s vocation, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation.
The game clearly allows that swearing a pact with a devil is a vocation that is distinct from being a great thief, or a fierce warrior. Similarly for being beloved by the gods, or for being born of dragons, or for being able to sing the music of creation.
There is no a priori reason in the fiction why this should be so. In Nordic, Celtic and Finish legend there are fierce warriors who are also able to sing the music of creation. There a folk tales of great thieves making pacts with the devil (which, in some cases, might even help explain their success as thieves). Someone who wrote a story about a dragon-blooded hero who was the fiercest of all warriors and also able to shoot blasts of fire and fly on magical wings wouldn't be making some sort of category error.
But in 5e (as in other versions of D&D) these various abilities are silo-ed off. Not for reasons to do with in-fiction truths, but for reasons to do with making a playable, class-based game. Making a warlord a unique class is doing the same thing: it is opening up the possibility of a character whose vocation is being an inspiring hero; and the result is that characters of other classes won't be as inspiring as that hero is (though they may still be inspiring in mechanically lesser ways). Much like a fighter who swears a pact with Cthulhu - whatever the benefits of that pact, in most 5e games the player won't be allowed to mechanically gestalt his/her fighter with warlock.
That's how a class-based game works.
EDIT: It's obvious that a FRPG need not be class-based, and hence that the mechanics of character-building need not erect barriers between (say) sword-fighting and spell-casting (so long, Gandalf) or between being empowered by the blood of a dragon and being a heroic warrior, which from the point of view of the fiction are completely artificial.
Runequest is probably the best-known game that illustrates this point.
But D&D is not such a game. It uses classes. That means that capabilities and traits are silo-ed by the mechanics. The fiction either has to bend to that, or (as is more often the case) just politely ignore it.
Last edited:
This recent bit of Sage Advice seems apposite:
I think that's a relatively clear account of the sense in which a warlord is non-magical. It doesn't mean that a warlord - especially a high-level one - is not a super-heroic or legendary figure.
Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical? If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
1. the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
2. the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
* Is it a magic item?
* Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
* Is it a spell attack?
* Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
1. the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
2. the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
* Is it a magic item?
* Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
* Is it a spell attack?
* Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
I think that's a relatively clear account of the sense in which a warlord is non-magical. It doesn't mean that a warlord - especially a high-level one - is not a super-heroic or legendary figure.
[MENTION=6702445]jayoungr[/MENTION]
Upthread you were asking about literary examples. Here's a passage from the Iliad (book 5) that seems relevant to thinking about warlords, blessings, inspiration and the like:
Diomedes isn't a cleric (is he?) but is able to pray to Athena and be suitably inspired. Mechanically, in D&D, that looks like a cleric casting a Bless spell on him. We also see Second Wind, I think.
Upthread you were asking about literary examples. Here's a passage from the Iliad (book 5) that seems relevant to thinking about warlords, blessings, inspiration and the like:
Now Pallas Athene gave Diomedes, Tydeus’ son, strength and courage to prove himself the finest of the Argives and win glory and renown. She made his helm and shield burn with unwavering flame, like that of Sirius the star of harvest, who when he has bathed in the Ocean depths rises to shine brightest of all. Such was the fire that streamed from his head and shoulders, as she thrust him into the heart of the fight where the enemy were strongest. . . .
[W]hen glorious Pandarus, Lycaon’s son, saw Diomedes rage across the plain, routing the army ahead, he swiftly bent his curved bow, and aimed at him, striking him firmly, as he ran, on the right shoulder-plate of his cuirass, so the sharp arrow pierced clean through, and the armour ran with blood. Pandarus cried aloud in triumph: ‘On now, brave Trojans, you horse-prickers! The best of the Greeks is hurt, and that arrow means he’s done for, if Lord Apollo, born of Zeus, truly blessed my journey here from Lycia.’
So he boasted, but the swift shaft failed to down Diomedes, who drew back to the shadow of his chariot, where he called to Sthenelus, Capaneus’ son: ‘Quick, my lad, down here, and pull this bitter dart from my flesh.’ . . .
He prayed so that Pallas Athene heard, lightening his limbs, his feet and hands, and speaking her winged words in his ear: ‘Courage, Diomedes, I have filled your arteries with your father’s strength, that indomitable strength of Tydeus, shield-wielding horseman. . . .’
Bright-eyed Athene departed with those words, and Diomedes once more took his place at the front. Eager though he had been to fight before, his courage now was tripled, like a lion wounded but not killed, as it leaps the fence, by a shepherd as he guards his sheep. He angers it, but now cannot aid them, and has to hide behind walls, while the helpless flock is scattered, downed in heaps together, till the furious creature leaps from the fold. In such a fury great Diomedes attacked the Trojans.
[W]hen glorious Pandarus, Lycaon’s son, saw Diomedes rage across the plain, routing the army ahead, he swiftly bent his curved bow, and aimed at him, striking him firmly, as he ran, on the right shoulder-plate of his cuirass, so the sharp arrow pierced clean through, and the armour ran with blood. Pandarus cried aloud in triumph: ‘On now, brave Trojans, you horse-prickers! The best of the Greeks is hurt, and that arrow means he’s done for, if Lord Apollo, born of Zeus, truly blessed my journey here from Lycia.’
So he boasted, but the swift shaft failed to down Diomedes, who drew back to the shadow of his chariot, where he called to Sthenelus, Capaneus’ son: ‘Quick, my lad, down here, and pull this bitter dart from my flesh.’ . . .
He prayed so that Pallas Athene heard, lightening his limbs, his feet and hands, and speaking her winged words in his ear: ‘Courage, Diomedes, I have filled your arteries with your father’s strength, that indomitable strength of Tydeus, shield-wielding horseman. . . .’
Bright-eyed Athene departed with those words, and Diomedes once more took his place at the front. Eager though he had been to fight before, his courage now was tripled, like a lion wounded but not killed, as it leaps the fence, by a shepherd as he guards his sheep. He angers it, but now cannot aid them, and has to hide behind walls, while the helpless flock is scattered, downed in heaps together, till the furious creature leaps from the fold. In such a fury great Diomedes attacked the Trojans.
Diomedes isn't a cleric (is he?) but is able to pray to Athena and be suitably inspired. Mechanically, in D&D, that looks like a cleric casting a Bless spell on him. We also see Second Wind, I think.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
Interesting that I never listed bards in my question. And how do you imagine clerics and paladins inspiring their allies? I see no warlord-esque abilities on their class features list.
But lets refine the question to give you less wiggle room to dodge: Are you saying a barbarian, druid, monk, ranger*, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard, should not be capable of inspiring his allies?
(*weren't you one of those touting Aragorn as a great leader and paragon for your warlording examples in literature? He's not even a warlord. Further proving my point that it's not a class, it's a personality...)
Why would you think all characters' increased proficiency bonus is a result of divine guidance and blessing?
The fiction.
Okay, so given this, what do you see the target feeling in the fiction when the spell takes effect?
So in the fiction, what would happen from the apostate's point of view if the spell were cast on him/her?
And in the fiction, what would the target experience if a cleric for whom he/she had no personal respect cast the spell?
I get that you feel this is an important thing to have in a game. But do you really see no difference in how the various "vocations" affect the expected dynamics of the party? Being a fierce warrior, singing the music of creation, or making a pact with a devil don't bring with them implications about how the other PCs will relate to them. You really, truly don't think that "being an inspiring leader" carries with it any implications at all about how the rest of the party is expected to treat that character?
If you say yes, I'll have to accept your word--but I will frankly admit that I really, truly don't understand how the answer can be yes.
mellored
Legend
Then you haven't looked at their class feature list.
Use your reaction to give disadvantage on an attack against an ally.
A bonus to saving throws based on how charming the paladin is.
Immunity to fear just by being near a paladin's inspiring presence.
"A willing creature you touch is imbued with bravery."
And you can use a bonus action to shout at an unconscious people and heal them.
Maybe i should start calling a warlord a "spell-less, religion-less, paladin".
Not to the same degree.
Anyone can be angry, but barbarians do it better.
Anyone can grow a plant, but druids do it better.
Anyone can punch things, but monks do it better.
Anyone can shoot a bow, but ranger's do it better.
Anyone can make a deal with a demon, but warlocks do it better.
Anyone can read a spell book, but wizards do it better.
Anyone can inspire, but unless you spend the time and effort (i.e. bard / warlord / feat), your not going to inspire people in an extraordinary way.
Sorcerer's are an odd one out, since it's a bloodline. But still, they need to master their own internal struggle.
He's certainly not a ranger. He didn't use ensnaring strike, conjure barrage, conjure animals, or have a pet.
Really he's from a class-less system, like GRUPs or books, where you have freedom to design a character any way you want, and character balance is all over the place ranging from demi-god to guy who carries things.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
But how does doing so force another PC to look up to said paladin?
But how does doing so force another PC to look up to said paladin?
But how does doing so force another PC to look up to said paladin?
But how does doing so force another PC to look up to said paladin?
Are you sure they can do that? You may be mistaken.
How do any of those relate to taking agency from the other players? You are deep down a rabbit hole here. What do any of those things have to do with the topic at hand. I confess, you have routinely been one of the most off-topic posters around here. Please stop derailing.
That's not true. I've been roleplaying leader-types who inspire fellow adventurers, even entire armies, since 1st edition. I'm sorry you've been unable.
Balderdash. He's the iconic ranger. This claim of yours right here shows how ridiculous your arguments are getting. You actually typed that with serious intentions? Or was this a poor attempt at a joke?
And? So you can show that all ranger characters do these things? I've played plenty of rangers. Many of which could not do these things either.
Wow. Make stuff up much? Truth is, he's from no such set of rules ever. He's a literary character unbeholden to TTRPG mechanics. Yet he's been propped up multiple times in this and other threads as proof of mechanics. Now that he's inconvenient, you try to distance yourself. Fascinating.
Similar Threads
