Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[mellored]

Are you sure? Don't you mean, "if the paladin chooses to take that spell they can perform that effect"?

If you choose to make a paladin with that feature, they can shout at people to heal them.

If you choose a different mechanic, you get to do something different. Yes.

not how the spell works, but your words none-the-less.

Then tell me how does it works?

Exactly. Just like anyone should be able to be an inspirational leader.

In the same way that anyone should be able to use weapons, wear armor, get angry, sneak, or pray to their god. Yes.

Anyone can do any of those things. But you need a mechanic to make you do it better.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

If you choose to make a paladin with that feature, they can shout at people to heal them.

No. But they can cast a spell to do it.

Anyone can do any of those things. But you need a mechanic to make you do it better.

That's an odd assertion, given that inspiring leaders have been played in D&D for decades before marshals and warlords ever popped into existence.

More likely, you got a horse because you already have a cart.

 

[mellored]

That's an odd assertion, given that inspiring leaders have been played in D&D for decades before marshals and warlords ever popped into existence.

We're talking about 5e.

In 5e, anyone can wear armor, use a weapon, get angry, give an inspirational speech, or pray for a miracle.

I'm not sure why your disagreeing with that.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

We're talking about 5e.

When it's convenient for you, sure. Are you saying you haven't brought up previous editions or something? That would be an awfully foolish thing to claim, dontchathink? Given the written evidence all over this, and other, threads here.

I'm not sure why your disagreeing with that.

I don't. Because I also think anyone can assume a role of leadership and be inspirational to their allies. Not just be virtue of taking a special class designed to take agency away from the other players at the table.

And if they want to go beyond the time-tested roleplaying avenues, to show their inspirational leadership, there are mechanical features already in play, anyone can select, that will allow them to provide crunch to go along with that choice.

 

[mellored]

I don't. Because I also think anyone can assume a role of leadership and be inspirational to their allies.

That was always the intent.

"just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics; party leaders are born through roleplaying."

Not just be virtue of taking a special class designed to take agency away from the other players at the table.

Warlords still don't take anything away.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That was always the intent.

"just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics; party leaders are born through roleplaying."

Intent. Your buddy Tony Vargas usually has a lot to say about "intent" and how it doesn't always live up to the hype. Doesn't matter what the intent was, I'm sure he would say, but what actually transpired. You can post the cherry-picked fluff all you want. But the rest of the class fluff regularly violated their own intent. As does, not surprisingly, most homebrew inspiring warlord classes. You still looking for one somewhere to prove me wrong?

Warlords still don't take anything away.

...except player agency from the others at the table.

 

[pemerton]

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 think, by the rules, the character would be mind-controlled. It's never been clear exactly what, in D&D, that feels like - maybe the character feels elation in the divine presence while the spell is in effect, and then - when it wears off - returns to feeling disdain towards the cleric and/or the cleric's god.

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.

This is the bit where we don't agree.

Making a pact with a devil brings with it an implication that my PC won't complain about your PC having made a pact with a devil.

Being a cleric brings with it an implication that my PC won't complain about you mind-controlling me by casting Bless.

You being a battle-master who uses ally-boosting manoeuvres brings with it an implication that I won't feel it cheapens my sense of my PC's talent that you can help improve my action economy.

And building a fighter, no matter how pious, brings with it an implication that the gods will generally decline to hear my prayers - even if I'm locked in mortal combat with an evil cultist.

I think that, in a lot of D&D play, these points of detail are just ignored. The table simply doesn't drill this far down into the fiction.

At tables where there is this sort of drilling down into the fiction, I don't see that the warlord is in a particularly different boat. The table has to find some way of reconciling the details of party play, and PC builds, and class-siloisation, with their prepared conception of the fiction.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Making a pact with a devil brings with it an implication that my PC won't complain about your PC having made a pact with a devil.

For conciseness sake, I'll stick to this one, similar, example.

You contend the above, and to a larger extent I agree. But whether or not your PC does indeed complain or not, is entirely up to you and through character development and roleplaying.

However, when a warlord has an ability that dictates that your PC is granted a benny because he respects, admires, or is inspired by, them, that's a different crossed line. It is no longer a matter of roleplaying but one of crunch. Its the whole thing of player agency at play.

In your warlock example, player agency is maintained. In the warlord example, it is leveraged.

 

[mellored]

...except player agency from the others at the table.

Nope.

 

[mellored]

However, when a warlord has an ability that dictates that your PC is granted a benny because he respects, admires, or is inspired by, them, that's a different crossed line. It is no longer a matter of roleplaying but one of crunch. Its the whole thing of player agency at play.

Good thing he doesn't have that ability.

Edit: Inspired by, yes. Respect or admire no.