Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Lord Twig]

What if my fighter doesn't want to be distracted by the ruffian's ally? Note, not all thieves are pc's.

I'm sure you don't want to be stabbed by the ruffian either, but you don't get a choice. You are fighting people that intend you harm, they are not going to worry about what you want. This is a different relationship than with your allies.

And, if my fighter lets your thief hit better, why don't I help anyone else?

You are not giving the thief the ability to Sneak Attack. That is his own skill. You aren't giving him anything, the thief is taking advantage you fighting the same opponent.

Note, killing a target in no way takes away player agency. Just because the dragon breathed on you is not a loss of player agency for you. Otherwise all combat is a loss of player agency.

Here is a dictionary definition of agency that I think applies: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.

If your character just takes damage, no, you haven't lost agency. If your character is killed you can not act or exert power with that character. Sounds like the loss of agency to me. But it is okay to lose agency in combat. Each side is trying to harm the other. That's the whole point of combat.

And, if you are helping my rogue stab someone why can't I help you stab someone? Why is it okay that I force you to distract my target, but it's not okay for me to distract a target for you - a typical warlord power- and let you hit better?

Anyone can help anyone else. It's called the Help action. It's just that the rogue is better at taking advantage of fighting with others.

Sneak Attack isn't something that anyone else gives the rogue, it is something the rogue is capable of because he trained himself to be good at that style of fighting.

 

[Lord Twig]

Using a DM ruling to fix a rare roleplaying corner case where that's outside the assumption of inter-party cooperation the rules bases itself on...

Seems like a valid solution. Even one that might be an existing rule.

It might be.

So next time someone tries to cast bless or cure wounds on someone who rejects that persons god, i will also allow it to be denied.

I would allow someone to reject a bless or cure wounds as well. But I would point out that accepting the benefits of a spell does not require you to accept the caster's god or beliefs.

You could also refuse a drink of water offered by a Cleric. It would be the same thing.

No ability requires you to admire anyone.

So that's just off-topic.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. We just had a long list of Warlord powers from 4e that explicitly described the targets of said powers as admiring the Warlord.

 

[mellored]

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. We just had a long list of Warlord powers from 4e that explicitly described the targets of said powers as admiring the Warlord.

If you have a list then it should be easy to show me where it says anything about admiring the warlord.

 

[Aldarc]

If you have a list then it should be easy to show me where it says anything about admiring the warlord.

Yeah, only that the warlord inspires you. Inspiration takes many forms, and it's incredibly open-ended.

Seeing a scenic landscape may inspire me to paint. Does that mean that scenic landscape tells me what/how to feel? Did I choose to be inspired by a scenic landscape or painting? Does that mean that my agency becomes stripped away as a result?

 

[mellored]

Yeah, only that the warlord inspires you. Inspiration takes many forms, and it's incredibly open-ended.

Seeing a scenic landscape may inspire me to paint. Does that mean that scenic landscape tells me what/how to feel? Did I choose to be inspired by a scenic landscape or painting? Does that mean that my agency becomes stripped away as a result?

Not to mention, inspiration doesn't have to be positive.

I could hate the warlord so much, and i imagine it's her face on every enemy i attack, striking with extra viciousness.

Or I could be inspired by how disgusting the warlord is, and how i'm not going to fall unconscious and have her use "binding my wounds" as an excuse to touch me.

Or because i'm so scared of him that i get extra movement from pure panic.

Or because he's my rival, and i can't let him kill more kobolds then me.

etc...

 

[Aldarc]

Not to mention, inspiration doesn't have to be positive.

I could hate the warlord so much, and i imagine it's her face on every enemy i attack, striking with extra viciousness.

Or I could be inspired by how disgusting the warlord is, and how i'm not going to fall unconscious and have her use "binding my wounds" as an excuse to touch me.

Or because i'm so scared of him that i get extra movement from pure panic.

Or because he's my rival, and i can't let him kill more kobolds then me.

etc...

Or the unconscious party member may not be hearing the Warlord per se in their subconscious mind, but envisioning their mother telling them, "Get up, Charles. You're going to be late for school, and you have a test today. Get up." And THEN they wake up, after shrugging off their wounds, and hear the warlord yelling at them "Get up you maggot! I know you have more fight in you. We have a battle to win! Get up." The Warlord could be triggering a number of things in their unconscious mind when she provides her inspiring word. That's for the characters themselves to decide.

 

[Lord Twig]

Or the unconscious party member may not be hearing the Warlord per se in their subconscious mind, but envisioning their mother telling them, "Get up, Charles. You're going to be late for school, and you have a test today. Get up." And THEN they wake up, after shrugging off their wounds, and hear the warlord yelling at them "Get up you maggot! I know you have more fight in you. We have a battle to win! Get up." The Warlord could be triggering a number of things in their unconscious mind when she provides her inspiring word. That's for the characters themselves to decide.

None of these are new arguments. Anyone can say the exact same words, but only if the Warlord says them will you be healed. How does that make sense?

Well, if you accept the Sage Advice background magic in D&D worlds then it makes sense. Anyone can say the words, but the Warlord taps into the underlying nature of the world and actually changes something in the target character that causes him to be able to shrug off an injury.

Why is the Warlord inspiring? For the same reason the Bard is. His words carry power that is not overtly magical, but has influence in the world the same way a dragon's wings can hold the dragon aloft despite being physically impossible.

And as you said, the inspiration can take any form. Actual inspiration, respect, affection, hatred, whatever.

Edit: So why did I say that the Warlord required admiration? Because without the background magic it does.

But I guess they don't use that exact word. So fine. The Warlord doesn't require you to admire him. He only requires that you find his presence comforting and inspiring. See? No admiration at all.

 

[GreenTengu]

The Bard, Battlemaster Fighter, and Paladin all have different components that pretty much nullify any real objection to the Warlord. All the necessary mechanics and abilities already exist as part of the game, it would just be a matter of bringing those and only those components together into a class in order to reintroduce the concept.

But, to be fair, is there any particular reason why we should have expected it to happen by now? The company also hasn't bothered to get around to properly introducing a Psionics class which has a longer history in the game. In terms of actual expanded player options, D&D 5E is probably the single most dead edition ever put out since 1st. Yeah, they tossed out a few new spells that no one will ever use and a few races that seemed to have been sketched up on the back of a napkin on a drunken night out that, for the most part, no one was really all that particularly keen to play....

But there hasn't been anything remotely approaching a new class introduced into the game yet. So there is no point in getting worked up that they haven't introduced it when they haven't introduced any other class either. If they started putting out really niche and useless classes and still hadn't approached the idea of using a class that enacts cleric/bard like party-booting abilities without requisite religious or musical aspects... well, at then you can get upset. But right now, it seems like WotC is pretty much just being lazy when it comes to producing any real content for their game.

 

[Aldarc]

None of these are new arguments. Anyone can say the exact same words, but only if the Warlord says them will you be healed. How does that make sense?

The same logic that says only a barbarian can rage.

Well, if you accept the Sage Advice background magic in D&D worlds then it makes sense. Anyone can say the words, but the Warlord taps into the underlying nature of the world and actually changes something in the target character that causes him to be able to shrug off an injury.

Why is the Warlord inspiring? For the same reason the Bard is. His words carry power that is not overtly magical, but has influence in the world the same way a dragon's wings can hold the dragon aloft despite being physically impossible.

And as you said, the inspiration can take any form. Actual inspiration, respect, affection, hatred, whatever.

Edit: So why did I say that the Warlord required admiration? Because without the background magic it does.

But I guess they don't use that exact word. So fine. The Warlord doesn't require you to admire him. He only requires that you find his presence comforting and inspiring. See? No admiration at all.

Then let it be so and move on with your life so the rest of us can enjoy having a warlord without having to justify its existence. Why spend so much of your time and effort quibbling over problems with easy fixes?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But there hasn't been anything remotely approaching a new class introduced into the game yet. So there is no point in getting worked up that they haven't introduced it when they haven't introduced any other class either. If they started putting out really niche and useless classes and still hadn't approached the idea of using a class that enacts cleric/bard like party-booting abilities without requisite religious or musical aspects... well, at then you can get upset. But right now, it seems like WotC is pretty much just being lazy when it comes to producing any real content for their game.

I'm frankly amazed that fans have been arguing over a hypothetical/fan-made class for 48 pages now, in a forum special-made to contain a sea of similar arguments.

I guess I shouldn't be though. Now that it looks like non-LG paladins are here to stay, the D&D culture warriors need some new concept to tell other fans that it doesn't belong in D&D.