Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7321307">Again, I also think that both Battlemaster's Command and Inspiring Leader are problematic, for the exact same reasons, both in the naming and in the effects.&nbsp; Less so, because they are just elements of a class (and in Inspiring Leader's case, at least something that any class can take) and not an entire class based on the concept.&nbsp; No, I've never &quot;seen this in play&quot; although I'm not sure why that's relevant.&nbsp; That feels to me like asking, &quot;Well, have you actually seen Plasma Rifles in play in 5e?&nbsp; Then how do you know you don't want them in the game?&quot;&nbsp; I have read some of the descriptions I've found online, although not for a while now.&nbsp; I do remember that it is considered a &quot;Leader&quot; role, which I realize doesn't literally mean group leader, but...hey...they picked that term for a reason.&nbsp; My assessment about the &quot;ordering other people around thing&quot; is based on many, many online discussions I've had, both here and at the former WotC forums.&nbsp; Some of the things that I see expressed repeatedly include:&nbsp;- The example of Patton yelling at a private to explain martial healing (note: I'm not automatically opposed to martial healing itself, just the implications of this example)&nbsp;- The class described as &quot;officer&quot;, &quot;captain&quot;, &quot;leader&quot;, &quot;sergeant&quot;, etc.&nbsp;- The recurring phrases &quot;give orders&quot; and &quot;inspire/inspiring&quot; &quot;yell at&quot; &quot;look up to&quot; &quot;natural leadership&quot; &quot;command&quot;&nbsp;- All the coolest heroes (Odysseus, Arthur, Aragorn, Captain America, etc. etc. etc.) offered as examples of Warlords.&nbsp; It gets farcical.&nbsp; &quot;Well, Boromir was really a Warlord, too because he was a natural leader.&nbsp; And Faramir.&nbsp; And Gandalf, too, really.&nbsp; Frodo was probably a 1st level Warlord....&quot;&nbsp; (I exaggerate in jest, but only slightly.)&nbsp; Basically anybody who does anything except hit things until they are dead becomes an example of a Warlord.&nbsp;- The implications of the name &quot;Warlord&quot; itself.&nbsp; It's more grandiose by far than any existing class or sub-class name (except, perhaps, Mastermind.&nbsp; Which is telling.) Then when I point this out, I get &quot;Oh, no, that's not it at all.&nbsp; Think of it as a 'tactician'.&quot;&nbsp; But as soon as a new thread starts (which, face it, happens every time a kobold dies) it's back to the inspiring officer giving orders to adoring peons again. And please understand that I don't think any of this means the players of Warlords are going to try to order around the other players at the table.&nbsp; My objection is based entirely on the roleplaying aesthetics.To try to offer an illustrative example: imagine a class called the Ingenue or Heartthrob.&nbsp; The fluff of this class is that he/she is physically desirable...hot...and inspires romantic and lustful notions in others.&nbsp; He/she is able to capitalize on this to encourage teammates to go above and beyond.&nbsp; Ability names are &quot;Do It For Me&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Seductive Wink&quot; and &quot;At Least We Still Have Waterdeep&quot;.Even if this class were played completely deadpan/neutral, &quot;Yeah, I'll use my last charge of Do It For Me on the Monk and give him an extra 1d6&quot; it would bug the living $#%&amp; out of me.&nbsp; You don't get to tell me who my character is attracted to.This is exactly how I feel about the Warlord, and...yes...Inspiring Leader and Battlemasters, too, although (again) to a lesser extent because it's not the whole basis of the class's existence.Note that I don't have any objection to these sorts of abilities working on NPCs.&nbsp; (Also maybe worth noting that at my tables I don't allow persuasion &amp; intimidation to be used on PCs, for the same reason: nobody but the player gets to decide what the players thinks and feels...unless magic.)Action Granting is not really all that bad, except for the fact that it's just one more facet to this whole narrative.&nbsp; I don't object to Haste giving me an extra attack, again 'because magic'.&nbsp; We don't need to explain it as my character looking up to, following, or getting advice from your character.&nbsp; It's just magic. &nbsp;EDIT: It's kind of ironic that the absolutely adamant &quot;non-magical&quot; requirement is exactly the ingredient that ends up producing all this cognitive dissonance for me, even though in general I'm fine with, for example, Second Wind being non-magical.I'd like Action Granting much, much more if it was &quot;You distract an enemy.&nbsp; The next ally who attacks it with a melee weapon gets one extra attack.&quot;&nbsp; I'd love that.&nbsp; You could even Hold Action to make sure its the ally you want and I'd still be ok with it.&nbsp; But it affects the NPC, not the PC.&nbsp; Heck...make it a reaction to somebody else's attack.&nbsp; &quot;When a creature within 5' attacks another creature, you can use your reaction to distract the target, giving the attacker a free extra attack.&quot;&nbsp; (The game designer in me would then say that it should really be Advantage not extra attack, but hey I guess Samurai broke that already.)Martial Healing?&nbsp; I'd be way more ok with that if happened during short rests, like the Bard, instead of during combat.&nbsp; No, I don't think all HP are meat, but if it's possible to encourage/inspire your friends to dig deep and recover those HP without magic, the implications of only one class getting to do that bring us back to the part that bothers me.&nbsp; Whereas a skilled healer who can do the same thing over the course of an hour or 8 hours is...is just different.&nbsp; I'm not 100% sure why.&nbsp; Maybe because doing it in six seconds implies a relationship, but doing it over an hour implies expertise in psychology.And for the love of all that's holy find a name that doesn't imply rank and isn't as dry as &quot;tactician&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7321307"] Again, I also think that both Battlemaster's Command and Inspiring Leader are problematic, for the exact same reasons, both in the naming and in the effects. Less so, because they are just elements of a class (and in Inspiring Leader's case, at least something that [I]any[/I] class can take) and not an entire class based on the concept. No, I've never "seen this in play" although I'm not sure why that's relevant. That feels to me like asking, "Well, have you actually [I]seen[/I] Plasma Rifles in play in 5e? Then how do you know you don't want them in the game?" I have read some of the descriptions I've found online, although not for a while now. I do remember that it is considered a "Leader" role, which I realize doesn't literally mean group leader, but...hey...they picked that term for a reason. My assessment about the "ordering other people around thing" is based on many, many online discussions I've had, both here and at the former WotC forums. Some of the things that I see expressed repeatedly include: - The example of Patton yelling at a private to explain martial healing (note: I'm not automatically opposed to martial healing itself, just the implications of this example) - The class described as "officer", "captain", "leader", "sergeant", etc. - The recurring phrases "give orders" and "inspire/inspiring" "yell at" "look up to" "natural leadership" "command" - All the coolest heroes (Odysseus, Arthur, Aragorn, Captain America, etc. etc. etc.) offered as examples of Warlords. It gets farcical. "Well, Boromir was really a Warlord, too because he was a natural leader. And Faramir. And Gandalf, too, really. Frodo was probably a 1st level Warlord...." (I exaggerate in jest, but only slightly.) Basically anybody who does anything except hit things until they are dead becomes an example of a Warlord. - The implications of the name "Warlord" itself. It's more grandiose by far than any existing class or sub-class name (except, perhaps, Mastermind. Which is telling.) Then when I point this out, I get "Oh, no, that's not it at all. Think of it as a 'tactician'." But as soon as a new thread starts (which, face it, happens every time a kobold dies) it's back to the inspiring officer giving orders to adoring peons again. And please understand that I don't think any of this means the players of Warlords are going to try to order around the other players at the table. My objection is based entirely on the roleplaying aesthetics. To try to offer an illustrative example: imagine a class called the Ingenue or Heartthrob. The fluff of this class is that he/she is physically desirable...hot...and inspires romantic and lustful notions in others. He/she is able to capitalize on this to encourage teammates to go above and beyond. Ability names are "Do It For Me" "Seductive Wink" and "At Least We Still Have Waterdeep". Even if this class were played completely deadpan/neutral, "Yeah, I'll use my last charge of Do It For Me on the Monk and give him an extra 1d6" it would bug the living $#%& out of me. [I]You don't get to tell me who my character is attracted to.[/I] This is exactly how I feel about the Warlord, and...yes...Inspiring Leader and Battlemasters, too, although (again) to a lesser extent because it's not the whole basis of the class's existence. Note that I don't have any objection to these sorts of abilities working on NPCs. (Also maybe worth noting that at my tables I don't allow persuasion & intimidation to be used on PCs, for the same reason: nobody but the player gets to decide what the players thinks and feels...unless magic.) Action Granting is not really all that bad, except for the fact that it's just one more facet to this whole narrative. I don't object to Haste giving me an extra attack, again 'because magic'. We don't need to explain it as my character looking up to, following, or getting advice from your character. It's just magic. EDIT: It's kind of ironic that the absolutely adamant "non-magical" requirement is exactly the ingredient that ends up producing all this cognitive dissonance for me, even though in general I'm fine with, for example, Second Wind being non-magical. I'd like Action Granting much, [I]much[/I] more if it was "You distract an enemy. The next ally who attacks it with a melee weapon gets one extra attack." I'd love that. You could even Hold Action to make sure its the ally you want and I'd still be ok with it. But it affects the NPC, not the PC. Heck...make it a reaction to somebody else's attack. "When a creature within 5' attacks another creature, you can use your reaction to distract the target, giving the attacker a free extra attack." (The game designer in me would then say that it should really be Advantage not extra attack, but hey I guess Samurai broke that already.) Martial Healing? I'd be way more ok with that if happened during short rests, like the Bard, instead of during combat. No, I don't think all HP are meat, but if it's possible to encourage/inspire your friends to dig deep and recover those HP without magic, the implications of only one class getting to do that bring us back to the part that bothers me. Whereas a skilled healer who can do the same thing over the course of an hour or 8 hours is...is just different. I'm not 100% sure why. Maybe because doing it in six seconds implies a relationship, but doing it over an hour implies expertise in psychology. And for the love of all that's holy find a name that doesn't imply rank and isn't as dry as "tactician". [/QUOTE]

Verification