Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7323314">I don't think you are understanding my point.&nbsp; It's not that the rules require practice/rapport, it's that for it to be believable (to me; clearly ymmv) that a warlord can call out &quot;now!&quot; and his allies know what to do requires some kind of practice/rapport.&nbsp; In the absence of that practice, it's either:1) Overwhelming force of personality such that he is able to give commands and near-strangers (or, really, total strangers, according to RAW) are suddenly able to do rule-bending things they could never do before, which is unacceptable to me.2) &quot;Because magic&quot;, which is unacceptable to you.Yeah, well, you can scroll back through and read the last 3 or 4 times I've answered this if you really want an answer.&nbsp; If, on the other hand, you would rather be able to fall back on this argument as a way of trying to invalidate an opposing view, however, then you probably shouldn't re-read.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7323314"] I don't think you are understanding my point. It's not that the rules require practice/rapport, it's that for it to be believable (to me; clearly ymmv) that a warlord can call out "now!" and his allies know what to do requires some kind of practice/rapport. In the absence of that practice, it's either: 1) Overwhelming force of personality such that he is able to give commands and near-strangers (or, really, total strangers, according to RAW) are suddenly able to do rule-bending things they could never do before, which is unacceptable to me. 2) "Because magic", which is unacceptable to you. Yeah, well, you can scroll back through and read the last 3 or 4 times I've answered this if you really want an answer. If, on the other hand, you would rather be able to fall back on this argument as a way of trying to invalidate an opposing view, however, then you probably shouldn't re-read. [/QUOTE]

Verification