If the OP's suggestion isn't a warlord, what is? I'm not really seeing what a warlord does differently. Obviously, there's no 3[W] + status effect or 2[W] + move, but the gist is the same.
Have you ever played a 4E Warlord past level 1?
If the OP's suggestion isn't a warlord, what is? I'm not really seeing what a warlord does differently. Obviously, there's no 3[W] + status effect or 2[W] + move, but the gist is the same.
The problem with "fighter eats warlord" is the loss of character diversity. Suddenly all warlords become the same and no longer are free to pick a specialty (and don't forget those cannot be taken for granted, they are OPTIONAL and at the DM's whims). So Warlord as a class please.
@GreyICE earlier in this and a related thread has posted quite a bit about what a Warlord's 4e fan might think is missing from the combined-with-fighter approach.If the OP's suggestion isn't a warlord, what is? I'm not really seeing what a warlord does differently. Obviously, there's no 3[W] + status effect or 2[W] + move, but the gist is the same.
For me, this is the real issue.Including martial dailies is out of the realm of what I'm attempting here. Powered-down to at-will levels of power and stripped of the pseudomagical dictation of enemy action, it would lose the ability to change the flow of combat
<snip>
I still think the metagamey function of forcing an enemy's movement would leave it too divorced from the reality of the gameworld to keep it viable
The weird thing about that last point is that we do permit AC-purging feinting (eg in 3E) without complaints about it being pseudo-magical. I'm pretty sure that if D&D handled combat position via some sort of "zone" or advantage system, rather than via position on a grid, then no one would object to the warlord improving his/her zone/advantage via non-magical means.
And then what about feining, wrongfooting, leading enemies into traps etc? This is never going to happen organically, via the player "feinting" the GM. D&D action resolution just doesn't work in the right way for this to happen (contrast Burning Wheel scripting, in which a player can feint the GM). The only way to achieve this is via forced movement or similar. But if this can only be imposed via magic, then I guess we can't have wrong-footing by our warlords.
The weird thing about that last point is that we do permit AC-purging feinting (eg in 3E) without complaints about it being pseudo-magical. I'm pretty sure that if D&D handled combat position via some sort of "zone" or advantage sysmtem, rather than via position on a grid, then no one would object to the warlord improving his/her zone/advantage via non-magical means.
TL;DR: the nature of D&D's action resolution mechanics makes it very hard to achieve the warlord if none of the mechanics are actually allowed to keep people in the fight (via reducing their hp loss) or to wrongfoot/feint enemies (via changing their position) or to mess with the action economy.
jrowland said:Action denial (to enemies) and action granting (to allies) OFF-TURN is probably the best way to capture the tactical ebb-n-flow of combat without breaking verisimilitude.
But the opponent doesn't actually end up in a different place. The warlord hasn't actually tricked the enemy into moving into a disadvantageous position.I think we DO have a way: Immediate Actions (interrupts and reactions). The Creature makes an attack, warlord interrupts with "wrongfooting", the attack misses and the warlord gets a free basic (or some such).
My persoanal image of the warlord is closer to "St Crispin's Day", or Aragorn's rallying speech outside the gates of Mordor."DUCK!" may not be inspiring, but its the word I want to hear when a greatsword is aiming for my head. If it clips my shoulder, thats better than losing my head!
I don't know if I'm among the "those", but my concern isn't about power. It's about effect. A warlord rallies allies, inspires them, and misleads the enemy. You can't achieve those effects if you won't let the warlord grant buffs and hit points, or won't let the warlord change the position of enemies on the battlefield, because those effects are deemed too magical.It seems that those saying "this doesn't feel like a warlord" are mostly saying that it doesn't feel powerful enough.
pemerton said:I don't know if I'm among the "those", but my concern isn't about power. It's about effect. A warlord rallies allies, inspires them, and misleads the enemy. You can't achieve those effects if you won't let the warlord grant buffs and hit points, or won't let the warlord change the position of enemies on the battlefield, because those effects are deemed too magical.