Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[BryonD]

Nah. For most people on this here mailing list, even the ones who are complaining, it'll be "adapt to 4E now, or later!"

Just say that three times.

The magic is real. (mirrors and candle might help)

 

[Wiman]

I want this to be seen in both a positive and a negative light.

Who switches over to 4th edition.....I don't think anyone at WOTC is gonna lose any sleep over it. Money will be made and they will continue working with their "fill the bucket" market model for years to come, they are aware of the competition but they are still the "king" of Pen and Paper, something that name recognition alone will keep them running just fine. Losing fanbase will happen whenever someone finds suitable replacements, will 4e lose some fanbase ...yes, will it attract fanbase from other sources...yes. The bucket empties, the bucket fills and so do the days of our lives.....

(please don't refer to the mid/late 80's drop in popularity - I'm well aware of the implications that could exist...it didn't kill the game then it won't now.)

 

[grimslade]

I was all set to get my geek rage up to Hulk proportions until I read the power description, but we are talking about one Daily power, right? Once per day a Warlord can lay the smack down on an opponent and move one adjacent ally 5' (sorry 1 square). Color me underwhelmed. (It's a lot like beige).
A warlord is not moving PCs around the battleground like chess pieces. He is hitting the target for all he is worth, the fury of his onslaught rallies one ally to move 5' to a better position or retreat if the ally is hurt. The best part is everyone gets in on the action every time they hit. It is a stick and move principle with multiple people.

You don't need to be a military squad leader to fight well with one other person. Heck, a tag team wrestler fits the bill. Once per day the warlord inspires his allies to fight together. Not as a complex 5 man team but a two man team. I hit, you move. A defender can charge a striker that hit the back line and get the Wizard out of harms way. The warlord/rogue combo was already mentioned in the main thread will be deadly.
It looks like CHarOp in 4E will go the way of the dodo, PartyOp is teh new hotness.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Color me underwhelmed. (It's a lot like beige).

It looks like CHarOp in 4E will go the way of the dodo, PartyOp is teh new hotness.

Nice. I hope it's true. (I mean, without PrC, how else can we create insane power-gaming combinations of character classes & races?

"For this 5000 points of damage per round party build, you need a Litorian Warlord, a Giant Rogue, a Warforged Mage-Hater, and a Neanderthal Wizard...."

 

[Derren]

Nice. I hope it's true. (I mean, without PrC, how else can we create insane power-gaming combinations of character classes & races?

With paragon paths and the most likely soon to be released additional class abilities.

 

[Kishin]

I'm with Hong in thinking the lion's share of the complaints here are derived from the lack of the word 'may' in the power descriptions.

Also, its beginning to amaze me how many people's parties don't seem (by indication of these posts) to want to work together.

 

[Zimri]

Given that the warlord borrows from Bo9S, I don't see your point.

Flanking is just a fact of combat - if you can't guard your flank you're at a disadvantage. Again, fail to see your point.

My point is that your side of this discussion has been saying "the warlord's powers are broken because they turn my hero into "captain co-operation" and the party into a quasi military unit. I don't see how these are logical assertions based on what I have read and seen and my tables playstyle.

My table currently has a BO9S character in it, he is not the party leader, we sometimes disagree on tactics, we are not a military unit nor do we feel like one.

please help me make the spot check to notice this sword of damocles +5 hovering by a strand of spider silk over my game table that will slay us all and make our game badwrongunfun

 

[king_ghidorah]

But a group of heroes is not a military unit! Not every party is the Black Company! Some are, but they're the exception which proves the rule.

WOTC's new class has implied that every adventuring party with a warlord in it is some kind of military outfit, because it functions like one. For this reason alone it should have been reconsidered and junked, IMO - it changes the fundamental nature of D&D's chief conceit, the band of fantasy heroes which could formerly have contained independent types, and turns them into a military squad with orders (authoritative tactical advice can't realistically be delivered swiftly any other way) and implied hierarchy. Bad, bad, bad.

To play devil's advocate, should we eliminate bonuses from 3.x bless spells if a character does not have the same religion as the cleric casting the spell? Should 3.x bards not be able to inspire a character with song unless they have similar cultural background? Where does suspension of disbelief become a problem? Why is this particular issue more problematic?

 

[Zimri]

Rounser do you/have you watched the series firefly ? or the movie Serenity ?

 

[king_ghidorah]

"Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules". So too bad if you're roleplaying someone who isn't Captain Cooperation, it's now hardcoded into the D&D ruleset that you're playing wrong.

So much for simulating fantasy, where independent heroes are a dime a dozen.

D&D encourages independent heroes?

Since OD&D, the rules have seemed to be hardcoded for just the opposite, if only based on the class system. I'm not following here.