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

[Falling Icicle]

Nevermind.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I keep seeing "The Warlord can move other characters!"

But as I read it, once the Warlord's used his Daily, every character can move other characters.

So once everyone can move other players' minis around, it's less about "The Warlord is bad!" and more about getting used to a new facet of battlemat play.

-Hyp.

 

[grimslade]

I keep seeing "The Warlord can move other characters!"

But as I read it, once the Warlord's used his Daily, every character can move other characters.

So once everyone can move other players' minis around, it's less about "The Warlord is bad!" and more about getting used to a new facet of battlemat play.

-Hyp.

Exactly. This one daily power opens up options for the whole party. Now, as Bagpuss observed, being lowest in the initiative count could mean who is last man out of the lava. ;P

 

[SmCaudata]

I don't get the big deal. If you don't like it as written, then house rule it. I don't know anyone who would be upset that they cannot forcibly move a teammate anyway. The warlord's abilities aren't "magical". He is probably saying "Come follow my charge at this orc and hold the line with me to keep him from going after the wizard." And if you have 3 "martial" type folks all 3 can move and hold the line or surround the bad guy. Pretty cool IMO.

Any player who would say... "nah... I'm gonna wait back here, the orc will come to me, you go charge" is being just as bad as the bossy guy at the table.

I'm really looking forward to the more tactical aspects of combat with 4e. The truly tactical stuff in previous edition was with trip, grapple, pin, etc... but the rules involved made it slow and cumbersome. Now my group can be tactical without holding up the combat. This means, more tactical combat in a shorter period of time, leaving more time for non-combat RP. Wins all around.

 

[Celebrim]

I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:

Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
Warlord Player: "Cool, let me give you a bonus with -Insert Ability-"
Other Player: "Great, thanks.. since it will be such a great bonus to hit, maybe I'll use an encounter power instead of an at will one."

Or some such thing..

Am I wrong in thinking this is a good way to do things?

No. If you are happy with it, then its a good way to do things.

However, I don't like and generally disallow this sort of out of character discussion at the table. Players can ask another player what they are going to do, but only by having thier character ask another character what they are going to do and then waiting in character for the responce. Likewise, they can signal what they want another player to do by having thier character use thier 'conversation action' to say what they want the other character to do. Extended discussions back and forth would be frowned on.

This rule came about largely because it annoyed me so much as a player when another player would dither, discuss, plan, change thier mind, look up rules, and so forth on thier turn and thus force me to do nothing but twiddle my thumbs while I was waiting. I feel that sense I started enforcing that the game be played this way, that combat has become more exciting, more interesting, and less of a drag on the game as a whole. I suspect thier are players out there which would resent being forced to play the game quickly, but on the whole it seems to work. Your milage of course might vary.

 

[Kobu]

I keep seeing "The Warlord can move other characters!"

But as I read it, once the Warlord's used his Daily, every character can move other characters.

So once everyone can move other players' minis around, it's less about "The Warlord is bad!" and more about getting used to a new facet of battlemat play.

No thanks. I try to keep metagaming to a minimum, and here's a class that seems to be encouraging it.

 

[Kobu]

If you don't like it as written, then house rule it.

That never has been and never will be a valid argument in favor of a rule.

 

[SmCaudata]

That never has been and never will be a valid argument in favor of a rule.

I wasn't clear on what I meant. The way I read the rule is that you can move an ally. In 3e there are "beneficial" spells that when you cast on an ally, there is no save, but if the player choses they can save to avoid the spell. Same with this, but without the save. The target of ally, to me, states that they are willing participants to the action. If they don't want to, they are not considered an "ally" for that action and are allowed to not follow the warlord's call.

Yes, perhaps the word "willing" should be inserted somewhere in there, but I just feel it is implied already. Some people are reading it strickly as is without any context. So, what I meant to say was that if you're the type to isolate the rule as written with strict interpretation based on the grammar/rhetoric used, then house rule it if you don't like it by adding one simple word.

 

[king_ghidorah]

No thanks. I try to keep metagaming to a minimum, and here's a class that seems to be encouraging it.

Not to sound like an idiot, but don't all uses of rules involve metagaming? Any use of a power, spell, skill, etc. involves the invocation and application of rules in an abstracted sense. The only way to avoid metagaming at the table seems to involve describing actions and having the DM adjudicate without the players discussing rules. This can be a valid way to play, but I don't remember the last game I ran or played without metagaming necessarily coming into play.

When is invocation of the game mechanics too much?

 

[Henry]

However, I don't like and generally disallow this sort of out of character discussion at the table. Players can ask another player what they are going to do, but only by having thier character ask another character what they are going to do and then waiting in character for the responce. Likewise, they can signal what they want another player to do by having thier character use thier 'conversation action' to say what they want the other character to do. Extended discussions back and forth would be frowned on.

In combat, this doesn't bother our group, and we allow out of character strategizing all the time. Why? Because in real life, the players are weekend warriors who only devote maybe five to ten hours a week max concentrating on D&D. In "game reality", the characters are seasoned veterans who live and die by their tactics, so they've talked, planned, and plotted in their off time on the best tactics working together in a situation, and various codes and signal phrases on how to communicate that info quickly. Same as how I wouldn't make a player roleplay out every nuance of his bluff check to seduce a barmaid, I assume that the time spent in downtime around the campfire, etc. would be spent dicussing the day's events, tactics, etc.and that is representted by the table talk during battle.

When I use my White raven tactics to give another player an extra turn in combat, I relate it as "spurring them on with my words, urging them to strike at the right spot, while the advantage is pressed, etc." what he does with that turn is up to him.