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

[Primal]

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.

A very good point. This is also how I usually try to relate to out-of-character tactical discussions. Indeed, even though you role-played every campfire conversation, it's reasonable to assume that you don't role-play every conversation between the PCs. It'd also be logical to assume that long-time "companions in arms" would develop some sort of "battle codes" or sign language to communicate their actions and tactical advice to others.

 

[Zimri]

A very good point. This is also how I usually try to relate to out-of-character tactical discussions. Indeed, even though you role-played every campfire conversation, it's reasonable to assume that you don't role-play every conversation between the PCs. It'd also be logical to assume that long-time "companions in arms" would develop some sort of "battle codes" or sign language to communicate their actions and tactical advice to others.

Like wolverine and colossus have "the fastball special"

 

[Hussar]

Just like its impolite to fireball high-ref/evasion PCs (while chances are they'll make it, 1's happen and its just rude without permission).

Wizard: Pardon me, sir knight, but would you mind terribly if I set you afire?

Knight: Of course not good sir. I always enjoy a good roasting.

FOOSSH



It made me giggle.

 

[Fifth Element]

Then, we should also wait for all of the rules before praising the new rules as well, correct?

I'm not going to get into that. Suffice it to say that all "this looks good" comments should be read to include the proviso "assuming there isn't something we don't know about that materially affects how this works".

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

A player who says, "Flank that orc over there! Not this one, that one! Its the better move, I tell you!" is annoying.

It is the way too many players treat one another. This kind of responce to a sitation and callow treatment of others is part of why gamers and the game have a bad reputation. I hope 4E does not encourage this behavior.

 

[mmu1]

It is the way too many players treat one another. This kind of responce to a sitation and callow treatment of others is part of why gamers and the game have a bad reputation. I hope 4E does not encourage this behavior.

I think 4E is virtually guaranteed to encourage this sort of thing.

Tactical movement has gotten much more complex, with tons of minor movement-related powers all over the place - push, pull, slide, shift, etc. Precise positioning on the battlemat is going to be more important than ever. In addition, Marks will come into play in virtually every combat, and who you mark is often going to affect other PCs. (who gets attacked being the most common issue, I guess)

That sort of stuff is always a common source of contention, and 4E seems to have a lot of it. I'm not sure if, in the end, it'll turn out to have more of it than 3.5, but on the surface at least, it seems likely.

 

[king_ghidorah]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm guessing that the reason the leader slides characters rather than giving them a free shift is because characters can on shift on their turn. To avoid the messy mechanical discussion of giving other characters a free out-of-turn action, the mechanics support the active character being the one who is active. The Warlord pushes, pulls or shifts on his turn, etc. Simple mechanics, and NOT an error or bad wording on the part of rules writers because of a simple idea that only one player is active at a time built into the rules to avoid confusion.

Just a thought.

 

[Remathilis]

Wizard: Pardon me, sir knight, but would you mind terribly if I set you afire?

Knight: Of course not good sir. I always enjoy a good roasting.

FOOSSH



It made me giggle.

Well, that's not quite what I meant...

 

[Baka no Hentai]

It was obvious to me that the use of the term "Slide" was to indicate a difference in enemy character reactions as opposed to "Shift", not the difference in whether the benefiting ally had control of the move or not.

The benefit of the Warlord ability allowing an allied character to Slide as opposed to Shifting is that (as far as we know) sliding does not provoke special-case opportunity attacks like shifting would (shifting away from an NPC Fighter, for example, or any monster with special anti-shifting abilities). The term "Slide" also implies that the player need not spend a move action to do so, as Shifting might.

This clearly is not so obvious to everyone else, otherwise I can't fathom that we would have a 9 page thread of arguments over semantics... but honestly, do people really encounter these types of problems at their gaming tables? Or are these just cases of bringing up the worst case scenario, no matter how unlikely it would be?

Maybe it is because I game with real life friends and family members, but I just cant see any of these debates actually occuring.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The benefit of the Warlord ability allowing an allied character to Slide as opposed to Shifting...

He doesn't allow an ally to slide. He slides an ally.

-Hyp.