Fog of War : for the Hector Warlord (Full Controller)

[Garthanos]

You could also make it Area Burst 2 within 5, each enemy in burst. Then allow shifting of all allies in the burst as well. That might be a bit tamer in some respects (but also a bit more flexible in others) if you need to cut it back slightly.

But here's one thing I like. Warlords have perfectly legitimate logic for party friendly powers. You could thus build a real distinction here. Mr Blasty wizard has to worry about the party, Mr Hector Warlord doesn't, but you can more easily (since there's no real traditions to deal with) keep his powers more in check in terms of ranges and etc.

There's obviously also potentially your more enchantment-based 'magic users', but they can in turn take their cues from the Warlord! Bards can kind of straddle the line, but being leaders they're more focused on other things.

Also I managed to put in no scaling by Tier oops

I think I am going to need to bite the bullet on warlord abilities that should be implement governed. Weapliment ought to be common though hmmmm.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Also I managed to put in no scaling by Tier oops

I think I am going to need to bite the bullet on warlord abilities that should be implement governed. Weapliment ought to be common though hmmmm.

Admittedly giving it the 'Weapon' keyword seems wrong, and breaks precedent in terms of then not restricting the power to melee or close with no more range than weapon reach. Obviously giving warlords an implement OTOH is also beyond what 4e has done (and no martial power source class does have one).

I think one question then is, is such a character Martial?

 

[Garthanos]

Admittedly giving it the 'Weapon' keyword seems wrong, and breaks precedent in terms of then not restricting the power to melee or close with no more range than weapon reach. Obviously giving warlords an implement OTOH is also beyond what 4e has done (and no martial power source class does have one).

4e didnt want to call anyone a controller that wasnt using magic either...
The reach of some of the effects might be can you perceive and communicate this far ie based on your ability to coordinate events happening within that area and analyse enemies separated that far etc.

How spread out your allies are might be one common limit for these effects not an arbitrary distance centered on you.

No more just hitting it with their sword anymore... in this case the warlord is influencing and manipulating enemy using his intellect and insight and allies (and mayhaps vice versi) occasionally a strike to stagger an enemy where they didnt want to be can be readily a [w] attack.

The idea as weilding a symbol becomes using that symbol both perhaps for communication a pride of asserting identity when intimidating enemies and a mayhaps a bit like the ki focus from the martial arts ... which I still assert should be martial.

I think one question then is, is such a character Martial?

Raspberries to you...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e didnt want to call anyone a controller that wasnt using magic either...
The reach of some of the effects might be can you perceive and communicate this far ie based on your ability to coordinate events happening within that area and analyse enemies separated that far etc.

How spread out your allies are might be one common limit for these effects not an arbitrary distance centered on you.

No more just hitting it with their sword anymore... in this case the warlord is influencing and manipulating enemy using his intellect and insight and allies (and mayhaps vice versi) occasionally a strike to stagger an enemy where they didnt want to be can be readily a [w] attack.

The idea as weilding a symbol becomes using that symbol both perhaps for communication a pride of asserting identity when intimidating enemies and a mayhaps a bit like the ki focus from the martial arts ... which I still assert should be martial.



Raspberries to you...

LOL I didn't mean it of course to devalue the effort, but it may well be that WotC went through this line of reasoning, perhaps with the Bard as well, which traditionally is at least PARTLY 'martial' (though there's no reason to avoid considering it magical either, certainly they are magical at any level of power).

Anyway, its still an interesting question. At some point, when you are doing fantastically effective leadership stuff, isn't it mind control magic? I mean, if it isn't using a weapon, is it MARTIAL MAGIC? That's the real question.

 

[Garthanos]

LOL I didn't mean it of course to devalue the effort, but it may well be that WotC went through this line of reasoning, perhaps with the Bard as well, which traditionally is at least PARTLY 'martial' (though there's no reason to avoid considering it magical either, certainly they are magical at any level of power).

Is intimidation (ie threat) mixed with misdirection mixed with foresight wixed with extraordinary effort magic?

When it gets extreme? its when martial partakes of quasi magical I suppose

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is intimidation (ie threat) mixed with misdirection mixed with foresight wixed with extraordinary effort magic?

When it gets extreme? its when martial partakes of quasi magical I suppose

Exactly. I'm not saying I have a specific point where I'd draw the line. I suspect there are people who DO, and there may be things I would say "Eh, that seems less martial and more <whatever>" Bard is definitely the class that would be most like a "Magical Warlord", though at least controller warlord is in its own mechanical design space, so it kinda gets to be more distinct.

I know this is kind of the 5e argument, that without roles there's no space between a Fighter and a Bard for another class (not that I agree).

 

[Garthanos]

I know this is kind of the 5e argument, that without roles there's no space between a Fighter and a Bard for another class (not that I agree).

Oh I definitely am inclined to build King Arthur as a Warlord ... but not actually a controller flavored one. AND he was arguably raised and trained by 1 A Knight and 2 A Celtic flavored Bard Merlin

I see the controller Warlord as more related to the tactical one... Perhaps calling it the Strategic Warlord could end up being the best flavor.

The verbage for the Resourceful Warlord implies it ought to be a controller but really really isnt.

 

[Garthanos]

and breaks precedent in terms of then not restricting the power to melee or close with no more range than weapon reach.

Instead of making it area effect I could make its affect each enemy within reach of an ally who can see you... hence emphasizing the using and influence of the allies coordinated effort.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Instead of making it area effect I could make its affect each enemy within reach of an ally who can see you... hence emphasizing the using and influence of the allies coordinated effort.

Yeah, its slightly obtuse by the standards of most 4e powers, but it works.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh I definitely am inclined to build King Arthur as a Warlord ... but not actually a controller flavored one. AND he was arguably raised and trained by 1 A Knight and 2 A Celtic flavored Bard Merlin

I see the controller Warlord as more related to the tactical one... Perhaps calling it the Strategic Warlord could end up being the best flavor.

The verbage for the Resourceful Warlord implies it ought to be a controller but really really isnt.

Yeah, I am kind of thinking though that I like, mostly, the idea of a class has a role. I mean I'm entirely onboard with "and your secondary role is defined by subclass/build/whatever" but maybe if a class wants a different role, it should just BE a different class. I guess that begs the question of what to name it... And also in true 4e creates the ugly dilemma of where to get a list of powers.