Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[FadedC]

Yeah remember a shift is spending a move to go 5' without drawing an AoO. This power doesn't stop the dragon from spending a move to go 5'. He just can't do it without drawing an AoO.

So really there is no movement prevention here. Just defense prevention.

 

[JoelF]

Just to throw another hypothetical, the same two allies using Pin the Foe against a fine opponent (say a half-fiend intelligent housefly warlock 6, just for kicks), I'm not sure how they could pin something that small in any way that would restrict its movement (or cause it to provoke OAs if it did move, depending on your point of view.)

Sure this example is a lot sillier than my earlier dragon one, but the general point I'm trying to make is that it seems very odd that a tactical manuver has zero restrictions related to relative sizes of the foes. Or other ways that it wouldn't work. As someone mentioned, what about silence if the allies can't coordinate their attacks, or in darkness where they can't see each other to coordinate. Or what about if one of the allies is a summoned monster (which admittedly PCs won't have in the PH1 probably), or an animal intelligence companion or pet? How do those creatures coordinate through the warlord's powers if he can't communicate with them?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Right, but they can ALSO shift. And this power takes that away. That isn't the same thing.

Your right this power does take away the ability for the dragon to move 5 feet and avoid a OA, but the Dragon can still move thus provoking a OA.

 

[KarinsDad]

It isn't so much that the Warlord is calling out commands as much as he through his attack has allowed two PCs to position themselves adequately to engage the target if it tries to shift/move.

As for them being simply adjacent, well it is not like the two PCs in-game would be simply standing there going, "oh it went that way, guess we can't hit it", it would be more along the lines, of

"The fighter swung around to the side as the dragon turned to run. His sword swing makes the dragon veer again into the sword of the second fighter."

For that to happen they don't have to be flanking.

I think by leaving it more open, WoTC is giving us permission to be more dramatic and narrate our own combat more.

Allow to position?

Your rational fails. This power occurs until the end of the encounter (as long as any two allies are adjacent). Why? Because the rules says so. Your rational does not describe why that long duration of this "superior postioning" would exist. Nor does your rational describe a 2 square wide corridor scenario where the opponent is merely backing away.

And why could the allies not get this superior positioning without the Warlord's help?

Face it. This is a mystical supernatural ability that allows some weird rule modification, just because a designer thought it would be cool.

One cannot rationalize it beyond "that's how the rule reads".


And, that is a verisimilitude problem in an RPG. Not for all players, but for some. The reason we have DMs and rules in DND and do not just all do whatever we want is so that everyone at the game can have a common understanding and agreement of what is going on. When the game designers create fantastical martial powers, they force a type of sub-genre (e.g. like Wuxia or "superheroes") on an entire gaming community.

But, the most annoying thing about this power is not that one cannot really understand how or why this mystical sounding thing works (the mechanics are easy, the rational is illogical). What is most annoying is that it has no saving throw. It automatically takes away one (or more if powers can trigger off of shift) of an opponent's abilities with no chance of failure (shy of the enemy TPKing the PCs or flying or guaranteeing that two alies will never be adjacent or some other non-typical event).

 

[KarinsDad]

Hopefully the bigger picture will prove that fear unfounded.

Agreed.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Who said allies have to "surround" it?

No one, I was just picturing that in my head when I wrote my reply. Surrounding has nothing to do with it as I said a poor choice of words I should of used allies not surrounders.

Yes they are. It isn't required that ALL movement be prevented. On the dragons' turn it may desire to shift and that movement is prevented. It prevents movement.

No, it does not. If the enemy wants to move one square (as with a shift) he can; if he wants to move more than one square, he can. What does happen to him is that it provokes AOs if he does move away from the allies.

...you can also use a move action to shift; this lets you move one square without suffering an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies.

Are you houseruling already? Cause I don't see that in the article.

Moving away from an enemy adjacent from you usually provokes an opportunity attack.

In no way is this irrational, IMO.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Just to throw another hypothetical, the same two allies using Pin the Foe against a fine opponent (say a half-fiend intelligent housefly warlock 6, just for kicks), I'm not sure how they could pin something that small in any way that would restrict its movement (or cause it to provoke OAs if it did move, depending on your point of view.)

Sure this example is a lot sillier than my earlier dragon one, but the general point I'm trying to make is that it seems very odd that a tactical manuver has zero restrictions related to relative sizes of the foes. Or other ways that it wouldn't work. As someone mentioned, what about silence if the allies can't coordinate their attacks, or in darkness where they can't see each other to coordinate. Or what about if one of the allies is a summoned monster (which admittedly PCs won't have in the PH1 probably), or an animal intelligence companion or pet? How do those creatures coordinate through the warlord's powers if he can't communicate with them?

Well first off, the Warlord simply has placed the PCs in the position to keep the target from OA. He isn't actually controlling their actions/telling them when to strike, he set it up they have to follow it through.

As for the other things, well a extremely small character and darkness that would give negatives to the PCs to hit the target on a OA.

As for the animal companion/pet, I think having a dog growling at a target while another character is also adjacent works quite well. The dog will obviously react when the target moves, besides its ordinary attack, and there you go OA.

 

[Bishmon]

Yeah remember a shift is spending a move to go 5' without drawing an AoO. This power doesn't stop the dragon from spending a move to go 5'. He just can't do it without drawing an AoO.

So really there is no movement prevention here. Just defense prevention.

But how does that work? If there's a total of six people on three sides of a large dragon, he could shift back and keep his defense up, but if there's a single warlord and an ally, he can't? What's the warlord secret? "Hey, Ally Bob, um, I know you've never possibly considered this scenario, so if you see him trying to take a step back to get out of range of us, hit him." Or "Hey, Mr. Dragon, if you take a step back out of range, kindly drop your defenses. We won't hit you, I swear."

Someone earlier mentioned that it seems like a lot of powers are requiring a lot of mental gymnastics to explain and that after awhile it's just gonna get to be too much, and I think I agree. I don't have much of a problem having to come up with an explanation for why a power works, but if I've got to do that continuously for a dozen powers? Two dozen powers? That's gonna be rough.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Right, but they can ALSO shift. And this power takes that away. That isn't the same thing.

??? You can use your move action to shift (move 1 square without provoking AOs) You can also use your standard action to move or shift. You cannot move and ALSO shift without using your standard action. As shift differs from a 3E 5' step in that it is just a different use of you move action NOT an added extra.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Allow to position?

Your rational fails. This power occurs until the end of the encounter (as long as any two allies are adjacent). Why? Because the rules says so. Your rational does not describe why that long duration of this "superior postioning" would exist. Nor does your rational describe a 2 square wide corridor scenario where the opponent is merely backing away.

And why could the allies not get this superior positioning without the Warlord's help?

Well first off the reason why the allies couldn't do that themselves is behind the whole point of the Warlord is that he is a master of knowing how to manipulate the battlefield so he knows that by first attacking a enemy to unsettle him, and then positioning two PCs to stop him from shifting.

As for the opponent moving down the corridor, he can still back down the corridor and provoke a OA, he cannot shift now though since the PCs are prepared for any kind of dodge or meanuvour he would use to do this, thanks to the Warlord's initial strike and positioning.