Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Bishmon]

There is another way Grasshopper. Campbell say "Rules for roleplayiing games can be written with the assumption that the game is played by humans with the ability exercise judgment to ensure a fun play experience". Is it possible that the game is being written to be played and not for the express reason of enabling rules forum discussion ?

The less intuitive the rules get, the more problems players are going to have imagining how the rules fit into the broader narrative. And considering this is a game played mostly in one's imagination, that's an issue.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Not according to what we have so far.

Huh, I should have been more careful.

I still don't consider it significantly different/more powerful/more WSoD breaking than the Fighter's "attack someone shifting" powers.

Not in tactically intelligent games. There, one would take a mook out with it to accomplish two goals simultaneously: 1) potentially reduce the number of opponents, 2) give allies a huge mobility advantage.

Sure, it might make sense to use it against stronger foes on occasion, but the typical use of it will be to change the odds of battle. And, I am not talking about the actual bag of rats exploit, rather a perfectly reasonable attack of a mook with various abilities in order to gain a significant upperhand.

I meant that since original attack does 3[W] it may not be worth using it on something that doesn't have that many hp, which means it will likely have a deacent change to miss. As a rogue you have a level one attack power that lets you do the same thing to yourself, so if people aren't using a bad of rats & AoO then a Warlord daily power which might or might not give the party a version of a rogue power, except it can only move allies adjacent to you is good, but no better than what I would expect from a daily power.

In fact, now that I look at it, we've got one power that gives everyone a basic fighter ability, and one that give everyone a basic rogue ability, huh.

First off, we do not know if the rules allow for that. Secondly even if they did, this would mean that the ally would suddenly lose other benefits (like auras and such). So, the fact is, what we have so far is no choice, no save. Maybe another rule allows allies to ignore this type of thing. Maybe not.

Pff, play a Dwarf!

More seriously, this is a game style thing, in our game, if one player starts messing around with another's character without asking them and there isn't a good IC reason, we just tell them to stop being a jerk, this might not be helpful, but I'm essentially incapable of seeing how this could be a problem.

 

[KarinsDad]

You keep using controller. You really don't understand 4e.

Warlord is a LEADER.

"If you're wondering how he blocks the shift,
And other Tactics facts.
Just repeat to yourself, It's just a game,
I really should just relax."

Please don't tell me what I do or do not understand. That's rude.

I only used that word since someone else did. I really could care less if he is a leader or a controller or something else. The roles have no in character importance and hence, have no bearing on a verisimilitude issue. The power sources, on the other hand, do.

As for my level of relaxing, what does it matter to you if I discuss this type of rule design and am not a fan boy about it? And what does that have to do with the topic?

 

[hong]

The less intuitive the rules get, the more problems players are going to have imagining how the rules fit into the broader narrative.

"The warlord inspires and directs his companions on the battlefield by exercising his tactical insight to spot weaknesses in his enemies' defenses."

I got your narrative right there.

 

[KidSnide]

Exactly rules/mechanics are not the physics of the world, nor the exact knowledge of the characters. It is the ability to influence and affect the narrative course of an adventure/story.

I agree that rules mechanics are not the physics of the world, nor do I think that characters have exact knowledge of how they work. And, I like rules (like action points) which allow players to influence the narrative of the story. I am also, incidentally, extremely excited about 4e, because I write the story and the world and mostly want rules mechanics out of WotC that make a fun combat sub-game.

But, I also have to agree that the powers need an in-game rationalization. In the story, a power is something the /character/ does. I don't mind the gamist per-day limitation. Why doesn't he do it again? No opening, I guess. Maybe too tired. But I need to know what the character is doing, and that needs to be closely related to the effect. Otherwise, you get these weird effects like "I must heal my friend, so I guess I'll hit this guy..."

I'm not sure I can point to any one power that is impossible to justify in the majority of circumstances. Sure, it's a little harder to explain how you are limiting the movements of the fiendish housefly warlock. But, frankly, any story with a fiendish housefly warlock is already well into the narrative-of-the-weird, so stranger explanations may be necessary for a number of things.

My concern is the cumulative effect of many powers that are a challenge to explain. It just seems like there will be a lot fights that stop so the table can figure out what exactly is happening in the game world. My guess is that some tables won't care, and other tables will get good at figuring out how to turn 4e combat into a coherent narrative. (Maybe those later tables will avoid certain powers?)

But, in the short term, seems like many of us are going spend more time going "huh?!?", which is hardly desirable.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well it lasts till the other PCs cannot maintain their position on the target, ie: they stopped pinning the target. So I think this is simply a continuation, of it.

It lasts until the end of the encounter. If the other PCs can re-maintain an adjacent position after losing it, then (at least according to what is written), they regain the pin.

Hence, the reason I have a problem with your "when the moons align just right" explanation. Those moons align for the entire encounter as long as PCs can move up on this target. And if that was a divine moon aligning, I would be ok with it. But, not a martial one. That's a real stretch (at least for me).

 

[Darn]

It lasts until the end of the encounter. If the other PCs can re-maintain an adjacent position after losing it, then (at least according to what is written), they regain the pin.

The warlord does something that shifts the momentum of combat against this particular foe, and with rare display of coordination the party keeps her/him/it/wot? under pressure through the rest of the battle, even if the poor thing occasionally manages to disengage.

Works for me. Guess I'm lucky that way

 

[Kishin]

Please don't tell me what I do or do not understand. That's rude.

I only used that word since someone else did. I really could care less if he is a leader or a controller or something else. The roles have no in character importance and hence, have no bearing on a verisimilitude issue. The power sources, on the other hand, do.

As for my level of relaxing, what does it matter to you if I discuss this type of rule design and am not a fan boy about it? And what does that have to do with the topic?

Welcome to D&D. Simulationism isn't exactly top priority here.

Then again, I don't see difficulty rationalizing and describing combat manuevers and Warlord commands.

But that's just me.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It lasts until the end of the encounter. If the other PCs can re-maintain an adjacent position after losing it, then (at least according to what is written), they regain the pin.

Hence, the reason I have a problem with your "when the moons align just right" explanation. Those moons align for the entire encounter as long as PCs can move up on this target. And if that was a divine moon aligning, I would be ok with it. But, not a martial one. That's a real stretch (at least for me).

Oh I agree that it wouldn't make much sense if it was simply positioning that caused it. But that is why I went on to describe how in the initial strike the Warlord someone hindered the targets ability to shift/dodge while moving against multiple foes (this could also be seen as the "moons aligning" since in-game this hindrance could be the spark to make the Warlord realize he can position his companions to the disadvantage of the target).

This hindrance could come in a variety of things, slicing open a tendon, sand in the eyes, kick to the groin, etc... Which actually now that I think about it could make for a fun dirty-fighting Warlord.

 

[catsclaw]

PC 1: "We've been doing this superior position maneuver for 20 years now. Tell me again why we cannot do it without the Warlord's help."

PC 2: "Laws of Physics. We are merely pawns of the Warlord. And he is a pawn of the great god Daily."

PC 1: "Oh, come on!"

PC 2: "Yup. Fact of life."

Player 1: "We've been playing baseball on this team for 5 years now, hundreds of games, and all of us in the outfield have seen what the pitcher does. Why can't we just take over?"

Player 2: "Laws of physics. We can't throw fastballs. Or last for six innings, for that matter."

Player 1: "Oh, come on!"

Player 2: "Yup. Fact of life."