Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Just Another User]

You're actually thinking of Ringworld (discworld is Pratchett). But that is a interesting idea for psychic powers! (Of course, Teela was something of an anti-defender; everyone *but* her took damage...)

D'oh!!!! wrong geometric form. Sorry, It was almost 2.00 AM when I posted that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And that's where they've lost the plot, IMO. If this isn't self-evidently cross-eyed, I don't know what is. I could design something which was based on providing a laser rifle game experience, but it wouldn't fit D&D's core. Leaving "does it fit" as an afterthought is just plain bad design, IMO. (As it happens, the warlock fits D&D one heck of a lot better than the "warlord".)

I'm not sure I see the problem with designing the game that people want to play rather than designing a world that might be no fun to play at all.

Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time:

-Playing a fighter is boring since all you can do is swing a weapon over and over again. But it makes sense, because someone without magical powers can't do anything more extravagant
-Player a cleric is boring since all you do is heal. But it's realistic since it takes time to chant a prayer and put your hands on someone and there's no way for a non-magical class like a fighter to heal itself
-Save or die is no fun, you spend a year playing the same character and building him up to 15th level only to drop dead on the first round of combat against a random encounter. But it's realistic since creatures that turn you to stone should either work or not, no inbetween.

Designing the other way around creates the exact gameplay experience that people want in exchange for having to explain it in a way that might be a bit of a stretch.

Instead you get a situation where someone sits down and says "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a class where you could coordinate your allies in a way that made them better. To actually be the battlefield commander. You could inspire them to greater heroics, get them into tactical positions and inspire them to keep going after taking damage." And you end up with the Warlord. Which is a fun class to play. Once you roll for initiative and start thinking about how best to use your powers, you realize that there is a gameplay experience that is rather unique, new, and fun to play.

It, however, wouldn't be possible if constrained to the first way of designing. The first way of designing says that just talking to someone can't bring back hitpoints, move people into a position faster than they could get there themselves, or give allies abilities they didn't have before. That just doesn't make any sense. Only magic can do that.

And that's a shame to miss out on fun simply because fun isn't allowed to happen if it doesn't "make sense".

 

[Just Another User]

Common sense seems to tell me that you can never force another player on the same side to take an action. This seems to agree with the design philosophy mentioned in the article: you never have to do what a warlord tells you, but it pays off if you do.

I'm really curious, and I know I'm just baiting the bear, but how is an expert at small squad tactics who, after studying the reactions of a monster can direct his buddies to exploit it is any stranger than a monk who can punch a hole in a wall?

Can't make sense of it in RP terms?
Here:

Drogo the Warlord watches his friends swarm the Red Dragon. It snaps, dodges, spits fire and slashes out with its claws. Drogo sees it in a completely different way, not as a single animal but as a shifting mass that follows patterns. There--the break in the pattern--a bare flank when it spins its bulk into place.

"YARICK!" he shouts to his fighter, "Black Cloud, two-by-two!"

Yarick nods, knows the code and presses in to the left flank of the beast. Why didn't he see it sooner? The dragon twists whenever it pushes forward, exposing thin scale.

Yarick puts his axe into the beasts flank, a sloppy blow, but a few scales fly off. The dragon can move, but now Yarick knows what to look for.

There, see? This gift of verisimilitude I give to you, for I so love the term.

Good point.

If there was a rule that say "the warlord had to see the target in action at least for 1 round before to use this power" which it isn't.

THe warlord can enter in combat, win initiative, hit the moster before it even move and gain the bonus.

"hey guys, this monster that I never seen before have a obvious weakness of which I have no reason to know about, just exploit it and it is better make it worth it because if the monster escape and we had to combat it another time before tomorrow we would not be able to use this weakness again."

 

[Just Another User]

About the warlord powers I think there is a another interesting aspect to consider.
Take the white raven onslaught, for example, nowhere in the power description it say the ally must be conscious, able to move or even alive, it only must be "adiacent". So you could use it to move an asleep character, one immobiized, i.e. in a chocker grasp, or even a dead or dying one.
That is certainly a useful thing to do, but how do you rationalize it it?

I just hope 4e rules are really, really solid and well written because I keep seeing a lot of powers like this, not only for the warlord, that could be abused or easily create confusion, or simply create situations that don't make any sense outside of a "it is just a game" context.

Or what if the warlord die in combat or is someway disabled? And what about powers that make you switch side? What happen if some enemy "charm" the warlord? Does his new allies keep the bonuses of his active dailies? does his previous allies keep theirs? and how can you explain it? And I won't even try to consider if the warlord is a double crosser and willingly choose to switch sides in the middle of a combat.

It just seems that "making sense" wasn't one of the first priority in 4e designing process.

 

[rounser]

Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time:

I think this is a furphy, because the warlord's abilities seem to be able to be able to be folded into existing classes.

It would make sense that the mage was a brilliant spell tactician at higher levels, the rogue a brilliant scout and infiltrate tactician, the fighter a brilliant battlefield tactician in general...we don't need the warlord for this play experience. The rogue can realistically offer the fighter good tactical advice on sneaking. The current tropes have it covered. Ideally, warlord should killed and it's stuff taken, but there were probably game balance and marketing reasons why that didn't happen.

Like wanting to have another "leader" class in the matrix. Bad reason for justifying a core class's existence.

Heck, even the warlock is just the wizard through a different lens. There's a false dichotomy at work here - you pay attention to both priorities at once (the "does it fit" and the "is the gameplay fun"), and don't compromise one in favour of the other, as is clearly the case with the so-called "warlord".

 

[hong]

WTF is a "spell tactician"?

 

[Just Another User]

WTF is a "spell tactician"?

Someone that use spells tactically, I suppose.

 

[rounser]

WTF is a "spell tactician"?

Gee, I dunno hong...someone who doesn't fireball their allies, for instance?

I'm being facetious, though. In 4E, it'd probably manifest as some sort of mechanical bonus or effect that helps allies through use of magic or in using magic.

 

[hong]

Someone that use spells tactically, I suppose.

Oh, well I'm glad that's cleared up. Although why it's important to distinguish them from people who use spells non-tactically still escapes me. Maybe it's a schtick protection thing.

 

[hong]

Gee, I dunno hong...someone who doesn't fireball their allies, for instance?

I'm being facetious, though.

Really?

In 4E, it'd probably manifest as some sort of mechanical bonus or effect that helps allies through use of magic or in using magic.

... or you could just use the warlord class.