Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Imp]

Heck, I can make a great argument that Westly from The Princess Bride is a Warlord. He is a man who is skilled at fighting, but his greatest skill comes from his wits and planning. When push comes to shove, he and his allies only succeed because he devises good plans that they carry out.

Ehn. Fighter/rogue. (In 3e anyway.) Westley doesn't ever really lead people in combat, and the-guy-who-comes-up-with-the-plans-involving-two-or-three-others is waaay too broad a concept to be something only a warlord could do.

But most fantasy heroes who show talent leading troops into battle are a nod to the archetype.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I find it a bit distracting that the 'story' is interrupted by an 'action sequence' that is played like it's a boardgame. Most systems have a consistent rules set that work the same way in and out of combat.

Where do you get this statistic. From the informal review that I've done, it seems that the vast majority of RPGs have special rules for combat.

I may have to do a more scientific look at the field this summer.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ehn. Fighter/rogue. (In 3e anyway.)

That's a good start. But you forgot the Dread Pirate prestige class.

 

[Zimri]

On the best interpretation of martial daily powers (as put forward by other posters upthread) my PC does not know this

See now I just have issue accepting that a person who adventures for a living wouldn't be able to at least "ball park" their own limitations.

I ,in rl, know that I can jog X number of miles before I am going to need to place my hands on my knees, or sit down, and take a few moments to regain my composure, take some deep breaths and go again (healing surge)

I , in rl, as a player of tennis at my current ability accept that in a MATCH the circumstances that will allow me to place the ball just over the net so my opponent can't do anything with it, and my ability to respond to said, are certainly not "at will" and my big powerful serve that isn't returnable can really only be used once a match so thats an encounter ability.

Sadly (and I hope this doesn't break the grand ma rule) given my age and stamina marital relations are a once a day (or at least once per 6 hour rest) ability.

Their life is no less real to them why can't they know their limitations ?

 

[beverson]

So don't play one. Take a sharpie, cross it out of your PHB, ban the class for your players, and never speak of it again.

Meanwhile, there are some of us who wouldn't mind a valid tactical guy that doesn't use the Blessing of Pelor or the Battle Hymm of the Republic to motivate and inspire his allies.

To each his own.

This.

 

[Derren]

So don't play one. Take a sharpie, cross it out of your PHB, ban the class for your players, and never speak of it again.

Meanwhile, there are some of us who wouldn't mind a valid tactical guy that doesn't use the Blessing of Pelor or the Battle Hymm of the Republic to motivate and inspire his allies.

To each his own.

The problem is that while the cleric simply gives out bonuses which are useful in nearly all situations the warlord shifts around other players and the effectiveness of those moves depends on the abilities of the warlord player. Now what happens when the player of the warlord is a little "tactically challenged"?

Thats the whole problematic with warlords shifting players around. In game it might make sense that the adventuring party agrees to follow the orders of the best tactician of the party, but in 4E this choice is not made because of tactical skill but because of class choice.
So it can lead either to a warlord who never uses his abilities because the player doesn't know how to do it effectively, a warlord which uses its abilities to make bad choices or a warlord player who is constantly being told what to do. More than any other class the effectiveness of the warlord depends on the skill of the player which can lead to some awkward moments in the group.

 

[AllisterH]

The problem is that while the cleric simply gives out bonuses which are useful in nearly all situations the warlord shifts around other players and the effectiveness of those moves depends on the abilities of the warlord player. Now what happens when the player of the warlord is a little "tactically challenged"?

Thats the whole problematic with warlords shifting players around. In game it might make sense that the adventuring party agrees to follow the orders of the best tactician of the party, but in 4E this choice is not made because of tactical skill but because of class choice.
So it can lead either to a warlord who never uses his abilities because the player doesn't know how to do it effectively, a warlord which uses its abilities to make bad choices or a warlord player who is constantly being told what to do. More than any other class the effectiveness of the warlord depends on the skill of the player which can lead to some awkward moments in the group.

I've been reading this discussion and I'm honestly curious and not picking on you personally but aren't all the problems that the warlord raises the exact same problems that the wizard has?

In all editions of D&D, it is pretty hard to screw up playing a fighter but the wizard and his spell selection/casting always made or break your party.

Have a good tactically focused player and the guy would know what spells to cast, where to cast, when and who to cast it on. I mean, surely I'm not the only one that has had to deal with a player that plays a wizard poorly

I would imagine the solutions for the warlord are the same solutions people use for the wizard...

 

[Derren]

I've been reading this discussion and I'm honestly curious and not picking on you personally but aren't all the problems that the warlord raises the exact same problems that the wizard has?

In all editions of D&D, it is pretty hard to screw up playing a fighter but the wizard and his spell selection/casting always made or break your party.

Have a good tactically focused player and the guy would know what spells to cast, where to cast, when and who to cast it on. I mean, surely I'm not the only one that has had to deal with a player that plays a wizard poorly

I would imagine the solutions for the warlord are the same solutions people use for the wizard...

While every character is more effective when played by a competent player warlords are the only class which actively screw the other PCs when they use their abilities in a bad way. A wizard played by a bad player might not contribute much to the party but the other players will not be affected negatively by it much. A badly played warlord on the other hand can screw the other PCs quite hard when he shifts them in suboptimal positions.
To compare the warlord with the cleric, when the cleric casts a buff spell you are either better of than before or it doesn't affect you. When a warlord uses one of his abilities it is possible that you will be in a worse position than before if the player of the warlord has some problems with tactics.
You can of course disallow certain players from playing warlords (or they recognize for themselves that they are not good at playing one but then the warlord would be the most restricting class in D&D even after 3E paladins).

In 3E the PC can say "I follow this guys orders because he is smart". In 4E it is "I follow this guys orders because he is a warlord, no matter if he is smart or not".

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

While every character is more effective when played by a competent player warlords are the only class which actively screw the other PCs when they use their abilities in a bad way. A wizard played by a bad player might not contribute much to the party but the other players will not be affected negatively by it much. A badly played warlord on the other hand can screw the other PCs quite hard when he shifts them in suboptimal positions.

I don't think it takes a tactical genius to figure out which direction to move someone 1 square. I also don't think it's possible to really screw over another player by moving them 1 square. Not badly at least.

Plus, as was pointed out earlier, almost no DM is going to interpret the rules so literally that players won't have a say in where their character moves. I certainly can't see a DM telling someone "I don't care what you want, the Warlord is allowed to do whatever he wants." If he does, he really shouldn't be DMing.

Besides, I can play a Wizard who screws over the other players all the time. Watch me put walls of fire between the cleric and the fighter so he can't be healed. Watch me drop fireballs so they hit my party. Watch me put down a fog cloud in a position so the archer can't see the enemies to fire at them.

I can easily play a Cleric who screws over the other players simply by refusing to heal them when they need it.

 

[Revinor]

I also don't think it's possible to really screw over another player by moving them 1 square. Not badly at least.

- move him on trap square (can happen accidentally even, still warlord will be blamed)
- move him out of edge the bridge (if push-to-death rules are in)
- shift him next to the monster which has defender AoO against shifts
- shift him from the chair in the restaurant when he is sitting next to the nice girl and take his place quickly

Obviously, last trick requires bag of rats to initiate combat for a moment, so it can be avoided by strip-searching warlord before admitting them to restaurants.


I think it makes most sense for the warlord to point the player which can move and for that player to make actual move. It is not breaking anything and he will not leave greasy fingerprints on my miniature.