Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Derren]

How do you know that the movement rate stays at 1 square? Also there are other ways to "screw" the other party members. For example what if the warlord uses his charge power to charge an enemy and invites the fighter to do so too who also charges to not waste this ability but then the enemies are free to attack the strikers or can surround them for lots of hurt?And even 1 square can screw a player. What if warlords shifts a rogue so that he can flank with him (good intend) but overlooks that the rogue can now be surrounded by 4 kobolds?

The warlord seems to be build around the idea to affect the actions of the other PCs but that means that the warlord has a much higher responsibility as the other classes. When such a class is now played by someone with little tactical knowledge (and remember, tactics seems to be empathized in 4E) it will hurt not only him but the whole party.

Sure, you can use a wizard or cleric to screw over the other PCs but that requires imo a very bad player or malicious intend (like in your examples).
Also its much easier for a bad player to play a wizard or cleric in a way which does not affect the other PCs in a negative way because those classes can also do things which have no influence on allies or the battlefield (single targeted spells for example). The warlord on the other hand is build with the sole purpose to affect the other PCs so a bad tactician will have a hard time not to screw the other PCs in some way when he plays a warlord.

 

[Steely Dan]

The warlord seems to be build around the idea to affect the actions of the other PCs but that means that the warlord has a much higher responsibility as the other classes. When such a class is now played by someone with little tactical knowledge (and remember, tactics seems to be empathized in 4E) it will hurt not only him but the whole party.

Yeah, don't let the coked out obsessive/compulsive play a warlord!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, i already died by a wizard throwing fireballs at me. The same player used an iceball to kill the foe which we needed to bring alive...

... i really can understand Revinor: you should never push an allied miniature around the battlemap. you should tell the player he can do so now. And i can understand rounser: the warlord really could be divided between paladin and fighter.

But here the principle: every class has its own tricks comes into play. If you want to divide him between other classes, multiclass to get those abilities. As if you think everybody should be able to do magic: multiclass as wizard.

So the warlord class i a tool to make combats more fluid and fun without making it comlicated for everybody. A little bit more careful wording (or reference to definitions) would help shutting down those pointless discussions.

 

[bramadan]

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 totally agree with you. Player who is bad tactician can muck up Warlord royally. It makes me want that class in that much more. It will be fun *challenging* class to play. It is DMs job to make sure that his players can work with their classes. As a DM I would never let a DnD novice roll a Warlord, any more then I would let them roll a 3ed (or any other ed.) Cleric. I would also not let the power-trip fellow roll Warlord any more then I would let the self-indulgent backstabber roll a Rogue (Why I would game with the later two is separate issue but I could certainly restrict them to the roles where they will do least damage).

Only exception is RPGA in those situations where we game with strangers, but not putting in a challenging class just so that we may not run into badly played characters in event-play seems a vast overkill. Particularly given that I do not expect that the new/tactically challenged people will tend to gravitate towards Warlord in any case.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Or not.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a *tactical genius* being able to seize the initiative (different initiative, of course!) and establish a clear advantage right at the outset of combat. Commanders throughout history have accomplished this with cunning stratagems in battles both large and small.

In the context in which the warlord uses the power right off the bat, it's narrated as a snap decision; he wades in and in a flash realizes *just what he needs to do to throw the dragon off balance.* Melee is a complicated and simultaneous process, after all, which is what all the folks going after the Iron Dragon Charge ability seem to be conveniently forgetting.

My first Warlord character is going to be named Admiral Thrawn.

 

[KarinsDad]

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"?

The same thing that happens if any player is tactically challenged.

Face it. Combats turn out bad because of one player making bad decisions. If that happens, it doesn't matter too much if it is the player of the Warlord, or some other class. One could argue that it matters more for the Warlord, but that argument is probably fairly unsound.

If the Fighter's player decides to move to the wrong square, the Wizard might be more exposed.

If the Cleric's player decides to not heal at the right time, the injured PC might die.

I think it would be an exaggeration to state that this happening by the Warlord's player makes it more egregious.

 

[Remathilis]

Face it. Combats turn out bad because of one player making bad decisions. If that happens, it doesn't matter too much if it is the player of the Warlord, or some other class. One could argue that it matters more for the Warlord, but that argument is probably fairly unsound.

Heh. Last night, we were playing a module (which involved an Expedition Under a Mountain) where we fought two baneguards. The rogue, realizing he couldn't harm them, fiddled with the secret door while the cleric and I (duskblade) tried to fight the baneguards. Things were going well, till the secret door opened and the flameskull appeared and fireballed the party. Rather than role up a whole new group, we restarted outside the room with the knowledge NOT to go in there again...

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

Because, on the narrative interpretation of per-day martial abilities (as elaborated by others upthread) the per-day limit is not a limit on the character, but rather is a metagame limit on the player's narrative control.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Because, on the narrative interpretation of per-day martial abilities (as elaborated by others upthread) the per-day limit is not a limit on the character, but rather is a metagame limit on the player's narrative control.

That's certainly one explanation. It could be that there is a sort of energy called Martial that certain individuals learn to tap into with the right focus in order to pull off extravagant maneuvers but only so often.

Or it could simply be that no one falls for the same trick twice and once they've seen it done they won't give you the chance to do it again. Or maybe it requires a moment of perfect clarity that tends to happen sometime during a battle, but you never know quite when.

Daily abilities might be ALMOST magical in nature in that you reach deep down inside you to somewhere you keep those extra reserves of energy and you clear your mind of all distractions and you act with perfect precision. But it's taxing and hard to do. You need a good night's rest to do it again.

No matter what excuse you give for it, you should still be able to ballpark it. Even if it's just "I figure that most enemies give me about ONE opening to use that move when I fight them. If I don't take the opening right when I see it, I won't get the move off. Once I've used it, I rarely get another chance."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My first Warlord character is going to be named Admiral Thrawn.

*sigh* Thrawn... my favorite Expanded Universe character...