Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

breschau said:
Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.

Well, that's not really all that great either, and remember that all prior editions also had wonky name conventions where the actual power of the spell wasn't really all that descriptive. So live with it, its not like its a steep learning curve.

And just to add some examples from 3.x: Colour Spray, Weird, Prismatic Spray, Tenser's Transformation, Eyebite, etc. etc. etc. (All these are fluff text names, with nothing at all to indicate the mechanical effect.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Does anyone know what he means by this? My bold:
Heinsoo said:
But against an extremely tough foe, or when pin the foe misses....
It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...
Am I completely reading this the wrong way?
Edit: And I really don't like the sports analogies, WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?
 

breschau said:
Go check again, onslaught is not a tactical term. It's a "fierce or destructive attack." Aren't they all? If it's not fierce or destructive, it's not much of an attack.

Fierce & destructive clearly define what the attack does, to me. I get the feeling that it's a lot of attacks with the intent of quickly and painfully ending the enemies life.


Pin the foe isn't bad, but it could be better. A more apt name would be "Coordinated Pin" because it requires an ally to pull off. Hearing "pin the foe" doesn't tell me much. It certainly does nothing to imply the team nature of the power. That's all I'm asking for. Descriptive power names. Descriptive here meaning that they reveal something about the power itself, rather than descriptive as in flowery and useless.

Warlord bob to Fighter joe: Coordinated pin against the ogre!
Fighter Joe: Did you just shout what you're doing?
Warlord bob: No, I wanted you to help me pin him down so he couldn't get away (takes hit from ogre for not paying attention) Ouch!
FJ: Why didn't you tell me?
WB: I did!


Warlord bob to fighter Joe: Joe, Pin the foe!
FJ: Right, gotcha!


I dunno, it sounds pretty good to me. I'd have liked many of the abilities to be more like that (I can't, however, in good conscience suggest yelling White Raven Onslaught... You'd get beaten up)

What's wrong with "Shifting Onslaught"? It's far more descriptive of the actual maneuver and therefore helpful to DMs and players to remember.
I dunno, I don't like Shifting Onslaught. It's boring. It doesn't let me know what I'm doing any more than the other.


By using the name as a descriptive of what the power actually does it helps DMs and players recall enough about the power that they can get by, possibly even remember what the power actually does. Melf's Acid Arrow is a great example. "Melf" here is useful only as a nod to a designer's character. But, it's perfect. Acid. Arrow. Perfect. One shaft of acid that strikes the target. Simple. "White Raven Onslaught" doesn't tell me anything.
, so, by your example, if White Raven, the great Warlord from the north had designed this maneuver, you'd be ok with that? :\

Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.

Repeating charge/lasting charge/staggered charge all sound boring though. The Iron Dragon charge sounds like a tactic Bjorn the destroyer learned after battling the Iron Dragon, Ferros. Exciting and imaginitive. Not boring.

I.e.

Bjorn: Everyone, lasting charge formation, on my mark!

or

Bjorn: Everyone, Iron Dragon Charge, on my mark!

Again, it just sounds more exciting. And it's not like you can't just change the name, anyway. If you find Repeating Charge to be better, use it :)
 

Mortellan said:
I didn't know this class originated from the Minis Handbook. That explains alot to me now...

Where does it say the Warlock originated from the mini's game? The only legacy with the Warlord is the Marshall class from 3rd Edition.
 





mach1.9pants said:
Does anyone know what he means by this? My bold:
It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...
Am I completely reading this the wrong way?
Edit: And I really don't like the sports analogies, WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?

Sports analogies suck. But, as to the power I think its because the power is broken into
Hit: <> and
Effect: <>

Its a somewhat confusing shorthand if its unfamiliar, but I think Effect is independent of Hit, and always takes effect when you use the power.

Not sure why the terminology changed from the paladin smites, however, which had a 'miss' clause.
 

mach1.9pants said:
It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...
Actually, I think it does. "Effect" seems to happen regardless of a hit or miss. If it only worked on a hit, the descriptions would be under "Hit."

Edit: And I really don't like the sports analogies, WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?
Quarterback is an American football thing, so I don't blame you for missing that one.

Point guard, on the other hand, everyone should know, as basketball is a thoroughly international sport.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top