Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't think "Pin" is that hard to figure out, all it simply means is that the Warlord has placed the enemy into a position where it cannot "Shift" away.

It can do so against a single person because the enemy is simply dodging a single person, but it cannot do so against two, so it cannot shift... Thus a shift move would simply be a ordinary OA-inducing movement action.

The reasoning could be as simple as a successful hit, damages the ability of the enemy to move swiftly and avoid both attacks from the PCs, like it normally could.

 

[Campbell]

Here's the breakdown on the various power clauses as far as I can tell-

• Hit: This section only applies if you hit.
• Miss: This section only applies if you miss.
• Effect: This section always applies.

From what I've seen so far the Miss section is used when you want to describe a lesser version of an effect (not to be confused with the Effect section of a power) described in the Hit section.

 

[MaelStorm]

Pre-4E talk
-----------
Designer1:Is it a fun power?
Designer2:Yes.
Designer1:Is it believable?
Designer2:Not really, but who cares?

EDIT: This is totally fictional. But I can't think of anything else when I look at the new powers.

It's not that I don't like it. But It would be fun to have an explanation of what makes this possible.

 

[Falling Icicle]

This is actually the first class preview that has really turned me off. Three things in particular about the Warlord bother me.

1. The names are very cheesy and anime-ish. This is D&D, not Exalted. Wuxia/anime style names don't belong in a medieval fantasy game. These names are, IMHO, totally inappropriate for the setting. If this were an oriental campaign book, that might be a different matter. But this class is going to be in the core book.

2. White Raven Onslaught appears to allow allies to move each other around even if they are unwilling. This was one of my worst fears about the warlord, that it would have too much control over other players' characters. I'm not at all pleased to see this fear being realised.

3. The powers lack any sense of (you guessed it) versimilitude. There's no believable explanation for how these techniques work. We're just supposed to suspend disbelief and accept that warlords can apparently slide people around the battlefield, keep them from moving, allow them to spontaneously charge when it's not their turn, etc merely through "teamwork" and "inspiration." This is definately what people have been talking about when they say that 4e feels more like a board game than an RPG. And the Warlord class, more than any other, seems to exemplify that style of play.

I really wish they had kept the Bard instead.

 

[KarinsDad]

They avoid it by not being hit in the first place, their "save" or "defense" is their AC. Anything after that is unnecessary complications. This is not changing a "law of physics" any more stunning fist changes the laws of physics.

Not according to what we have so far.

Pin the foe's advantage is that it locks down the target's movement whether the attack hits or misses

If any DM in the history of D&D has allowed bag of rats style exploits, I'd like to hear about it. Without that it's mostly good for getting people out of melee, and isn't worth wasting the extra damage to not use it on a powerful for, who'll probably have a high enough AC to prevent it being a sure bet.

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.

Uh, I'm sure you could just say "I'm not your ally anymore", it's not big deal.

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.

 

[DreamChaser]

I accept that what I'm about to type may be deemed crazy and get me branded a brainless 4e lover but here it goes.

I (note the self referential term that does not apply to anyone else) find myself interpreting many comments about the lack of descriptiveness in naming conventions baffling. Why?

Because I suspect that themes that are descriptive in practice (if not literally) will rapidly emerge. Take the classing examples of Bigby's or Power Words or Mordenkainen's or Prismatic. Grognards (sheesh that is an obnoxious term but I use it to further demonstrate my point) know exactly what to expect from each of these categories of spells. If a spell has Bigby's in it, there is a very very very good chance that it is a Force spell and relates to grabbing your opponent. Prismatic probably has random effects based upon the color of the rainbow. Mordenkainen's probably relates to "warriorizing" yourself, and Power Word probably doesn't allow a saving throw but deals debilitating effects based upon HP.

Additionally, grognard is as meaningless term unless you have the background to grok it.

Similarly, White Raven, Iron Dragon, Irridescent Petunia, Maleficent Starfish appear as meaningless and undescriptive to us now as any of the above appear to any newby (okay, White Raven appears to be similar to its descriptor purpose from Bo9S - lead the party in outflanking the opponents). But the point stands.

As the designers have said, we haven't seen everything yet. What appears undescriptive may actually be quite clear once we have learned the system.

And I don't want "Hit and Shift Rush" as a power name...that just seems lame and uninteresting.

DC

 

[hennebeck]

This whole "silly name" thing is ridiculous.

Here are some other "silly names".

http://www.bucktobacco.org/resources/docs/rodeo_terms.pdf
CATCH AS CATCH CAN
CROW HOPPER
HOOKY
JERK DOWN RULE
PIGGIN' STRING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics
pepperpotting
Shoot-and-scoot
Human wave attack
Hedgehog defence
Dragon's teeth
Coup de grâce


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shotokan_techniques
horse stance
crane stance
open-palm rising block
knife-hand sweeping low block
leg snapping wave block
Hammer-fist scissor strike


A name's a name.
Deal with it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Ehh, I don't know but to me all the powers make sense in my books. As soon as I read each power I could visualize how that would work in-game.

As for controlling other players, it simply allows them to slide or charge, you aren't designating where they are sliding or charging, so it is giving them the opportunity to slide or charge. Which I wouldn't designate as controlling.

Especially when you consider these one's with other player movement work for the entire encounter that means people can skip it first time, second time, third time, but use it fourth time if they wish.

As for the names, they are game-terms, they don't affect in-game stuff so I really don't care one way or they other what they are called in many regards. Sure some names are stupid, but that doesn't affect the actual mechanics.

 

[Rechan]

Bring on the flavorful names!

 

[Rechan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics
pepperpotting
Shoot-and-scoot
Human wave attack
Hedgehog defence
Dragon's teeth
Coup de grâce

You forgot Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.



And of course then there's sports terms...