Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Kishin]

This is such deliciousness.

Warlord doesn't look like an easy class to play, but it definitely looks deep and mechanically interesting. I imagine it'll attract players who also are very much into tactical gaming and synergy.......I guess I just described myself, hah.

With the White Raven name being tossed around, I think its fair to say we'll find a good preview of the Warlord's capabilities in that discipline and possibly Devoted Spirit if we compare it with the Bo9S once we have the full class.

I seriously hope they bring back White Raven Tactics though. That manuever is just too much fun.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Those power names aren't metal enough.

 

[shilsen]

Iron Dragon Charge, eh?

They're doing it with the crappy names again...

Tell me about it. What is it with silly animal names? Next thing you know there'll be maneuvers called Bull Rush!

 

[breschau]

I've had my rants on WotC naming conventions before, but (if I can make one assumption) these are OK.

That assumption I referred to is that there are "themes" of Martial powers grouped into "White Raven" and "Iron Dragon" (and "Open Palm" and "Desert Wind and ...). Like the Schools of Magic of yesteryear there's no hard and fast definition of what's what, but there's a theme. If you see "White Raven ____" you know it's about buffing allies in some way, or whatever. That's how ToB/Bo9S works, and it works well. I have no reason to suspect otherwise.

But, if that assumption is true, why not simply describe them that way. If it's about buffing call it a "bolstering x" or an "encouraging x" or a "coordinating x." There's no need to use descriptive names this badly.

Last time I checked, "Pin", "Onslaught" and "Charge" were all tactical terms.

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.

My complaint isn't about the inclusion of tactical terms, my complaint is about the meaningless descriptive text used in their names. "White Raven" is useless. "Iron Dragon" is useless.

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.

What's wrong with "Shifting Onslaught"? It's far more descriptive of the actual maneuver and therefore helpful to DMs and players to remember. 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.

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.

 

[D_E]

The term Bull Rush at least has the advantage of being part of the English language.

And anyway, in 4th Ed it would be "Copper Bull Rush" or somesuch.

 

[Revinor]

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.

For example, encounter power dealing 3[W] damage + immobilize could be named "WWW Web".

 

[Klaus]

Those power names aren't metal enough.

What if they were

- Onslaught of the White Star Raven

and

- Heavy Metal Dragon Charge

?

 

[Dausuul]

That article made two things crystal clear in my mind:

1. I love the warlord.

2. WotC sucks at naming powers.

I am a 4E lover and can't wait to play, but the more I find out about it, the more I see where the anime/video game haters are coming from. If they're going for tactical leader the least they could do is go with tactical terms instead of using silly names like that.

This.

I think the rule for "fluffy names" like White Raven Onslaught should be this: Could you strip off the fluffy bit and still have a workable name?

Take Melf off Melf's acid arrow and you've still got acid arrow, a perfectly good if rather bland spell name. Take Bigby off Bigby's crushing hand and you've still got crushing hand. But if you take White Raven off White Raven Onslaught, you end up with a power named "Onslaught," which is pretty shaky as a power name. And Iron Dragon Charge is even worse--take Iron Dragon off and your power is named "Charge," which is the name of something else entirely.

Considering that the Iron Dragon is an actual beastie in 4e, the name is no more silly than Bull Rush or Lion's Charge. Maybe that particular animal is simply very infamous for charging - the flavor text certainly seems to imply so.

"Bull rush" is a term used outside the context of D&D; it's like "bear hug." (Apparently I favor stock market-related examples today.)

"Lion's charge" is a pretty mediocre name, too, but at least everybody at the gaming table knows what a lion is, and might be able to figure out that a lion's charge involves a pouncing attack. Most players won't have a clue what iron dragons have to do with charging or coordinated attacks. Especially when you consider that iron dragons won't even be in the first Monster Manual.

And as far as I'm concerned, White Raven Onslaught is what you get when the Citadel wants to make really sure you know winter is coming. Otherwise it's completely meaningless.

 

[Mortellan]

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

 

[KarinsDad]

I must really be a grognard. These powers sound so much like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon that it makes my teeth ache.

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target cannot shift if at least two of your allies (or you and one ally) are adjacent to it.

Why? Don't know. It's not even two flanking opponents. No save. No way to avoid. Just, the laws of game physics suddenly change for that target.

Presumably, the target can still move, he just provokes Attacks of Opportunity???

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide an adjacent ally 1 square. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, the attacker slides an adjacent ally 1 square.
Miss: Choose one ally within 10 squares. Until the end of the encounter, the ally slides an adjacent ally 1 square after making a successful attack.

Wow. The amount of potential breakage in this is mind boggling. Plus, this power is best used against a mook as opposed to a BBEG because of the greater chance to hit and the greater effect if it hits. Get out the bucket of snails (or in other words, this will be combined with other powers that increase the chance to hit a given target to help ensure success).

And what if the "adjacent ally" doesn't want to slide? No save? No choice?

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, as an immediate reaction, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of you can charge a target that you charge.

At least this one says "can". But, the fact that allies can suddenly be the Flash and charge (presumably up to 30 feet) around the board when it is not their turn is a bit unbelievable.