Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Wormwood]

"If you're wondering how he blocks the shift,
And other Tactics facts.
Just repeat to yourself, It's just a game,
I really should just relax."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have this week's .sig

 

[MaelStorm]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have this week's .sig

Nice choice.

 

[BryonD]

It does not prevent movement, the dragon can move if it wants to. It prevents a special type of movement. A shift allows the target to move and not provoke an attack of operatunity. It can't shift but it can move. If the DM decides not to move the target that is a tactical descision. You can't claim that just because one particular special case type of movement is not allowed that no movement is allowed.

No he isn't. Since the target can't use shift to step away from attackers, then it must use a move action. And using a move action will provoke an AoO. The target now must make a tactical choice, move and get exposed to extra hits, or not and deal with the current situation. This could induce some targets to stay put (thus being pinned) or they will risk the AoO's try to better it's position. Either way it is a cool effect and will be fun for the party to pull off.

JesterOC

My bad.
I was not previously aware that the shift was a nerfed version of the 5 foot step, now requiring a move action. That certainly does make a difference.

Not sure I care for THAT change. And other problems that force "its just a game" to be the only explanation remain. But I didn't know the shift change and was wrong on that.

 

[BryonD]

The best way to relax is by simply choosing to play a game that does a vastly better job of making sense.

 

[BryonD]

Don't waste your breath man. H4ters will hate no matter what.

myrmidon mantra

 

[LowSpine]

Iron Dragon Charge, eh?

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

Hear, hear.


I don't mind the powers in themselves, but the names stink - like the name Warlord.

 

[RigaMortus2]

My thoughts...

I like it. I can see this are a prelude to what the Bard will become.

For those that don't like this approach for the Warlord, let me ask... Do you enjoy playing (or have you ever) playing a Bard? I can see if the Bard class wasn't for you, neither would the Warlord be. Just an observation.

 

[Cadfan]

1) A D&D party that uses coordinated small unit tactics is really sweet.

2) Assuming the Warlord is as least as well written as the Book of Nine Swords White Raven school, this class will achieve that goal as well or better than anything I can think up.

3) Sure, there's some details that don't make sense if you pick at them.

4) But that's always been the case and I suspect it always will be the case.

5) So, if the choice is between getting cool small unit tactics, but having to ignore some small details in terms of lost simulationism, or else not getting cool small unit tactics at all, I'll take the small unit tactics.

6) And frankly, these sorts of things rarely come up in my games. I find that the only players who spend their time trying to poke holes in the gameworld are those who are both experienced and bored. This can be fixed by keeping the game flowing quickly, changing underlying assumptions so the plot isn't the same as last game, and making sure to have at least one newer player.

 

[Dausuul]

Did people have complaints about "Stunning Fist" in 3.5? Or the Rogue's "Defensive Roll"? Do people still?

Yeah, actually, I did and do. And I've hated Vancian casting since the days of red box/blue box. The sins of the old edition do not excuse the sins of the new.

I'm prepared to accept the 4E dailies as "metagame narrative," but I still wish they'd found a logical non-metagame explanation. I do not appreciate anything that pushes the players away from making decisions in-character and encourages them to focus on the metagame.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My bad.
I was not previously aware that the shift was a nerfed version of the 5 foot step, now requiring a move action. That certainly does make a difference.

Not sure I care for THAT change. And other problems that force "its just a game" to be the only explanation remain. But I didn't know the shift change and was wrong on that.

There are other aspects that changed in the "action economy" compared to 3E.
There is full round action anymore, for starters. Things that weren't move actions without being related to movement in 3E (like drawing a weapon) are now either standard or minor actions.
In 3E, you could take 5 ft steps only if you didn't move at all, which happened relatively often thanks to all the actions that cost you your regular move action (fullround attacks the primary one). And there were many cases where you didn't use your move action at all - for example a spellcaster in melee would typically cast a spell as a standard action and use a 5 ft step (but no move) to avoid Attack of Opportunities from casting.

Yeah, actually, I did and do. And I've hated Vancian casting since the days of red box/blue box.

I'm prepared to accept the 4E dailies as "metagame narrative," but I still wish they'd found a logical non-metagame explanation.

I don't like the Vancian casting (as related to memorisation/spells per day), but mostly due to its negative impact on designing the encounter "flow" in an adventure.

I think I really begin to like the "metagame narrative" since it seems to give a lot more leeway for abilities. Previously, you had to limit "special moves" by making them very difficult to use. This unfortunately meant that maneuvers like trip or disarm where harder to pull off, and thus were rarely used succesful - until you got the right feats, leading to an "special move spamming" that wasn't really satisfying, either. The "metagame narrative" approach allows you to get the effect of an ability that is rarely used, but when it is used, it has a good chance of success. Without ever running into the "spamming" problem. Maybe 4E will allow you to use the same nencounter powers each encounter, but at least each individual power will be different.
I once played a Fighter that was strongly specialised in tripping, also having feats like Defensive Sweep to trigger trip attempts on failed attacks. It was pretty effecive, but it still sometimes felt a bit like overdoing - the same effect each round, basically. (But the alternative would have been weapon specialisation, and that's even more boring... Though possibly even deadlier...)