Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Falling Icicle]

As for house rules for encounter/daily powers, I've been thinking of doing recharge like the monsters get. You can use any one of your encounter powers per encounter, but can't use another during that encounter unless you roll a 5 or 6, for example. The same could be done with daily powers, just that each roll would take place from one encounter to the next, rather than 1 turn to the next.

 

[mach1.9pants]

As for house rules for encounter/daily powers, I've been thinking of doing recharge like the monsters get. You can use any one of your encounter powers per encounter, but can't use another during that encounter unless you roll a 5 or 6, for example. The same could be done with daily powers, just that each roll would take place from one encounter to the next, rather than 1 turn to the next.

I see where you are going but the only problem with that is a PC is likely to use one of his /enc power on his first turn, is possible, in every combat. (and the other in the second turn, etc.) This will maximise the number of opportunities he gets to use it again during that encounter, if you see what I mean.

 

[Just Another User]

PC 1: "We've watched the rogue gut monsters when he flanks for 20 years now. Tell me again why we can't gut monsters when we flank?"

You can, if you take a level of rogue.

 

[Intrope]

this make me think. in Larry Niven discworld it was hypothesized that luck was actually a kind of psionic power, following from that 4e martial classes are not really martial, but psionic and have the power to alter fate to mkae come up some increduibly inprobable circustances, but not for more than once for day.
When a fighter, warlord or rogue use an encounter or daily powers what he is actually doing is use his latent psionic powers to alter probabilities so that the circumstances necessary to make their tecniques works come up, some powers can be reused after just a little rest, other can be attempted only after a longer rest.
Hey, as rationalizations goes this is as good, if not better, than any other I've heard.

You're actually thinking of Ringworld (discworld is Pratchett). But that is a interesting idea for psychic powers! (Of course, Teela was something of an anti-defender; everyone *but* her took damage...)

 

[wgreen]

Hay guyz,

On a related note, I know everyone hates The Forge, but I still gotta quote Edwards's Provisional Glossary:

Fortune-at-the-End (FatE)

Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) following the full descriptions of actions, physical placement, and communication among characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and associated links.


Fortune-in-the-Middle (FitM)

Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) prior to fully describing the specific actions of, physical placement of, and communication among characters. The Fortune outcome is employed in establishing these elements retroactively. This technique may be employed with the dice/etc as the ultimate authority of success or failure (e.g. Sorcerer) or with the dice/etc outcome being potentially adjusted by a metagame mechanic (e.g. HeroQuest).

Sound familiar? I think 3.5 is typically played using FatE, and it looks like 4E will be typically played using FitM. But you can definitely play 3.5 using FitM, which actually tends to work better in terms of making players not feel like losers when they whiff. Time will tell whether or not 4E can be easily played using FatE.

-Will!

 

[ruleslawyer]

You can, if you take a level of rogue.

Just like you can do kewl warlord stuff if you take Warlord Training!

 

[small pumpkin man]

I do not know if it has been said yet, but I hope the Warlord gets some powers that do not require melee attacks.

As far as I can tell, once you get to a decent level, character's daily and encounter powers are half attack, half utility, and I would assume the Utility powers wouldn't be attacks. There also may be some attacks (like FMYO) where the Warlord herself doesn't attack, but her allies do.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can think of other restrictions that it creates though.

For instance - if an enemy is adjacent to a fighter it can shift (and incur an OA from the fighter) or move (and incur an OA from the fighter which prevents it from moving).

So a creature which is prohibited from shifting could end up with no way of moving away from a fighter at all!

Then there is things like the ranger per encounter ability "Fox's Cunning" which allows them to shift and attack as a reaction to being attacked themselves. Oops, if you can't shift then a large portion of the benefit of that ability goes away.

I'm just saying that there are a number of knock-on effects which we know *already* as a result of something being denied a shift...

Cheers

Sure, there are some limitations on some movement-related abilities. But in your first example, the victim could still spend a standard action to move, and IIRC, the Fighter won't be able to use his power to stop him again, since he can't make a second opportunity attack against the victim. If the victim already spend its standard action - well, too bad for it.

 

[pemerton]

On the Forced Movement thing - won't ally be a voluntary status?

On the narrativism/FitM thing - some of us have been saying this about 4e for months!

And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary.

No. It happens once per encounter/day (as apppropriate) when the warlord's player chooses.

Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.

And those simulationists who can't separate the player (who obeys and applies the rules of the game) and the character (who obeys the laws of the gameworld, which are constructed by the joint narrative effort of players and GM).

You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.

I take it you're not familiar with the wide range of games that use various sorts of fortune-in-the-middle and other metagame mechanics?

 

[rounser]

Designer1:Is it a fun power?
Designer2:Yes.
Designer1:Is it believable?
Designer2:Not really, but who cares?

Pretty much.

The whole sports analogy is necessary because there's nothing there natively, it doesn't fit the genre.

I got disappointed by the contents of 3E's monster manual - that was probably the biggest objection I had to that edition's core. This is a first for me, in that this content actually has me verging on angry at how hamfisted the design thinking has been here, rather than just disappointed.

This power screams at me that the designers went from game mechanics to fluff, not the other way around.

It was a design trend in 3E, too, which is why so many of the new monsters in the MM stunk. They either haven't learnt their lesson, or fail to see a problem with this approach at all, maybe.

Addendum: The warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?" The warlock's not the only class like that, but it's a clear example.

And that's where they've lost the plot, IMO. If this isn't self-evidently cross-eyed, I don't know what is. I could design something which was based on providing a laser rifle game experience, but it wouldn't fit D&D's core. Leaving "does it fit" as an afterthought is just plain bad design, IMO. (As it happens, the warlock fits D&D one heck of a lot better than the "warlord".)

Grr. I really, really don't like this stuff. It's looking like the game is in the hands of extremists who shouldn't have been let loose on the core. The pendulum has swung too far, I hope there's a backlash against this kind of design come 5E.