Excerpt: The Warlord

[LostInTheMists]

Lead the Attack ambiguity...

So far, I like what I'm seeing with the Warlord, but one of my personal pet peeves has reared its ugly head again... wording ambiguity. On the Tactical Warlord's daily power, "Lead the Attack", it reads like this:

Lead the Attack Warlord Attack 1
Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home.

Daily - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee - weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Miss: Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.

The emphasis in the Hit and Miss entries is mine. Does this mean:

Any ally who is standing within 5 squares of the warlord at the time this power is used gains the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they move to afterward (for example, an eladrin ranger standing near the warlord gets the bonus, then fey steps across the room to get a better archery position on the target)?

After this power is used, any ally that makes an attack while standing within 5 squares of the warlord gets the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they were when the power was actually utilized (for example, an eladrin ranger who was engaging other enemies sees the warlord across the room use this power on a black dragon, so he fey steps nearby to aid in the fight, gaining this bonus since he's now within 5 squares of the warlord)?

Something else?

 

[Ximenes088]

Still, the point remains that they didn't solve any problem of "requiring" a certain class. I'm basically okay with that, but I wish they wouldn't be claiming to be fixing something that they really didn't fix.

I'd suggest that it's distinctly premature to declare that they're wrong. We've got some people here claiming that clerics aren't required in 3e, and that game's been out eight years. We're now supposed to speak with certainty about required classes for a game that's not even out yet?

WotC's said that no single role is indispensible, albeit some are more important than others. A party without a Leader is demonstrably not as healing-incapable as a 3e party, barring priest-in-a-stick wand usage. A party without a Controller is not missing huge chunks of utility and save-or-die effects, as they'd miss in 3e. It may be that these roles turn out to be mandatory after all, but I think it'll be a lot more arguable in 4e than it is in 3e.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I think clerics will have their builds defined by what god they worship. Sort of like warlocks and their pacts.

I'm fairly certain that won't be the case, one of the Podcasts mentioned that they wanted to tone down that kind of stuff as much as possible, to allow a character to play a Cleric of a homebrew God/Pantheon without having to change any crunch at all.

A cleric in 3e was helpful, and added nice oomph, but it wasn't necessary. A PC party could easily get by without one, they'd just lack certain combat oomph and would have to use different tactics -- exactly the same thing Andy Collins said that a 4e party without a wizard would have to deal with.

I've found that after a certain level, the various buffs and "get out of jail free cards" Clerics gain increases the survivability of the party by an extreme amount that they become the most detrimental Class to not have. The healing is nice, but it's not the main point.

Any problem that there was about this in 3e is not solved in 4e, and telling us about how the Warlord is in because the party needs more leader options just points out some of that 4e schizophrenia -- "Roles need options, so the Warlord is in! Iconicness takes precedence over options, so Controller II is out!"

Ah?

I also found it annoying, although I wouldn't consider it "schizophrenia" so much as just different designers having different perspectives, the idea that companies or design teams are some sort of monolithic hive mind is not one I subscribe to. Unless it was the same designer who said both, then it would be both weird and irritating.

 

[Plane Sailing]

After this power is used, any ally that makes an attack while standing within 5 squares of the warlord gets the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they were when the power was actually utilized (for example, an eladrin ranger who was engaging other enemies sees the warlord across the room use this power on a black dragon, so he fey steps nearby to aid in the fight, gaining this bonus since he's now within 5 squares of the warlord)?

Unless there are instructions to the contrary, I anticipate using option from your list - for the remainder of the encounter those who are within 25ft of the warlord get the bonus.

Cheers

 

[Protagonist]

I don't believe it. You need TWF to play Taki.

+ you need the DDI Boob Enhancer

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Get on your feet, you [censored due to the grandmother clause], or so help me Bane I will swab the deck with your worthless face!

I love the previews so far. Glee!

-TRRW

 

[Ian O'Rourke]

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Miss: Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.[/COLOR]

For those thinking about how this rule is actually applied, I too it to mean:-

Once the power is used anyone standing within 5 squares of the Warlord gets either a 1+Int Mod bonus or a +1 bonus (depending on a hit or a miss) for the whole of the encounter if they are standing in that 5 square range. As long as the power has been used you will get that bonus if you are in the 5 square range. If you're not accurately tracking squares - go with a general feel of whatever that means in feet/ meter

Still, I'm sure other people think differently.

 

[Dausuul]

The emphasis in the Hit and Miss entries is mine. Does this mean:

Any ally who is standing within 5 squares of the warlord at the time this power is used gains the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they move to afterward (for example, an eladrin ranger standing near the warlord gets the bonus, then fey steps across the room to get a better archery position on the target)?

After this power is used, any ally that makes an attack while standing within 5 squares of the warlord gets the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they were when the power was actually utilized (for example, an eladrin ranger who was engaging other enemies sees the warlord across the room use this power on a black dragon, so he fey steps nearby to aid in the fight, gaining this bonus since he's now within 5 squares of the warlord)?

Something else?

I intend to go with option 3, which is:

This power affects all allies regardless of location, because I see no reason to bother tracking stuff like this. I'm not sure what the gain of tracking it would be, but I very much doubt it outweighs the cost of counting off squares to see if you're close enough to the warlord. If it were 1 or 2 squares, that would be different, but 5 squares is a big enough radius that it might as well just say "the entire battlefield" and leave it at that.

(If I had to pick one of the original two options, I'd take just because it's easier.)

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Ugh .... words cannot describe how detestable the name "warlord" is for this class. Unfortunately, it tends to color my perceptions of what is otherwise a fairly decent class, from the looks of it.

I wish that the WotC staff writers wouldn't parade their rather dubious grasp of the English language quite so publicly, either. They claim that renaming the 'marshal' as the 'warlord' broadens the meaning, when in fact, assuming that they're using the same English language as everyone else, it's evident that it's narrowing the meaning to the point of absurdity.

Let's get some perspective here by using a dictionary (specifically, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published in 2006 by Houghton-Mifflin, and therefore presumably readily available to people who are getting paid to write):

Warlord n. A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it.

Marshal isn't perfect either, but at least it's far closer to what they're saying this so-called "warlord" is (especially definition 4):

Marshal

n.

1. a. A military officer of the highest rank in some countries.
b. A field marshal.
c. A U.S. federal officer of a judicial district who carries out court orders and discharges duties similar to those of a sheriff.
d. A city law enforcement officer in the United States who carries out court orders.
The head of a police or fire department in the United States.

2. a. A U.S. federal officer of a judicial district who carries out court orders and discharges duties similar to those of a sheriff.
b. A city law enforcement officer in the United States who carries out court orders.
c. The head of a police or fire department in the United States.
3. A person in charge of a parade or ceremony.
4. A high official in a royal court, especially one aiding the sovereign in military affairs.

I really, really do wish that they'd look in a dictionary before making statements and choosing names like this. Honestly, this is as ludicrous an error as the old Dragon magazine gaffe where one of their writers used "toothsome" to mean "having many teeth" -- "they were attacked by a pack of large, toothsome canines" .... well, it's a relief to hear that those dogs were tasty, anyway!

 

[Steely Dan]

As my wife is Kenyan, you know what we think of when we see the word warlord…