Hardest to Visualize Power

[Eldorian]

But the power isn't derived from the demigod epic destiny (you can certainly not be a demigod and still take the power). It also isn't magical - it's not arcane or divine, it is a martial exploit. You can't handwave it and then say "By force of his will, the Warlord rearranges the enemy into a form more to his liking..." (well, you can, if you're a GM, but I believe it is a very poor explanation, on a par with no explanation at all).

I mean, I like the power, but it drives home very strongly to me some key truths about 4e: 1) it's even more abstract and removed from any kind of "reality" than prior editions and 2) many, many sacrifices have been made on the altar of fun (the power is fun, it's just also incredibly unreal...)

Dude. Just because it's a warlord power doesn't mean it's not epic. It's level 22. The only people who can be level 22 are epic. And this power, by reading the favor text, is powered by the warlord's tactical planning. The warlord's actions were so amazingly planned and executed that his enemies end up where he wants them at that exact moment. In game, sure, people move around instantaneously. But you're playing a game, a turn based game, so abstractions are abundant.

 

[MarkChevallier]

That ability is to let warlord play as if the character was a tactical genius, even if the PC isn't. A tactical genius could get the enemies where he wanted them by setting it up through the battle to get them in the place he needed them. Since the player isn't a tactical genius (probably), the game "does it for you" by just letting you slide folken around. It's just like a super-diplomacy ability in a bard PrC letting you be inhumanly convincing; the player probably can't convince you to give up your sword/sign an unfavorable treaty with honeyed words, so the game does it for you.

This is a valid explanation, in terms of what the power is trying to achieve - but not in terms of how it is executed in play. If the GM "explains" the ability by saying something to the effect of "ignore the last few rounds, the monsters were in different positions and moved in different ways to get themselves where the Warlord has just put them", that will cause problems with questions like "but then how could I have used my Twin Weapon Blizzard (or whatever) on that group of gnolls?"

And how does a tactical genius - any tactical genius - get the enemy to throw themselves off a cliff or step into fire? Or write his name on the battlefield? Is that retconned as well?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But the power isn't derived from the demigod epic destiny (you can certainly not be a demigod and still take the power). It also isn't magical - it's not arcane or divine, it is a martial exploit. You can't handwave it and then say "By force of his will, the Warlord rearranges the enemy into a form more to his liking..." (well, you can, if you're a GM, but I believe it is a very poor explanation, on a par with no explanation at all).

I mean, I like the power, but it drives home very strongly to me some key truths about 4e: 1) it's even more abstract and removed from any kind of "reality" than prior editions and 2) many, many sacrifices have been made on the altar of fun (the power is fun, it's just also incredibly unreal...)

There is no way to make this not seem supernatural if you try a pure simulation approach. I totally agree with that.

The "narrative" approach is to say that the Warlord is such a master tactician that he predicted the movement of his enemies and manipulated the battlefield situation in away to ensure that the enemies end up where they end up.

Of course, just using the rules, you would have never guessed that he was doing that all the time before, because the rules don't simulate it.

It's still not "realistic" in the strictest sense - but then, we're talking about epic level characters - a normal man couldn't have predicted his enemy movements this precise. But someone on the best way to become a Demigod (or something equally powerful, depending on your Epic Destiny) might just be that good.

The closest to which I can compare this power is to the tactical genius of the Star Wars Expanded Universe character Thrawn. He could predict enemy tactics and strategy based on their art! Yet he wasn't gifted in the force or anything.

 

[Celebrim]

And how does a tactical genius - any tactical genius - get the enemy to throw themselves off a cliff or step into fire? Or write his name on the battlefield? Is that retconned as well?

Once again, let me give the obvious answer that gets so many people's britches in a knot.

It's magic.

All the 4e classes are magic users. Classes like the rogue, fighter, and warlock differ only in that they have 'martial magic'. Wuxia-like magic developed from martial training is the default setting of 4e.

When the fighter swings his sword and damages the target even when he misses, how do you explain that? You could torture yourself with convoluted explanations that would require all sorts of situational exceptions, or you could do the obvious thing and take a page from Wuxia and say that the fighter has 'cut the wind' and that even when he misses the wind from his blow strikes the target. When the rogue unleashes a burst of metal shards or whatever so that he blasts a 15'x15' area, you could torture yourself trying to explain it realisticly or you could just describe it the way a japanese animator would animate it.

Fighters have weapon magic. That's why they can only use one each of thier weapon spells in each fight. That's why there are some weapon spells that tire them out to much to use them again without a long rest, but which do not physically tire them to any degree. They aren't fatigued. They are out of 'ki'.

Rogues have ninja magic.
Warlords have command magic.

It's that simple.

 

[Wormwood]

It's still not "realistic" in the strictest sense - but then, we're talking about epic level characters - a normal man couldn't have predicted his enemy movements this precise. But someone on the best way to become a Demigod (or something equally powerful, depending on your Epic Destiny) might just be that good.

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I READ YOUR BOOK!"

 

[Celebrim]

The closest to which I can compare this power is to the tactical genius of the Star Wars Expanded Universe character Thrawn. He could predict enemy tactics and strategy based on their art! Yet he wasn't gifted in the force or anything.

See any number of martial art movies where the character gets an example of the other characters caligraphy, and now has the secret to defeating that character in battle.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a valid explanation, in terms of what the power is trying to achieve - but not in terms of how it is executed in play. If the GM "explains" the ability by saying something to the effect of "ignore the last few rounds, the monsters were in different positions and moved in different ways to get themselves where the Warlord has just put them", that will cause problems with questions like "but then how could I have used my Twin Weapon Blizzard (or whatever) on that group of gnolls?"

And how does a tactical genius - any tactical genius - get the enemy to throw themselves off a cliff or step into fire? Or write his name on the battlefield? Is that retconned as well?

Tricking someone into dropping of a cliff or fire is just careful outmaneuvering and making the enemy focus on something else.

You are not ret-conning the actual positions of the monsters. You are more or less ret-conning everything that was not visible due to the rules abstraction. Like the Warlod being in the north-west of his square, or the Warlord making a secret hand gesture to one of his allies so he would make his next attack directed at the left flank of the Ogre.

And I say ret-conning only because it wasn't explicitely mentioned before and might as well not have happened. Nothing that happened as detailed by the game system was changed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

By the way, why I am I actually trying to help someone "visualize" a power in this thread! It's devoted to write down the "hardest to visualize" power not the "help me visualize powers" thread, right?

 

[Celebrim]

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I READ YOUR BOOK!"

Great movie.

Also totally not the same thing. The book Patton was referring to was 'Panzer greift an', a book by Erwin Rommel on how to attack with tanks and the sequal to his book 'Infanterie greift an' - how to attack with infantry. There is nothing particularly supernatural or difficult to explain about having read a book of tactics by someone and then knowing thier preferred tactics. Patton is shown reading the book in the movie.

What was supernatural was having a copy of a book that would never be completed and which existed only in the form of scattered manuscripts at the time. Presumably, Patton got it from the Dream King's library of books that never existed.

Or, more likely that's just Hollywood, and the real Patton read 'Infanterie greift an' which is hardly surprising given how widely regarded it was as a military textbook.

 

[Wormwood]

Or, more likely that's just Hollywood . . .

Here endeth the lesson.