How Do You Like the Warlord?

[Fallen Seraph]

Yes, but unless there's some text missing somewhere, I believe the charactesr HAVE to take the movement. Sometimes that's not the best option.

Pinotage

Well considering how these effects last the whole Encounter, I think this shows they don't have to move.

The Warlord has created an advantage the rest of the party can take advantage of when they feel best suited to do so during the course of the battle.

 

[Insight]

In my game, I'll tell the players that the power allows others to move freely if they choose. Instead of the Warlord saying:

"I'm gonna move the Fighter here"

He'll say:

"Bob, free shift if you want"

It's Bob who is moving, and Bob who chooses when and where he moves. Ultimately the power of the Warlord is supposed to help Bob, not allow Warlord to boss people or move people against their will.

I'm pretty sure that's how it's going to work in practice. I can't imagine the Warlord's player sliding other peoples' characters around the map without their permission. It just wouldn't go over very well.

In the Marshal (from Mini Handbook), the 'Grant Movement' ability (which seems a fair correlation to the one presented for the Warlord) allows your allies to decide whether to move or not; the Marshal player merely gives them an immediate move action if the allies wish to take it.

 

[parvatiquinta]

I pretty much like it, though I'm not sure I appreciate it fully yet (I think I need not only some more reading but playtesting as well).
I liked the idea of an inspiring figure, a bit like the knight of old with his small band of faithful comrades.

As for potential abuse from players, well, there have always been tons of ways to ruin everybody else's fun without needing specific powers to do so. From fighters who will charge everything from goblins to the townsfolk you were bargaining with (yes, Belkar), to kenders who could get the group in jail in a matter of minutes...

Now, not all of this protagonism was necessarily bad (the kender case was actually very entertaining roleplaying), but it's a possibility you have to factor in from the start, and address out of game if it gets annoying, IMO.

 

[Demigonis]

Yes, but unless there's some text missing somewhere, I believe the charactesr HAVE to take the movement. Sometimes that's not the best option.

Pinotage

I'm not convinced the character HAS to take the movement. But even if so:

You're right, sometimes it's not the best option. The players have to use common sense and cooperate with one another. That's all. It doesn't need a rule to explain common sense and cooperation. At least I really really hope not.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

With the advent of 4.0, it seems like the ENTIRE focus of combat is going to be placed on the battle board and how PC's can manipulate it. This is clearly not going to be an edition for my storytelling tastes.

And strangely enough, this was the biggest improvement from 2e for me. In 2e I was used to combat being off of a battlemat most of the time and to consist of this:

Fighter 1: I hit AC 2 for 7 damage.
Fighter 2: I hit AC 4 for 8 damage.
Wizard: Can I fireball without hitting the fighters? No? Ok, I magic missile one for 6 damage.
Cleric: I cast a cure light on Fighter 1.
Thief: I'd like to backstab the enemies...can I get behind them? Oh, right, once they've seen me I can't use my backstab power. I hide in the back and wait for the battle to be over.
DM: The enemies go, the first one misses, the second one hits fighter 2 for 14 damage.

Then repeat forever.

When my players saw 3e and they realized they had rules on flanking, sneak attacks could be used EVERY round in the right position, placing a fireball was now possible since it didn't bounce back and kill everyone in a small room. They loved it. They could really use tactics and positioning in order to gain an advantage.

It wasn't until a lot of number crunching and min-maxing before people started realizing that fighters had the one of the least number of options out of any class on what to do from round to round along with rogues and barbarians. When people realized it was much better to spend a round attacking for 25 damage than it was to add +2 to the damage of your allies.

But amongst all of that we never found out storytelling abilities diminished in the slightest. I mean, we never told stories during combat. It was always: "Storytelling and roleplaying which led you to a battle in which people would roll dice over and over again until they were all dead or the enemies were, then back to role playing and story." Now, it was the same pattern but people weren't saying "Can we get this battle over with? It is taking too long." and instead saying "We need to find a battle. I can't wait to try out my new powers!"

 

[Pinotage]

Well considering how these effects last the whole Encounter, I think this shows they don't have to move.

The Warlord has created an advantage the rest of the party can take advantage of when they feel best suited to do so during the course of the battle.

One would hope that's the case. Perhaps the Warlord's class description contains the missing text, otherwise the Warlord is just plain weird.

Pinotage

 

[Ferrous]

I like the concept of the class but the faux oriental naming convention is rather naff. The names are both meaningless and impose upon the GM's world e.g Who or what was the White Raven?

It is not even that difficult to invent names that are setting neutral and yet actually evoke a sense of what the character is actually doing or saying e.g. "Turn the flank", Into the breach", or "Follow me!".

I really want to like the 4th edition, and indeed I really have been impressed by some of the game design and mechanisms. However the flavour text has been, in my opinion, not up to the same standard. This is a real shame. I know the flavour text is largely cosmetic but it still impacts on how you experience the game. For me it is like having a Jaguar sports car with a lime green and pink paint job!

 

[KarinsDad]

Well considering how these effects last the whole Encounter, I think this shows they don't have to move.

The Warlord has created an advantage the rest of the party can take advantage of when they feel best suited to do so during the course of the battle.

Where do you get that from? Effects are not based on duration. Duration is one aspect of an effect. What the effect does is another.

I suspect you are doing "wishful thinking" here. Granted, what you wrote here might be the actual rule. We do not know. But from what is written so far about how slides work, the Warlord (or his ally when his ally successfully attacks) is in total control.

In fact, from what is actually written, the Warlord (or his ally) MUST slide an ally, even if that would be disadvantageous. It appears to be forced.

Granted, we do not have the entire rule set. But, this is what is written.

 

[lutecius]

Classes - How Do You Like the Warlord?

I like him bloodied (actual wounds, not "low morale" HPs) lying in a dark alley with a lute smashed across his head, so that the bard can take his place in phb1.

There. I thought I had professed my hatred for the Warlord in so many threads that it wasn’t needed here…
I tried… I really tried… :\

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well I view it as such, since the effect lasts the duration of the encounter. That indicates to me, that it is not something that NEEDS to be acted upon immediately.

This means that, there is choose in the matter, both from the perspective of the Warlord and rest of party.

For example:

Iron Dragon Charge

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.

It doesn't force you the Warlord or the players to always use the immediate reaction, every round. It simply gives the option too. As such both the Warlord and the rest of the players would banter back and forth.

Essentially, the Warlord would set up this situation.

Then when the time comes, a player can call out to be given this charge from the Warlord. It is something that must be chosen by both players. Yes, the Warlord is the one that must instigate it, but it doesn't mean he then controls the player.

As for White Raven Onslaught yes perhaps the mechanical writing could be clearer for those who run games completely RAW-interpreted, but one has to also look at the fluff:

You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display true teamwork.

The Warlord creates an opportunity for his allies, a opportunity is something the ally has to seize and wish to use, thus choose. After that the other ally has the choose to be work with the team and continue the manoeuvrer.