How Do You Like the Warlord?

[king_ghidorah]

I think the Warlord is in the PHB1 because it was a higher priority. I think the designers decided to set the tone for the 4E straight for the beginning. This way it would help the brand by making it obvious we would need to use minis now more than ever. As well as many other reasons too, I'm sure.

But I agree 100% with you. I would have preferred to see the Bard in PHB1 instead of later on.

I actually think that the focus on miniatures theory sounds pretty shaky. My theory is that the designers had this idea for a class and fell in love with it and put in in the PHB. I don't sense malice or desire to force a style of play onto players, just a sense that they had an idea that they really thought was, for want of a better word, "cool."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I actually think that the focus on miniatures theory sounds pretty shaky. My theory is that the designers had this idea for a class and fell in love with it and put in in the PHB. I don't sense malice or desire to force a style of play onto players, just a sense that they had an idea that they really thought was, for want of a better word, "cool."

Also it is obvious that being a brand new D&D, and going off in a new direction. As such what better way to express this then with a brand, new class.

 

[Samuel Leming]

I like it. If I ever play 4e it looks like an interesting character to run in combats, so I voted yes.

I'd absolutely hate playing or putting up with somebody playing a character like this in a RPG though. All that metagame rules wrangling would be absolutely jarring.

Sam

 

[MaelStorm]

I actually think that the focus on miniatures theory sounds pretty shaky. My theory is that the designers had this idea for a class and fell in love with it and put in in the PHB. I don't sense malice or desire to force a style of play onto players, just a sense that they had an idea that they really thought was, for want of a better word, "cool."

I agree it is shaky. But as pushers of minis it's great, no? They could offer low budget alternative to play their games. I know the Player Starter kit will offer tokens instead of minis, but what is offered for DMs? Nothing.

 

[bramadan]

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.

I honestly don't think you are serious in trying to push this mandatory movement as a real rule that people will play under.

If you are - then equally silly (and equally valid) solution is to take my example from the other thread to the same logical absurd. Oh, I have to move because I am that guy's ally ? Well - I hate his guts, I am no longer his ally now so I am not moving. So, his turn ended and so did his ability ? I think I like him again.

Idea of choice is implicit in the notion of "ally" because people (unless mind controlled) have implicit always revocable choice of whom they ally with. Therefore any action on allies will only ever work on willing targets.
Sure, there may be some consequence for buffs as you pointed in the other thread but it is liable to be very marginal.

 

[Kobu]

I still hate the name but I think the class could be good. It's a solid concept, but I found the article to be alarming in a few ways. The implied "sometimes, but not 100% of the time, he gets to order people around" along with the known forced movement is troubling. So is the stuff about the player strategizing for the other players.

I want the class to work, but I can easily see this happening--

Things That Didn't Work in 4E So We Had To Make 5E

1. The Warlord

Where do we start with this guy? Good idea, bad name, horrible implementation. It turns out, no one really liked the player who thought he should be telling everyone else what to do. Who knew? This class probably caused more player fights to break out and groups to collapse than alignment ever did, and don't even get me started on RPGA games. Goodbye and good riddance Warlord, welcome back, Marshal!

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well given the percentages in this poll (yes it is a drop in the ocean for the number of D&D players, but it is all we can go on) the majority of people so far do enjoy the Warlord.

So, I think your fear, while it could happen is less likely then the Warlord being enjoyed by the majority of players.

 

[hong]

I still hate the name but I think the class could be good. It's a solid concept, but I found the article to be alarming in a few ways. The implied "sometimes, but not 100% of the time, he gets to order people around" along with the known forced movement is troubling. So is the stuff about the player strategizing for the other players.

The player strategising for other players is just flavour. You're the mastermind with a cunning plan that saves the day. In the absence of such flavour, there would be no point to the class. The issue of annoying people becoming even more annoying is precisely why they have that big disclaimer about not using your powers for evil.

The movement is only "forced" in the sense that it takes place out of the guy's turn. Unless they have some funky way of moving out of turn, this movement must be due to an external factor, hence "forced". Nothing about it implies giving up agency on the player's part.

 

[Zimri]

[sarcasm]Wow so every table prior to the warlord was one of utopian delight with no overbearing players trying to tell others how or what to play, where to move, what to use , what feats to take. Then came the 4E bane of existence "the Warlord" Since no one had ever acted abusively or smarter and better than thou at a gaming table before we just weren't prepared with any ways at all to handle this antisocial behaviour at our table[/sarcasm]

Abusive people are abusive people they existed before the warlord , they will exist after the warlord. If someone isn't a fit for your table and will not adjust to your tables playstyle (at mine it will be the "bob you can move here if you like due to my power") then do what has always been done invite them to not return. If the tables playstyle favours his taking over and you don't like it decide if it is a deal breaker for you then leave the table or put up with it. He was likely a minmaxer who told you how shoddy your character was anyway, or how you were doing something wrong. This rule won't make any new abusive people, it may expose some or draw some into the hobby but thats a different egg for a different basket.

 

[KarinsDad]

I honestly don't think you are serious in trying to push this mandatory movement as a real rule that people will play under.

Actually, I'm trying to push precision in rules.

WotC has a track record of being sloppy when writing rules. Yes, it takes time for all of the editors and a few designers to get into a room together and have one of them read all 3 rule books out loud while the others point out flaws. It might take a week or two.

But a process like this (just like with any documentation) would shake out a lot of the "intent vs. written" issues. It might also catch other design bugs. And, it would shift WotC's reputation towards total quality from haphazard quality (which is evident when consumers find mistakes in books the first day they are released).