How Do You Like the Warlord?

[GlassJaw]

I voted for "I pretty much don't like it" but that's not entirely accurate. If there was choice for "the warlord is the final reason that I almost certainly won't play 4E", I would have voted for that option.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Power Names

This is simply an aspect of having more than 1 power related to an action. For example, let's say you name the power "Follow me" or "Into the Breach".

What happens when you come up with a power that's slightly different than the original "Follow me" but basically is a variation?

Do you call it, "Follow me EVER FURTHER" or "Follow me 2.0". We can see this even with the 1st level power of the fighter, "Brute Strike" and "Pin the Foe" of the warlord.

P.s. Did people have problem accepting Bull Rush? That term actualy makes LESS sense than Iron Dragon Charge IMO.

 

[lutecius]

What happens when you come up with a power that's slightly different than the original "Follow me" but basically is a variation?

Do you call it, "Follow me EVER FURTHER"

hey, I like that one. it beats improved invisibility

but sadly, we wouldn't have moments like "which one is the fastest/strongest again? the mithral sow, or is it the lavender bulette?"

 

[Pinotage]

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).

Well said.

Pinotage

 

[Larrin]

P.s. Did people have problem accepting Bull Rush? That term actualy makes LESS sense than Iron Dragon Charge IMO.

anyone who has seen full grown bull will understand why when it rushes, things move. Trust me, it makes sense. Bulls rush things, when they hit things move. Most Iron dragons i've seen don't move so much, they seem happy sitty on their little stands in the garden or servicing as a railing on the steps of a restaurant. Most charges of iron dragons involve purchasing them. Perhaps in D&D there will be Iron dragons, but i've not enough experience to know it their behavior is such that when they charge it somehow reflects the warlords ability. The name Iron Dragon Charge is really arbitrary, but that doesn't mean its a bad name. My name is more or less arbitrary, you have to get to know me before my name means anything, but i don't think its a bad name. What (for me) will determine how bad of a name iron dragon charge is how consistent it is with other iron dragon exploits. If 'Iron Dragon' means that when you do something, an ally gets an immedieate action to do the same thing, then its consistant and i can probably learn to at least guess what Iron Dragon Stike or Iron Dragon Push might do. If Iron dragon can mean anything (ie. if iron dragon strike means an ally gains +5 to morale or some such malarchy) then its a bad name because the iron dragon doesn't help me figure anything out about what the power will do. its really bad if only one ability has the Iron Dragon name because that means there's probably 15-20 arbitrary names for me to try and memorize the exact meaning of each with no help.

I hope there is a logical consistancy. That would be nice.

 

[Arnwyn]

White Raven Onslaught

Iron Dragon Charge

Look like they're turning up the suck again!


Otherwise, the abilities don't look to bad at first glance.

 

[Kobu]

P.s. Did people have problem accepting Bull Rush? That term actualy makes LESS sense than Iron Dragon Charge IMO.

Bull rush is not a D&D-ism. It's used in American football.

 

[bramadan]

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).

I agree in principle that clearer rules are better, but one should not let that healthy attitude degenerate into obsessive picking of nits.

Rules of football do not clearly state that I can't go around digging little holes in the pitch for the opposing team to break their ankles in, and yet people do not do it (and would - rightly - be nailed by the refs if they tried).
Every game has both spirit and letter of the rules, part of the DnD spirit of the rules is that you work together with your team. It would take super strong emphasis in RAW to over-run this spirit.

 

[AllisterH]

Bull rush is not a D&D-ism. It's used in American football.

Which is my point.

Bull Rush is an American football term being used to describe combat move in an era LONG, LONG before football was played. Furthermore, the move itself tells you NOTHING on what it does compared to Iron Dragon Charge which at least tells me it is some sort of charge manoeuver.

I'm also just saddened that so many people seem to think that "naming manoeuvers" is Oriental when in fact, most European fighting styles used to name their moves. This ironically is one of the things I find that 4E gets right.

I'm not sure WHERE people get the idea that fighters simply call their moves by what they do exactly. Fighters are not DULL people.

 

[Patlin]

I'm underwhelmed by the three powers posted, but I'm not ready to say I don't like the class as a whole. All of them were daily powers, too, limiting the preview even further. A very uninformative preview, IMO.