How Do You Like the Warlord?

[KarinsDad]

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:


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.

Good for the goose, good for the gander. You cannot just use one part of that fluff text, you must use it all to support your position.

The fluff text also states that "Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example". The wording here too (like the crunch text) is that they do something, not that they can do something.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

But the term "seize" itself means choice, you cannot be forced to seize something. Seizing is when you (the other players) take that advantage and use it, not be forced to use the advantage.

I decided to look at the flavour text too, since obviously there is the whole "may is there just not written vs. may is not there so there is no may" is already being discussed so looked at the fluff which is supposed to show how it is played out as it were.

 

[Insight]

I think some of you are misinterpreting the language and/or the spirit of those abilities. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that the examples are poorly written. There's no way the Warlord forces people to move... is there? That just seems dumb.

If it somehow turns out to be forced movement, I'm going to house rule that it's optional, and if so, I don't like where this is going.

 

[(contact)]

Love the class.

Hate most of the power names.

+1

I had the same experience with the classes from Book of Nine Swords; the concepts were fantastic, the mechanics were interesting, but the names? Oh no.

Player: I use "Stance of the Seven Golden Mountain Lords!"

Me: "Uh . . .?

Player: "The miss-chance one."

Me: "Oh, yeah."

The warlord concept and mechanics as revealed to date are fantastic. The class enables extra actions by key PCs; as the article mentions, in the hands of a properly tactical player it's going to be a vital force multiplier. Love it. D&D has had this character concept since its early days, but never had the mechanics to back it up. It's a great class.

 

[(contact)]

I think some of you are misinterpreting the language and/or the spirit of those abilities. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that the examples are poorly written. There's no way the Warlord forces people to move... is there? That just seems dumb.

It grants extra attack actions -- find me the fighter or rogue that thinks this is a bad thing, and I'll find you a dysfunctional adventurer not long for the world.

 

[bramadan]

I think it is best addition to DnD in a long while.
It is (almost) singlehandedly responsible for bringing me back to the idea of playing DnD.
That said, they can still muck it up - but so far I like what I see very much.

 

[MaelStorm]

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… :\

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.

 

[hong]

+1

I had the same experience with the classes from Book of Nine Swords; the concepts were fantastic, the mechanics were interesting, but the names? Oh no.

Player: I use "Stance of the Seven Golden Mountain Lords!"

Me: "Uh . . .?

Player: "The miss-chance one."

Me: "Oh, yeah."

Conversely, I think "Diamond Nightmare Blade" is now imprinted in the minds of my group as "that broken maneuver hong loves with his pee-pee".

 

[KarinsDad]

But the term "seize" itself means choice, you cannot be forced to seize something. Seizing is when you (the other players) take that advantage and use it, not be forced to use the advantage.

The term seize actually means to grasp or to capture. It has nothing to do with choice.


That sentence is no different than any other sentence with a simple tense verb.

Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example. Each of your comrades in turn drinks milk.

The verb is definitive. It is not "can drink" or "may drink" or "is allowed to drink". It's drink (or in this case, seizes).

This is standard Simple Tense English Verbs with no Auxilary Verbs (like can or may). It has a definitive meaning.

I walk, I jog, I run, I seize.

He walks, he jogs, he runs, he seizes.

Grammatically, you are arguing from shaky ground.

 

[king_ghidorah]

This is a tough call. The things I have seen about the warlor so far have some promise, but I'm not sure how the class would work out in practice from what we've seen. The control over positioning has potential if it moves quickly in play.

Of course, this is all academic to me right now. Working full time and going to graduate school are eating up most of my free time, and most of my old gaming group has scattered to the four winds, so I don't know when or if I will pick up 4e....