Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6047402" data-attributes="member: 94389">I like the stop-motion way of describing it. Although I think immediate&nbsp; actions break-down the freeze-frame nature (and is often cited as what&nbsp; makes 4E rounds take so long and complicated), and the abstraction becomes&nbsp; more fluid during a turn rather than round-by-round. But, on that score,&nbsp; on-turn (non immediate) is fine, I just think there should be MORE immediate actions than the&nbsp; 4E warlord gets. Lets just say I am in favor of Warlords having some action denial in their arsenal (or as a separate build), whether its preventing attacks, or changing a move.I also think immediate actions also give the impression of warlord being &quot;in control&quot; of the battlefield. Again, the caveat is that immediate actions being a warlord schtick and not everyone's schtick. I am not talking all-or-nothing, but rather an increased focus.But we are not talking about 4E, we are talking about 5E. How does 5E address forced movement and action denial/granting? That's the crux of my argument. I see immediate actions being the place for those things for martial characters (excluding spells here. They are truly forced movement versus the not-really-forced-but-abstract-expression-of tricked-into movement of martial characters).To bring this back to the OP, Fighter (Warlord) maneuvers that are usable as immediate actions goes a long way to make the Fighter (warlord) feel unique over a Fighter (other). In other words, If K.M. made those maneuvers immediate actions (well, besides inspiring word) I think it would be a Warlord I want to play (assuming generic maneuvers are still available)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jrowland, post: 6047402, member: 94389"] I like the stop-motion way of describing it. Although I think immediate actions break-down the freeze-frame nature (and is often cited as what makes 4E rounds take so long and complicated), and the abstraction becomes more fluid during a turn rather than round-by-round. But, on that score, on-turn (non immediate) is fine, I just think there should be MORE immediate actions than the 4E warlord gets. Lets just say I am in favor of Warlords having some action denial in their arsenal (or as a separate build), whether its preventing attacks, or changing a move. I also think immediate actions also give the impression of warlord being "in control" of the battlefield. Again, the caveat is that immediate actions being a warlord schtick and not everyone's schtick. I am not talking all-or-nothing, but rather an increased focus. But we are not talking about 4E, we are talking about 5E. How does 5E address forced movement and action denial/granting? That's the crux of my argument. I see immediate actions being the place for those things for martial characters (excluding spells here. They are truly forced movement versus the not-really-forced-but-abstract-expression-of tricked-into movement of martial characters). To bring this back to the OP, Fighter (Warlord) maneuvers that are usable as immediate actions goes a long way to make the Fighter (warlord) feel unique over a Fighter (other). In other words, If K.M. made those maneuvers immediate actions (well, besides inspiring word) I think it would be a Warlord I want to play (assuming generic maneuvers are still available) [/QUOTE]

Verification