Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[Lanefan]

It's simple, really: the designers realized that having a class that people argue about is important, so to counter the removal of the Paladin they've given us Warlord in its place.

More seriously: if (and I say if, because we don't know everything yet) the Warlord has a class ability that can arbitrarily and without saving throw force (an)other PC(s) into doing something it(they) would not otherwise have chosen to do, that is Very Bad Design.

As for functioning as a unit etc.: it's not always about making the optimal choices, people! Yes, a smoothly-running military-legion machine of a party will probably be more successful over time...and can be fun for a while, until you've perfected the whole tactical thing and realize nobody's laughing anymore...it's become rote, and thus dull.

It comes right back to the good old Law-vs.-Chaos argument; and for sheer entertainment and amusement (the reasons I play the damn game in the first place) give me Chaotic parties every time!

Lanefan

 

[Spatula]

Quick question: How many jerks do you game with?

From the sounds of things, people must game entirely with a bunch of purile, abusive jerkasses who like to fireball their own party members. If that's the case, I'd say get a new group before railing against the Warlord for opening up new tactical options.

There isn't a binary jerk/not-jerk flag on most players. I mean, some people are really just jerks but they tend to be in the minority because others shun them. However, there are plenty of different expectations and playstyles, and sometimes those do not mesh well. But groups put up with the differences because they're friends, or because they don't have many options on who to game with, or whatever. There's lots of reasons.

As a sort-of example, my best friend in high school was a terrible winner (he loved to gloat) and loser (he pouted). But he wasn't a jerk. And who else was I going to play dorky games with as a teenager?

But getting back to the Warlord, some people are bossy. They're not jerks; they feel they know the best possible moves everyone can make and aren't meek about it. Some people resent being bossed around. The design article takes note of this and says the warlord allows bossy players to channel their energies in a positive manner. Presumably the class does this by providing incentives to follow the player's orders - "attack this guy because you get a bonus," vs "attack this guy because it's the superior move" - but in the end the player is still telling others what to do. And looking at the daily powers, I see even more opportunities for bossiness in the warlord, in that the rest of the group will need to be in position to make use of the warlord's powers (like with iron dragon charge). Which creates an added incentive for an overbearing warlord to tell other players where to move to, or to move them there himself.

Now if you have a perfectly harmonious group that's all on the same page and at the same level of tactical mastery, that's great! That's certainly not true of everyone, though. And because of that, I think the marshall and bard were better examples of how to build such classes, in that they provided passive bonuses and gave unrestricted extra actions to the group, and those abilities only depended on range and not on precise positioning.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.

After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.

Well considering how they state that this article wasn't final. It could very well be, like the Paladin Charge, where it has been changed. Hell perhaps after viewing this confusion over the Power they add, "may".

 

[Lanefan]

D00d, by posting here, you admit that you are WotC's bitch. Some of us are just more up-front about it than others.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here...

Lanefan

 

[hong]

What's fascinating is that, despite this focus on teamwork, lone wolves are probably better off in 4E than in any previous edition of D&D. You no longer have to worry about 3/4 of the skill list being off-limits to you, or any one of your saves being in the toilet. You won't have squishy hit points, nor will you be ineffective with attacks. Great for Diablo.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, it should be noted that in the White Raven Power, there is nothing there that says that the ally is REQUIRED to move, only that they can. I chalk the whole may/can issue up to the continued de-grammarization of the American English language.

Not quite. The actual grammar is:

Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, the attacker slides an adjacent ally 1 square.

Grammatically, this only means one thing. Required if possible (no different than "if ... then" in computer language).

Not only does the ally have no choice in the matter, neither does the Warlord.

The controversy here would really not exist if the language was imprecise.

I really do suspect that WotC does not mean required, but it would be nice if they wrote what they meant.

 

[Nifft]

More seriously: if (and I say if, because we don't know everything yet) the Warlord has a class ability that can arbitrarily and without saving throw force (an)other PC(s) into doing something it(they) would not otherwise have chosen to do, that is Very Bad Design.

Only bad because it does not go far enough. I don't just want a class that lets me tell other PCs what to do. I want a class that allows me to dictate the actions of the other players.

Powers could include:
- Shut the hell up, Mike (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
- Look that up for me (minor, per encounter) - Player within LOS must look up the rule and cite relevant parts before the end of the round.
- Grab me up a six pack (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

More seriously: if (and I say if, because we don't know everything yet) the Warlord has a class ability that can arbitrarily and without saving throw force (an)other PC(s) into doing something it(they) would not otherwise have chosen to do, that is Very Bad Design.

Only bad because it does not go far enough. I don't just want a class that lets me tell other PCs what to do. I want a class that allows me to dictate the actions of the other players.

Powers could include:
- Shut the hell up, Mike (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
- Look that up for me (minor, per encounter) - Player within LOS must look up the rule and cite relevant parts before the end of the round.
- Grab a six pack for me (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.

Cheers, -- N

 

[hong]

I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.

Hyper-literalism on the part of a section of the market, you mean.

After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.

After the previous 2 decades, they will also know that adding precision into language clearly did nothing to stop argumentative people from having arguments. And D&D geeks are the most argumentative geeks in all of geekdom.

 

[hong]

Not only does the ally have no choice in the matter, neither does the Warlord.

The controversy here would really not exist if the language was imprecise.

I really do suspect that WotC does not mean required, but it would be nice if they wrote what they meant.

It would be nice if people acted like people equipped with the facility to exercise discretion, as opposed to bots programmatically unable to do so.