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

[Bagpuss]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I was saying it would be nice to test the 4E rules, to see how they might break, like sliding allies into lava, and you said they have been doing that for 8 years. Which would mean before 3rd came out. I am questioning your claim that people have been testing 4E for that amount of time.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sounds good.

My problem is that the players keep making their bloody saving throws every time I try to use one of these!

Lanefan

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think he is referring to situations (like this one) where the language is not correct, the intent should be one thing, the rules are not complex, and the author was just not being due diligent enough.

It's not a matter of adding a boatload of rules to make imprecise sentences clear. It's a matter of the designers being aware that a given sentence is open to multiple interpretations (or like in this case, the literal interpretation is unpalatable and if it is designer intent, they will be flooded with WTs???).

I personally prefer having more open interpretations of rules, it allows you to flex rules more easily to the liking of the game your playing/can ocassionally mean a rule can be used in more interesting ways by said open interpretation.

I guess though, it is a personal thing.

Note though: Obviously as seen by the amount of debate going on right now these particular rules may need writing tweaks for some-people, I don't think strict literal rule-writing should always be the case.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

Yeah it would be nice, but I think everyone knows at least one rules lawyer, and I know several who DM. I can see a situation where a Warlord uses that slide power, on say a narrow bridge and the DM say right you now need to slide an ally. The only free place to slide them is off the bridge.

Admittedly many people are more flexible with the rules, but many like to do things by the book to remain fair (as witness the rules forum and people asking for RAW answers).

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Or perhaps they realize that internet message board posters represent only a tiny minority of D&D players. I think (hope) they would prefer to ignore Hyper-literal rules readers and concentrate on making the rules readable for the majority of gamers, who presumably have some common sense.

 

[Lanefan]

I personally prefer having more open interpretations of rules, it allows you to flex rules more easily to the liking of the game your playing/can ocassionally mean a rule can be used in more interesting ways by said open interpretation.

I agree, in general.

As to the specific issue of Warlords being able to slide people around: if the ability was optional on both sides (the Warlord could choose to invoke it or not, and the target could then choose to ignore it or not) it could be an idea interesting enough that I might even think about adopting it into my own (non-4e) game. But if it's mandatory - and the written rule strongly suggests that it is - it's a poor bit of design that will cause many more headaches than it solves.

Lanefan

 

[Fifth Element]

Pesky double-posts.

Your post was so good, it deserved to be posted twice.

 

[bramadan]

Disclosure: I think that the Warlord is the best thing since 10' pole and intend to play one as soon as game is out.

That aside, I really don't see what is the problem here.
If the problem is purely mechanical then I don't see the difference between the warlock and any other class that can affect other PCs in combat (Cleric comes to mind immediately but also Mage and since Flanking pretty much every other class).

If you think that the current PC classes are based on "independence" of the PCs then try playing a Cleric for a session or two and see how "independent" you are. I claim that any constraint on the movement of the other PCs due to Warlord abilities will be absolutely negligible compared with current constraints due to clerical healing or Mages AoE spells.

If your issue is with militaristic flavor of the class then you have a perfect solution - play in a group without a warlock. Currently every DnD party is a sort of religious outfit (at least to the extent to which parties with a warlock would be militaristic) seeing as the very lives of the characters depend on day-to-day basis on the services of their cleric's (or Paladin's) deity. This can be played up in RP or not (everyone knows the "annoying cleric syndrome") but fact remains that in character PCs better be fairly pious folks or the god/DM fairly forgiving one.

Seeing as the adventuring priests are much more rare fantasy trope (previous editions of DnD notwithstanding) then the adventuring soldiers/mercenaries fact that the 4ed gives you a choice and option between the two is in my opinion a great step forward in terms of narativist freedom in DnD.

 

[Chimera]

Back when MtG first came out (the "beta" release with the black borders) me & my gaming buddies picked up a bunch of decks & boosters and started playing, and had a lot of fun. One day a friend of a friend came over with his cards to join in, and some card (I forget which) ground everything to a halt with a big arguement. The text of the card, the reading of which I & my friends all thought was perfectly obvious, meant something else to the new guy and he didn't agree with our interpretation.

Haven't we all seen enough of this on ENWorld?

I used to play with a guy who was downright painful in his oddball interpretations of things that were patently obvious to other people. Then rather than accept the 5-1 (everyone says A, he says B) judgement of the group, he'd post his question in the Rules forum. When more than 95% of the people said "A is correct, where the %&%! do you get B from?", he'd just as often as not say "Well...some people agreed with me, so I'm not sure I'm wrong."

Scene Nine: Rum's Cabin

Blackadder finally lifts his head from his hands.

Blackadder
Look, there's no need to panic. Someone in the crew will know how to steer thig thing.

Rum
The crew, milord?

Blackadder
Yes, the crew.

Rum
What crew?

Blackadder
I was under the impression that it was standard maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.

Rum
Opinion is divided on the subject.

Blackadder
Really?

Rum
Yes. All the other captains say it is, and I say it isn't.

Blackadder
Oh, God. Mad as a brush.

 

[nick012000]

I agree, in general.

As to the specific issue of Warlords being able to slide people around: if the ability was optional on both sides (the Warlord could choose to invoke it or not, and the target could then choose to ignore it or not) it could be an idea interesting enough that I might even think about adopting it into my own (non-4e) game. But if it's mandatory - and the written rule strongly suggests that it is - it's a poor bit of design that will cause many more headaches than it solves.

Lanefan

I'll point out that while it is mandatory, the Warlord need not actually move anyone. You can choose to slide characters less distance than the power states; he can simply choose to slide them 0 squares.