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

[FireLance]

He's not making it up. You can always choose to push/pull/slide a smaller distance than indicated or not at all. Which probably makes most of this thread a waste of time.

Not really - the other key contention is that enabling players to move other players' characters will not go down well with some players. I personally think it's a good idea - it helps weed out those who Will Not Play Well With Others early.

 

[Fifth Element]

That would describe the marshal, but it does not hold with what we have been shown of the warlord so far. My impression is that the player with the warlord is meant to metagame. The article supports this: "...if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive..."

Why should we have a class that encourages this?

Why shouldn't we have a class that encourages this? There is some percentage of players who enjoy this sort of play, at least some of the time. Why shouldn't they have a class that allows them to do so with real, mechanical, in-game effects?

This criticism begins to smell of badwrongfun. I don't think that's your intent, but arguing that the class is bad because it encourages a play style that you don't personally enjoy is not a valid complaint.

 

[Zimri]

Not really - the other key contention is that enabling players to move other players' characters will not go down well with some players. I personally think it's a good idea - it helps weed out those who Will Not Play Well With Others early.

Do you have an opinion on which side will be deemed "not playing well with others" ?

Is it "NO NO NO if I wanted to go there I would have gone there leave me alone and let me play my character my way"

or "I am moving you here and you can't stop me"

or "Hey fred can you help me get close enough to critter x to smack it"

or " Anne if you want I can move you closer to critter y so you can flank or the uninjured and unopposed critter q so bob the wizard doesn't get creamed"

As an aside why do tactics = metagaming ? the characters are people who are quite honestly in mos cases having days that are worse than jack bauer's. Why can't they after working with this same group of people know what they are capable of and how best to use what they have seen them do in the past ? There exist people in RL that can be plopped into a battle situation and KNOW who needs to be taken down first, and what the best way to do that with minimal risk of loss is, who are very aware of surroundings and where threats could be lurking, who can guage an enemies apparent weaknesses and how to exploit them. why not in the game world ?

 

[glass]

When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.

I was under the impression that we have seen 3 warlord abilities*. Even if we buy into the premise for that warlord abilities fail in the face of common sense (and I don't) for every single one that we have seen, that still hardly constitutes 'a lot'.


glass.

(* Plus vague descriptions of one or two more, IIRC).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Why shouldn't we have a class that encourages this? There is some percentage of players who enjoy this sort of play, at least some of the time. Why shouldn't they have a class that allows them to do so with real, mechanical, in-game effects?

This is my thought exactly. I love planning out strategy. Some of my favorite sessions of D&D have been the ones we just barely won only because we all managed to work together.

It was filled with comments like "Ok, if you provoke an AOO from the enemy, it won't be able to take one when the wizard stands up and backs off. Then, the rogue can take the spot the wizard had and get flanking. I'll cast Righteous Wrath of the Faithful this round and I'll heal the wizard when he's in range next round. I know we're all getting low on hitpoints and it's really close, but with the flanking bonuses and sneak attack, plus the extra attack from the Wrath we just might pull this off and defeat this demon."

Everyone at the table thought it was some of the most fun we've had playing D&D because it required everyone to work together and use their abilities in the best ways they could in order to survive. I know that if we had a DM who told us to stop metagaming and stop talking to each other and just come up with our own strategy without speaking to each other it would have ruined all our fun that session. Plus, we all would have died.

 

[FireLance]

Do you have an opinion on which side will be deemed "not playing well with others" ?

Is it "NO NO NO if I wanted to go there I would have gone there leave me alone and let me play my character my way"

or "I am moving you here and you can't stop me"

or "Hey fred can you help me get close enough to critter x to smack it"

or " Anne if you want I can move you closer to critter y so you can flank or the uninjured and unopposed critter q so bob the wizard doesn't get creamed"

The first two.

Is this a trick question?

 

[Fifth Element]

When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.

On the other hand, when you use a little bit of imagination they work beautifully.

 

[Zimri]

The first two.

Is this a trick question?

But isn't the sky falling? won't the first two be all that any table other than yours and mine get ?

Wait you mean it isn't and we won't be the only lucky ones, and if we do get abusive players we have ways of dealing with them ? WHEW the rest of the thread had me worried there.

Is it scary that I can see and word oakheart's entire description of that round of fighting completely in character without what I consider metagaming.

 

[TwoSix]

That would describe the marshal, but it does not hold with what we have been shown of the warlord so far. My impression is that the player with the warlord is meant to metagame. The article supports this: "...if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive..."

Why should we have a class that encourages this?

Because there's nothing inherently wrong with it, and many people enjoy it?

 

[Wulfram]

So even though the description says that 'The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around' you assume it does? You're logic confuses me to no end.

'The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around' can easily be rephrased as:

"The Warlord has license to boss other players around. Just not an unlimited one"

A Boss at work doesn't have an unlimited license to boss people around, but he certainly has enough to be resented.


(Not directly in response to Holy Bovine)
I agree with those who feel that worrying about the absence of "may" in the power isn't a big issue.

It's still clear, however that the Warlord is intended as the boss. The article doesn't say "every warlord is more effective as a polite suggester than as a lone hero". It calls a spade a spade, and says what the Warlord is - the "Commander" of the party.