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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

But who would want imagination in his D&D.

Ah, right. This would be me...

 

[Zimri]

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.

Where exactly does the article place the Warlord as the "commander" of the party ?

Number Two: Play Well with Others

Fourth edition also has extremely unselfish classes, and that's where the warlord fits in. Different players at the table are likely to take a different approach to the combat encounter portion of the game. If you enjoy cooperative games like Reiner Knezia's Lord of the Rings boardgame or Shadows over Camelot, you're much more likely to enjoy playing a warlord. For example, your warlord can provide the entire party with an extra movement option with a power such as white raven onslaught.

Basketball point guard may be a more apt comparison. Not every combat depends on the warlord/point guard, but they distribute benefits the rest of the party thrives on.

If you feel a glow of accomplishment when your assists combine with your attacks' damage to help the party succeed, the warlord is for you.

The warlord class, as a descendant of the marshal, is partly an exercise in turning that sometimes annoying habit into a positive contribution that will be appreciated by other players, rather than resented

Getting to charge as an immediate reaction when it's not your turn is a fantastic addition to any melee character's life, not an onerous order that forces your ally to spend their turn following your commands..

I could also dig out the preview books and point out where they say that the leader role does not make one the face or leader of the party.

IF you have people who abuse power or knowledge at your table now they will continue to do so. IF you do not there is no reason this class, it's powers or any rule regarding them will turn nice kind respectful friendly gamers into a mass of dissenting "do as I say cause the raw says you have to" ummm the grandma friendly word i suppose is jerks.

Look up the sky is still there I promise you it isn't falling.

 

[Mallus]

A few observations:

1) D&D has always featured classes that essentially dictated battle conditions/player choices (to an extent far beyond a mere 'forced move'). They're called 'spellcasters'.

2) Players should cooperate (if they've agreed to OOC, that is). Unfortunately, the rules can't force them to so.

3) Players might be better off spending their time and energy looking for ways to make these new rules work; by rationalizing them, figuring out how to describe/narrate them in play, instead of creating scenarios in which the new rules look broken or absurd. Frankly, a lot of D&D is broken and/or absurd unless the players agree to keep things playable.

 

[Satori5000]

This has been said several times, but i feel that i must repeat it again. If you play in a group that are all friends and dont consist of players that like to be jerks, the warlord class is fine. If in the PHB it still says that you force someone to move, then just handwave in that the player has the "option" to move. Sure, it gives them a bonus, and unless the warlord is being played by someone not tactical, your doing something good for your party.
IC Warlord: "Hey -Tank-, you can charge x if you want"
IC Tank: "No, i need to hold the front line" or "YEAAHHHHH!!!"

 

[Wulfram]

Where exactly does the article place the Warlord as the "commander" of the party ?

At the bottom of the first paragraph

"The warlord can hold his own in melee and will frequently save the day thanks to outright combat mojo, but every warlord is more effective as a commander than as a lone hero. "

What the Warlord is commander of is not specified, but in a normal game it would clearly be the party. Well, unless the Warlord comes with some free NPC mooks to be his subordinates, which would be interesting, but seems unlikely.

IF you have people who abuse power or knowledge at your table now they will continue to do so. IF you do not there is no reason this class, it's powers or any rule regarding them will turn nice kind respectful friendly gamers into a mass of dissenting "do as I say cause the raw says you have to" ummm the grandma friendly word i suppose is jerks

It's not abuse to play the game as it was written. The Warlord is written as the commander. If I don't want a commander that means either I'm going to have to put up with it, or tell another player that he can't play one of the core classes.

 

[beverson]

At the bottom of the first paragraph

"The warlord can hold his own in melee and will frequently save the day thanks to outright combat mojo, but every warlord is more effective as a commander than as a lone hero. "

What the Warlord is commander of is not specified, but in a normal game it would clearly be the party.

Except for the fact that you've pointed out one statement which has already been contradicted by many statements by the game designers saying that the Warlord is NOT intended to be the party leader, boss, commander, or otherwise. It IS intended to provide tactical options that could benefit the party. Seriously - they've come right out and told us what the class is intended for, and it clearly contradicts your interpretation. I can't see how anyone on this thread could possibly make it more clear.

 

[kclark]

I will admit that I had a slight immediate aversion to White Raven Onslaught.
I dislike the feeling that a helpful ability allows a player to move another player's piece.
It is the mixture of helpful ability and power over another player's character placement that does not sit well.
I have no problem with a power that would forcibly move an opponent's piece (as it would be driving them back against their will).

I think a slight semantic change would be all that I need to make the ability sit right with me.
Change the part where the attacker slides an ally to the attacker chooses an ally can slide.
I can see some reasoning behind the attacker being the one to make the slide. It is that person's turn and is already actively involved in moving and taking action. It is simply quicker to let the active person do the sliding.
On the other hand if the ally did not want to be slid (possibly due to the player of the ally actually having a better tactical understanding and seeing a detriment to the intended slide), then the intended speed gain ends up being more of a loss as the ally then has to speak up saying that they don't want to be slid there and would instead want to slide to another square or not at all.
The RAW basically allow for the attacker to force the ally to move, which could potentially lead to a discussion about where the ally wants to be slid or an argument at it's worst. Simply changing it to allow for the ally to slide himself, eliminates any potential player conflict while keeping the intended game mechanics effect of the warlord granting maneuverability benefits to his allies.
The only reasoning that I can see of having the attacker make the slides is potential speed increase (which I don't see as sufficient enough to allow possible player conflict) or a game rule stating that a player cannot slide their own character. I don't see the latter being very likely and if it is then the power should be a unique case allowing for it (exception based design after all).

 

[Kobu]

Except for the fact that you've pointed out one statement which has already been contradicted by many statements by the game designers saying that the Warlord is NOT intended to be the party leader, boss, commander, or otherwise. It IS intended to provide tactical options that could benefit the party. Seriously - they've come right out and told us what the class is intended for, and it clearly contradicts your interpretation. I can't see how anyone on this thread could possibly make it more clear.

I guess you missed the 3rd Commandment. And the fact that they are "commandments" (nudge, nudge). Mr. Heinsoo is not exactly beating around the bush on this.

 

[Wulfram]

Except for the fact that you've pointed out one statement which has already been contradicted by many statements by the game designers saying that the Warlord is NOT intended to be the party leader, boss, commander, or otherwise. It IS intended to provide tactical options that could benefit the party. Seriously - they've come right out and told us what the class is intended for, and it clearly contradicts your interpretation. I can't see how anyone on this thread could possibly make it more clear.

They have come right out and told it what the class is for - to be the party leader. Any other interpretation can be supported only by desperate semantic contortions.

They have argued that this is made more acceptable to other players because their commands are carried out using extra actions, but they haven't been so nonsensical as to suggest that the warlord is doing anything other than commanding.

 

[Fifth Element]

"The warlord can hold his own in melee and will frequently save the day thanks to outright combat mojo, but every warlord is more effective as a commander than as a lone hero. "

Okay, so warlords are more effective as commanders compared to (and only compared to) lone heroes. That does not mean that warlords have to be commanders. There are more options than commander and lone hero.