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

[Kobu]

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.

More precisely, they are the leader in combat. The roles are only related to combat. The party leader, if there is one, is up to the characters to work out.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

The term 'leader' as they use it in 4E does not mean what it means in everyday parlance.

 

[bramadan]

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.



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.

Yes, and if I don't want a spiritual leader I have to put up with a cleric despite myself or tell players that they can not play a core class. Luckily in 4th edition both you and me can still make viable parties, not so much in previous editions.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Wow.

I am not all that sold on the Warlord class, but I am amazed at the way people think it somehow gives a player "official license" to take actions for other characters. The Warlord my be a "leader" or a "commander" but the party is not made up of footsoldiers who are expected to follow his command because they are trained to react rather than think.

The party is made up of heroes who all have their own intelligence and free will. Rather than being a "commander" who can push the other characters around, the Warlord is the tactical expert. He can see weaknesses in the opponents defenses and understands how to exploit them by working as a team. In terms of game mechanics those abilities to identify and exploit weaknesess are displayed in the ability to grant special attacks and bonuses to other players if they follow his lead. These are not mind-affecting compulsions, these are tactical moves.

If a player were to show up in a 4e game I was in and declared that, as the Warlord "Leader" of the party, the rules say they can tells us what to do and can move our characters where they see best, I can guarantee you I will be telling them what they can do; and it is something anatomically impossible. Either they or I would not be in that group for long.

Common sense to me. The game is a group game in a social setting. Courtesy and fair play trump whatever some poorly worded rules might say.

 

[bramadan]

Actually I do think that classes which are designated "leader" are the ones that are most logical *IN CHARACTER* party leaders.

If there is an adventuring priest in the party whose interaction with their God keeps the party alive on daily basis then that party is to a significant extent working for (or at least in close interests of) that God - making the Cleric their de-facto leader.

Likewise, if the party has a commander/tactician who is keeping folks alive and providing group benefits then that person is also in position to be considered de-facto leader.

Ofcourse this is all subject to the Roleplay and party dynamics etc - but I dont think it is unreasonable to consider the "leaders" as de-facto leaders; my players at least always had that (in character) attitude towards their party Cleric.

Now, that ofcourse, does not mean that Cleric player gets to boss other folks around - particularly Out of Character. Out of Character I don't owe my life to your God multiple times over and Out of Character you don't even worship that God. So Out of character we are all equals and play as equals. In character we give due respect to the fellow who is keeping us alive.

Only difference in 4ed is that now we have a choice as to who that fellow is.

 

[Zimri]

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.

Semantic contortions like "WOTC folks have come out and said that the class role of "leader" does not in fact signify party leadership." ?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree. Although the cleric has strong reasons to be the leader, there are a lot of other factors: The leader can also be the one who organizes money. The one that does the talking, the one that is the smartest and can turn you in pig.

But there can also be different leaders for different situations:
the ranger doesn´t tell the warlord, what to do in combat, and the warlord doesn´t tell the ranger how to travel safely through the woods. Noone tells the bard how to interact with people and noone tells the cleric how to act with gods. And a comletely different person can be the true leader doing nothing but making sure the party holds together and decides which way to go/which things to try...

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Relevant rules here, under "Forced Movement:"

http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32944

I apologize. I went and read that before I posted and still missed it. Doh!

 

[Fifth Element]

I apologize. I went and read that before I posted and still missed it. Doh!

Everyone remember this the next time someone says "wait until you have seen all the rules before ranting". It is often a valid criticism, because there are often general rules like this that do not get reprinted with every power description (for instance).

 

[Remathilis]

Those are good reasons.

Some of my reasons for discouraging table talk:

1) Speed of the game

2) Your characters are not omniscient in regards to the battlefield

3) It tends to take players out of character

4) As DM, I don't optimize enemy tactics--they make mistakes just like the PCs do

My impression of the warlord is that it will slow things down to the point where it will negate the time saving benefits of set powers, the character will behave as though he is omniscient, a lot of things he does will be too complex to run in character, and I will need to respond to his tactics in a like way to keep the encounters balanced.

I won't act as if your concerns aren't valid (they are), but I have a good reason why I allow table talk.

I'm not my PC.

My PC is a warrior (or wizard, or rogue, etc) who lives and dies by the sword. He has trained against countless combatants, faced immeasurable foes, and has worked with his allies for long enough that during those long "boring times", they have discussed tactics and formed a certain camaraderie that lets him know that "Ablada Kabamla" is the opening words to fireball, the rogue uses spring attack, there is no point to flanking a vampire, and and you kill the evil priest FIRST.

However, I am a substitute teacher in the Midwest who plays D&D every other weekend. I'm lucky if I remember my fellow PC's NAMES, much less their individual combat mannerisms. I've never used a sword in my life, and I'm fairly certain I'd hurt myself if I tried. I've never seen combat. I am also not privy to the vast assortment of sights, sounds, smells, terrain changes, and other input I would if I was actually standing there (beyond what my DM describes in an opening paragraph probably read once and 10 minutes ago). ERGO, I am wholly unqualified to make sound tactical decisions my PC would make as a matter of course and survival.

Therefore, I use table talk to quickly convey information that others might know about my PC to give them additional information that allows them to make decisions based on the fact the PC is friends and comrades with 3 other dudes and they know each other the same way (or better) than I know the people PLAYING them.

It just makes up for the time spent NOT playing D&D...