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

[hong]

It is one thing to say that players can fight and that they don't need permission to stab each other in the back, it's quite another to say that in order for the party to coordinate and use tactics, that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character.

Indeed it is. However, nobody said that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character _without that player's assent_.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Indeed it is. However, nobody said that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character _without that player's assent_.

But yet the RAW give the Warlord the power to do just that, assent or not. Even if your group is mature enough to handle this, as I suspect most are, it is simply in bad taste and totally unnecessary. The rules work just as well without this controversial ability. And really, it goes against the entire spirit of what a Warlord is. Warlords lead, not compel. This type of power more resembles mind control than leadership. Warlords should be there to provide options, strategy and encouragement, not moving his minions, err I mean fellow party members, around like puppets. And that is, unfortunately, how alot of people are going to see their warlord friends, as puppetmasters. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

[hong]

But yet the RAW give the Warlord the power to do just that, assent or not. Even if your group is mature enough to handle this, as I suspect most are, it is simply in bad taste and totally unnecessary.

Stop right there. This entire storm in a teacup is over the omission of the word "may" in the power description. If a group is really unable to get over that omission, then either 1) they have more problems than the RAW can address, or 2) such hyper-literalism in rules interpretation is something to be stamped out, not pandered to.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Reductio ad absurdum.

For the record, you realise Reductio ad absurdum is an example of a good logical argument, right?

 

[Falling Icicle]

For the record, you realise Reductio ad absurdum is an example of a good logical argument, right?

Clearly I shouldn't post when I have insomnia.

 

[Hathorym]

Stop right there. This entire storm in a teacup is over the omission of the word "may" in the power description. If a group is really unable to get over that omission, then either 1) they have more problems than the RAW can address, or 2) such hyper-literalism in rules interpretation is something to be stamped out, not pandered to.

I am quoting this for truth. The way I read it, and the way I will interpret it is that the Warlord simply gives the OPTION for one of his allies to make these movements - and that is it. The ally does not have to take this option and if he wishes to waste the option, then that is on the ally. It appears to me that the leader type is set up to provide additional OPTIONS to the allies around him, not to control those allies. I would be thrilled to provide more tactical options and advantages to my party members. If they choose not to use them, that isn't my problem, and getting upset over someone wasting an opportunity is puerile.

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.

 

[Mirtek]

I would probably call him a jerk. Deliberately choosing suboptimal actions just to spite another player is just as bad as ordering another player around. If the player had a good reason(eg despite the bonus it's still a poor tactical choice, or some rp reason), that's different, but D&D is a cooperative team game. The belligerent "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" attitude is not something to be encouraged.

Actually the "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" is exactly what I usually see at RPGA games and ususally no-one feels slighted because of that.

Simply because the first party building is always an awkward moment anyway, because mostly the characters have absolutely no in-game reason to team up and go on this adventure together. They're there because out-of-game these players wanted to play an RPGA game and happened to end up at the same table. Most groups don't even try anymore to spend much effort comming up with an in-game explanaton, it's just taken as given that these characters strike out together for no real reason at all.

As soon as it comes to combat this almost inevitably makes the party fight as 4-6 solo combatants instead of a coordinated team.

And here I see the most problems with classes that enable other players to force characters of other players to act against the will of their player. I would not take this from my friend at my private table (and tell him in advance that I would not take it if he used such a power against me (yes, against me I would feel attacked) and I will certainly not take this from some foreign guy I never met before).

So if the cleric wants to run across half of the battlefield (and taking 3 unnecessary AoOs) just to heal her friend's character instead of holding the front line for the rest of the party (all seen in RPGA games and I love them for that unpredictability) then I am fine with it and would never call the other player a jerk (however I would call them a jerk if the force my character to move against my will even if it creates an tactical advantage. Giving me the option if fine, but forcing me to take the option when I don't want to take it can end a game for me pretty quickly)

 

[FourthBear]

If the Warlord's tactical powers seem like they would cause interparty friction in the group, I would think that the Warlord probably isn't a good choice for the table. Since the Warlord's power appear to cause problems in cases where there is mistrust between players (and/or characters), I would think that they will indeed lead to arguments in convention play, where players often haven't had the chance to build relationships. I imagine a good DM could help this with guidance and table rules, but it will likely still be a challenge. I think that the classes without this baggage would be preferred.

I should note that the presence of a free action Veto rule to allow characters to not take actions granted by an ally would take care of many of these concerns. I'd imagine that table rules would still be useful to prevent drawn out arguments over what the Warlord's best tactics are. Not unique to this class, but I would imagine more common than most.

 

[hong]

Actually the "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" is exactly what I usually see at RPGA games and ususally no-one feels slighted because of that.

RPGA games, like WotC CharOp, are a funny place. Let's not go there.

 

[Mirtek]

RPGA games, like WotC CharOp, are a funny place. Let's not go there.

During the last few months I was playing RPGA more regulary than homegames. And if the schedules of my pals don't become less crowed I don't see a change in this trend for the near future. So I am greatly concerned how the rules will cause trouble with RPGA games

So things like more importance to strategy and tactics make me pretty nervous, because I don't expect that from 6 strangers and my character isn't an exception to this. I fear quite a few more TPK (at least in the early time of 4e RPGA games) because the chars don't fight as a tactical teams but as a bunch of loner (and after that I hope that RPGA encounters will be written with the assumption that the players won't use optimal tactics, because I would find a less fun to be forced to fight as a tactical team even in RPGA games where I enjoyed the "everyone up for himself'" component during the encounters very much)