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

[hong]

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

You may be greatly concerned about RPGA games, but that doesn't mean anyone else is. Further, you may be better served fine-tuning your sensibilities to RPGA practices than complaining about non-issues on webforae.

 

[Mirtek]

than complaining about non-issues on webforae.

The point that quite a few people have an issue with that means that it's not a non-issue

 

[hong]

The point that quite a few people have an issue with that means that it's not a non-issue

No, it just means that quite a few people also like complaining about non-issues.

 

[Zimri]

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.

The RAW also allow my character to stab your character while it is asleep, or to slip a poison into your flagon of mead, or to side with the BBEG when we get to him, or , or , or.

It isn't the RAW that makes a cohesive gaming table it's the people at the table deciding they want to do this activity together for fun and entertainment.

 

[tomtill]

warlord military hierarchy

Virtually all military powers in the world recognize the superiority of a clear chain of command in a battle situation. There is always a designated leader. The soldiers must always follow the commands of their leader. This gives that squad tactical advantage over a undisciplined gang of guys with guns.

A party with a warlord has a tactical leader (not necessarily the party leader). Your character recognizes his tactical skill, and agrees by choice to follow the commands of the warlord during battle. There is no time for democracy in the heat of battle.

In the abstraction of D&D battle, the tactical superiority is represented by the warlord granting bonuses to allies under tactically favorable circumstances, even though he is not necessarily adjacent. His status as tactical leader is represented by his ability to slide his allies. In the game world, he is issuing orders with gestures, words, example, much like you see in any war movie. Your characters are moving as he says because he is the tactical leader, and you recognize his skills, so you follow his commands.

If there is an in-game reason for your character to not follow a particular command, your DM may allow an exceptions based ruling. However, it makes sense for the default to be to follow the command. The current wording is consistent with this. A slide is a forced movement.

 

[rounser]

A party with a warlord has a tactical leader (not necessarily the party leader). Your character recognizes his tactical skill, and agrees by choice to follow the commands of the warlord during battle. There is no time for democracy in the heat of battle.

But a group of heroes is not a military unit! Not every party is the Black Company! Some are, but they're the exception which proves the rule.

WOTC's new class has implied that every adventuring party with a warlord in it is some kind of military outfit, because it functions like one. For this reason alone it should have been reconsidered and junked, IMO - it changes the fundamental nature of D&D's chief conceit, the band of fantasy heroes which could formerly have contained independent types, and turns them into a military squad with orders (authoritative tactical advice can't realistically be delivered swiftly any other way) and implied hierarchy. Bad, bad, bad.

 

[Derren]

Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants. Also while normally leaders in adventuring groups get chosen because all members agree that someone is a good tactican the Warlord, or rather the player of the Warlord could have no tactical knowledge at all but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.

 

[rounser]

Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants.

Just as shooting your own side is "friendly fire" and someone who's short is "vertically challenged"? I detect weasel words here - you're just putting attempting to put a politically correct spin on what is essentially a case of an order is an order is an order.

Even if it is optional whether you heed it or not, it's (a) still an order, and (b) suboptimal in terms of gameplay to ignore it, so you are effectively punished for being independent. By the rules.

but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.

I think you just contradicted yourself?

 

[Zimri]

Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants. Also while normally leaders in adventuring groups get chosen because all members agree that someone is a good tactican the Warlord, or rather the player of the Warlord could have no tactical knowledge at all but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.

And if he does things to or with your character you don't like you have the same options you do with the player that stabs you in the back, poisons you, leaves you for dead, or turns on you when you get to the BBEG. Or heck the same choices you have with any group that has a member you don't like the play style of

1) work it out so the group can continue.
2) suck it up and deal so you can get to do something you mostly enjoy with people you mostly enjoy doing it with.
3) If the majority agree with you get the other player to leave.
4) If you are in the minority and can't do 1 and/or 2 you leave.

The RAW and the designers can't make a cohesive table, nor can they say "you must play well with others to play" the people AT THE TABLE do that.

 

[hong]

WOTC's new class has implied that every adventuring party with a warlord in it is some kind of military outfit, because it functions like one. For this reason alone it should have been reconsidered and junked, IMO - it changes the fundamental nature of D&D's chief conceit, the band of fantasy heroes which could formerly have contained independent types, and turns them into a military squad with orders and implied hierarchy.

What?