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

[Hypersmurf]

To play devil's advocate, should we eliminate bonuses from 3.x bless spells if a character does not have the same religion as the cleric casting the spell?

Amusingly, one of my first 3E characters was the second cleric in the party, who insisted on a Will save every time the other cleric cast Bless. The other cleric worshipped the wrong deity, and I wasn't letting any of that icky Blessing on me!

-Hyp.

 

[Primal]

Actually, cue "I have a bad feeling about this...".

Which would be metagaming, in fact.

 

[erisred]

I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:

Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
Warlord Player: "Cool, let me give you a bonus with -Insert Ability-"
Other Player: "Great, thanks.. since it will be such a great bonus to hit, maybe I'll use an encounter power instead of an at will one."

Or some such thing..

Am I wrong in thinking this is a good way to do things?

J from Three Haligonians

It's fine if that's your *style* of play, but it is a lot more "metagamy" than is the style my groups use.

We try to stay in character and "in the game" as much as possible. All this out of game chatter about what everyone is going to do next turn, bonuses and powers is directly opposite to how we've always done things.

In one of our games it really would be the Warlord PC pointing and shouting out, "Flank *that* orc!" or "Somebody, target *that* damn priest, now!" It would be up to the other players (their PC's actually) to pick up on those exclaminations as "clues" that Mr. Warlord is doing something.

 

[Bagpuss]

Why would it be that interesting? The WotC CharOp board has been doing that for 8 years.

Not so much interesting as fun. Just to slide you into the lava.

 

[erisred]

This is ridiculous.. of course players are going to talk beforehand as a team and be in agreement of whatever their characters are going to do. Of course.

Maybe, you'd think and maybe they should, but my players just *don't*. They don't talk beforehand as a team. They don't plan out what all the characters are going to do. They will have to make a major change in how they play if they need to coordinate before each round OOC, before they take their actions.

 

[erisred]

Fireballing your own party members is often an effective tactic with high saves and/or evasion...

Yeah, the Wizard in one of the games I'm running did that a while back, and it worked very well...In Game...but In Character the PC's have never forgiven her. Ever since, the PC's have groused and kidded her about it, and IC, they are serious about not turning their backs on her for fear she'll fireball them again. In Character and Out Of Character are two entirely different states.

 

[Bagpuss]

Why would it be that interesting? The WotC CharOp board has been doing that for 8 years.

Hold on the 4th Edition rules were available 8 years ago? Before 3rd Ed was published.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Then what the hell IS an adventuring party?

Seriously. Your going to ride out 2-3 days away from the last bastion of civilization (or point of light in 4e), crawl down a hole into a dark, dank, subterranean catacomb full of monsters, traps, puzzles, riddles, weird phenomenon, mazes, more monsters, hazards and obstacles, and still more monsters. And you want to do it with 3-4 other people who you barely know and don't act like a team? You want the mage to cast fireball regardless of if your in the way and the fighter to prefer to solo-kill rather than get into flank with the rogue? Or the cleric who would rather cast bull's strength on himself rather than cure moderate wounds on your -4 hp (thanks to the mage's fireball) PC?

In essence, if your going to put body, mind and soul on the line in a dungeon for gold or glory, would you rather have a cohesive team that works together or an unorganized group of individuals acting and reaction with no regard to his fellow adventurer. I'll choose the former, thank you. I'll live longer.

EDIT: I can't tell the difference between former and latter. Thanks!

 

[Primal]

Then what the hell IS an adventuring party?

Seriously. Your going to ride out 2-3 days away from the last bastion of civilization (or point of light in 4e), crawl down a hole into a dark, dank, subterranean catacomb full of monsters, traps, puzzles, riddles, weird phenomenon, mazes, more monsters, hazards and obstacles, and still more monsters. And you want to do it with 3-4 other people who you barely know and don't act like a team? You want the mage to cast fireball regardless of if your in the way and the fighter to prefer to solo-kill rather than get into flank with the rogue? Or the cleric who would rather cast bull's strength on himself rather than cure moderate wounds on your -4 hp (thanks to the mage's fireball) PC?

In essence, if your going to put body, mind and soul on the line in a dungeon for gold or glory, would you rather have a cohesive team that works together or an unorganized group of individuals acting and reaction with no regard to his fellow adventurer. I'll choose the latter, thank you. I'll live longer.

I think he means that a group operating as a team is not equal to operating as a military squad.

 

[MaelStorm]

Edited.