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

[Kobu]

But does it make sense for the wizard to hit the opponent with a spell under the direction of the party tactician to create a distraction that will let a colleague to make a tactical retreat?

But that's in character, right? I'm referring to "No, don't step there, that guy has a 10' reach. Oh, and end your move five feet the other way. That way the wizard will have to move and provoke if he wants to hit you with burning hands."

If you often find yourself suggesting a tactical course of action to your fellow players, the warlord might be for you. Back when we designed the original version of the marshal class for the Miniatures Handbook, the marshal owed a good deal to the vision and example of Skaff Elias. Skaff is famous for having excellent suggestions for what other players should be doing with their turns. 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.

I don't want those out of character suggestions turned into contributions, I want them eliminated if possible.

 

[Kobu]

Ah. Light bulb over head. I see the train of concerns here.

Hard to see how much the movement powers of the warlord will lead to this sort of picking at minutiae at this point, but I can see this concern. Not sure that what I see so far will lead to this, but if the Warlord has five or more shifting powers, maybe this might be more of a concern. I guess it depends on the specifics, but something to think about.

Thanks for spending some time spelling out your concerns. Helps me understand where you are coming from.

Not a problem, thanks for discussing it.

I'll be the first to agree that I need to see all the rules and the class in that context to make a real judgment, but I just want to express that I am getting bad vibes from what Mr. Heinsoo wrote.

 

[bramadan]

Even if this were true, than the moment the Warlord is no longer your PC's ally is the moment your PC gets no other ally bonuses from him. For example, a Perception aura from an Elven Warlord (or other Warlord bonuses).

Yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. I don't think it is a situation that will come up very often unless warlord is deliberately trying to be a jerk (in which case they will not last in the party very long) but yes, I would say the moment Warlord starts being anti-social they cease providing benefits to the party; sounds about right and is about as bad as cleric being a jerk and refusing to heal or buff or what have you.

Situation seems perfectly simple from the point of view of RAW and leads to no silly situations such as warlords dumping their "friends" into lava.
Of course, if the RAW state somewhere that PCs remain "allies" regardless of their actions and intentions then I am wrong - but I am willing to bet money that they do not.

 

[bramadan]

But that's in character, right? I'm referring to "No, don't step there, that guy has a 10' reach. Oh, and end your move five feet the other way. That way the wizard will have to move and provoke if he wants to hit you with burning hands."

I don't want those out of character suggestions turned into contributions, I want them eliminated if possible.

Why do those kind of suggestions have to be OOC ?
It is perfectly possible - even preferable - that the player who is a tactics fiend plays a character who is also a tactics fiend. What Warlord class does is give them nice IC opportunity to do it.

I see your beef when the back-and-forth between the PCs is longer then one could realistically shout/signalize in space of a combat round but that is cool with or without Warlord.

"Want me to get you to giant's right ? -Don't Please, I am lining up something else !" is perfectly short IC exchange that can take place between fighter and warlord that does not necessitate any more tactical elaboration then wizard and rogue shouting: "I am casting 'ball right behind the Ogre - Please don't, I am trying to flank him".

Sure, in both cases Warlord and Wizard can choose to be asses and go ahead and use the ability anyway except that Warlord's ability is much easier to negate ("If he does that he is no longer my ally until he apologize and I accept it").

 

[Vendark]

I find it interesting the sheer number of people who write on the Internet and just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

The rule states that he will slide the ally 1 square. Not 0, not 2, not 47.

One.

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

 

[bramadan]

Damn those rule designers for not leaving silly loopholes for people to nitpick about...
I am sure some others will be found soon.

 

[Zimri]

Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.

Zymry "Melbar I have noticed your ire for goblins drives your swords to strike with greater ferocity that one is wearing different armor perhaps your skills are best used there. (melbar is a ranger with favoured enemy goblin) Lexyana I have seen your dagger do wicked things when your enemy isn't focused on it mayhaps assist Melbar and eliminate what seems a bigger threat.(sets up a flank and sneak attack) I'll take that one nearby since you two have that one covered as I have seen my battle prowess spur you on when you had seemed to be waning (close enough for my crusaders +2hp to ally whenever I strike a foe in melee)

All said in character with things that the CHARACTERS would have noticed having spent more than a few combats together. Not one order among them either suggestions that unless I can cast geas they are free to ignore but still decent tactics that my crusader CHARACTER would have come up with by viewing his compatriots in combat.

 

[EATherrian]

Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.

Ah, that takes me back to my old college gaming group, where most of the murders took place intra-party. I'm not even sure in the few games I played with them that we even saw a monster.

 

[Lizard]

Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either.

Damn, cool! I've got some business down at the local con...

Oh wait. Did you mean in the game?

 

[Zimri]

Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.

Not to help the other camp of this discussion out too much, but couldn't the rules against stabbing party members in the back have something to do with those pesky alignments ?