Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Hypersmurf]

If this is indeed how the rules work, let me shake my head at the fact that by being some kind of initiative rules lawyer you can eke out substantial bonuses.

Let's ignore the Readied Action portion.

Round 1: Warlord uses Warlord's Favor, and spends an action point to use Commander's Strike (1).

Round 2: Fighter's turn - fighter attacks (2), and spends an action point and attacks again (3).
Warlord's turn - Commander's Strike (4). Warlord's Favor expires.

He's fitted in exactly the same number of attacks with the Favor bonus - it just cost an action point more than the initiative version. Do you consider this to be rules-lawyery and finagley, and would you ban it before the next session?

-Hyp.

 

[Herschel]

If this is indeed how the rules work, let me shake my head at the fact that by being some kind of initiative rules lawyer you can eke out substantial bonuses.

Agreed. Here's the way I'd/I'll rule it:

When you hold an action, your spot in initiative is set to when YOU make an actual (non-readying) action. Readying is just another way of saying "I'm going to attack, but not quite yet". The readied action is triggered BY the Warlord, therefor AFTER the Warlord has started his turn, hence, your turn is AFTER the Warlord, not before. You'll still get the Warlord bumped attack and the regular attack with the bonus, as well as a possible Commander's Strike attack, just not that second attack of your own with the bonus.

 

[Mad Mac]

Sorry to come back to this again, but my thinking was this:

The designers wanted to resolve a problem with the 3e cleric, when doing his 'leader' stuff meant that he wasn't getting to do fun stuff himself, and getting some of the glory of the attacks. So they changed that by (a) allowing healing word as a minor action and (b) making the clerics buffs into side effects of his attacks.

Is that really so different from the Warlord, though? Both classes heal as a minor action. I think it helps that the Cleric's abilities are flashier, so that it's less noticable that the Warlord often does more damage.

That said, there are differences. Strength Clerics typically do weak damage (Not what you'd expect from the "Battle" path), but are very good at healing and have a number of attacks that push, knockdown, mark daze, ect. They're very defenderish overall.

Wisdom Clerics have lots of range and aoe attacks, and can pull off lots of flashy magic only stuff like summoning chariots and spirtual guardians and what not.

Warlords by contrast, have the fewest number of powers that don't benefit their allies in some fashion, but they tend to do very solid damage. Just sticking to PHB powers, Warlords can do 3W with a daily at level 1, and the same with Encounter powers starting at level 13.

Battle Clerics don't have a single 3W encounter power until level 17, and no dailies that do that much until level 19.

Which is just a roundabout way of saying that a Warlord typically throws around a lot of W dice and benefits more from a high damage weapon than the other leader classes thus far. A Bravura Warlord also has a more aggresive bent than the other Warlord paths.

On the other hand, you can play a tactical warlord and rely heavily on powers like commanders strike instead of your own basic attacks, or play a resourceful Warlord and use a lot of ranged powers.

For a very team oriented player, Tactical Warlord is probably the most appealing. It can offer huge bonuses, lots of extra attacks and movement, and really benefits from cranking Int as much as possible.

Charisma Warlords on the other hand, don't need to crank their secondary stat as much. Many Charisma powers are 1/2 level+Cha or 10+Cha so it's much easier for an Inspiring or Bravuara Warlord to shore up Dex/Con, get a good weapon, and qualify for more weapon/armor feats to make themselves a better combatant.

The Warlord is a team player with any build, but there is definately room to tweak the class for preference.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The readied action is triggered BY the Warlord, therefor AFTER the Warlord has started his turn, hence, your turn is AFTER the Warlord, not before.

Are you ruling that way because you're consciously changing the "Reset Initiative" step from the PHB text of the Ready action, or because you didn't realise that it says the opposite?

Your proposal significantly narrows the difference between the Ready action and the Delay action.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

Agreed. Here's the way I'd/I'll rule it:...

Wow.

Who'da thunk.

I find this hate for the warlord and readyed actions veeeery interesting! ....Especially in light of the first several pages of this very thread. Are all the other people-who-said-Warlords-are-punished listening?

Facinating.

 

[Herschel]

Are you ruling that way because you're consciously changing the "Reset Initiative" step from the PHB text of the Ready action, or because you didn't realise that it says the opposite?

Your proposal significantly narrows the difference between the Ready action and the Delay action.

-Hyp.

This is the way I interpret re-setting initiative: When the Warlord triggers the action, it is because the Warlord is taking his turn, not the fighter. If the Fighter were to take his action before the Warlord, then he'd get the bonus for the latter three attacks vs. the first three in the four-attack sequence.

There is no "initiative dance of simultaneous goodies". Likewise, I would rule the Warlord can't go first in the round, trigger the bonus and then drop his initiative to last next round so the party gets two rounds of the bonus. The bonus ends at the end of his ORIGINAL initiative.

Consistent, concise and perfectly fine.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Agreed. Here's the way I'd/I'll rule it:

When you hold an action, your spot in initiative is set to when YOU make an actual (non-readying) action. Readying is just another way of saying "I'm going to attack, but not quite yet".

Actually, that is Delay.

Readied is more like, "“As soon as x happens, I’ll do y.” That is verbatim from the book mind you.

One question I have (not sure how this got turned into a Readied Action thread, but anyway...)

It states a readied action is an Immediate Reaction, and it occurs AFTER your enemy completes their action which triggered it. In this instance, an enemy is not triggering the Readied Action, an ally is (the use of his action point would be triggering it). So does this not come into effect? If not, when do you get to take your readied action, before, after or concurrently with your ally?

The Reset Initiative part seems straight forward, if it was your ally which triggered the Readied Action, you reset your init to before them, even if your readied action occurred in the middle of their turn.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Agreed. Here's the way I'd/I'll rule it:

The readied action is triggered BY the Warlord, therefor AFTER the Warlord has started his turn, hence, your turn is AFTER the Warlord, not before. You'll still get the Warlord bumped attack and the regular attack with the bonus, as well as a possible Commander's Strike attack, just not that second attack of your own with the bonus.

Your Readied action occurs after the Warlord's action that triggers it. So if you Ready to attack after the Warlord uses an Action Point, then that is when you'll get the attack. This is seperate from Resetting Initiative, which explicitly states that you move your place in the initiative order to
directly before the creature or the event that triggered your readied action. in this case, you go before the Warlord.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is the way I interpret re-setting initiative: When the Warlord triggers the action, it is because the Warlord is taking his turn, not the fighter.

Right, but the text of "Reset Initiative" says that you set your place in the initiative before the triggering creature, so if you want the fighter to go after the warlord in the subsequent round, you have to take that conscious step of overriding the rule.

There is no "initiative dance of simultaneous goodies". Likewise, I would rule the Warlord can't go first in the round, trigger the bonus and then drop his initiative to last next round so the party gets two rounds of the bonus. The bonus ends at the end of his ORIGINAL initiative.

Right, because PHB p288 says:
End Beneficial Effects when You Delay: At the moment you delay, end effects that last until the end of your turn and that are beneficial to you or your allies. For example, if on your previous turn you stunned an enemy until the end of your next turn, the stunned condition ends. You can't prolong a beneficial effect by delaying.

But in the proposed example, the warlord's effect isn't being prolonged; rather, the fighter is acting twice within the original duration. The warlord's initiative never changes, and the duration of the effect is based on the warlord's initiative.

-Hyp.

 

[Herschel]

But there's the rub. The Fighter's action is AFTER the Warlord's.

The fighter's readied attack is triggered "prematurely" by the Warlord rather than by the fighter on the fighter's turn. In other words, it is actually the Warlord's action having the fighter swing, NOT the fighter's. The fighter is the conduit for part of the Warlord's action, but that attack is not the fighter's action, just a beneficial side-effect of the warlord's.