Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[CapnZapp]

One would hope you apply the same logic to players then...

Otherwise this looks a lot like "I'm giving the monsters a mechanical advantage because I can't be bothered seeing if it's legal. But I'm willing to go to the effort to rule that the perfectly legal combination the players would use to do the same thing is illegal".

No.

You may read it that way, but that's not my problem. And it doesn't make my argument less viable.

If I don't care to check exactly how two enemies get flanking, it is because "obviously they should get flanking, they're two to one". By not checking the rules I'm only avoiding finding some corner case that makes them not get flanking. Which is great, because that corner case probably wouldn't add any value to the gameplay anyway.

If I do this, then I obviously apply the same standards to the players. You're two against one, sure you get flanking. Easy.

But to return to the point, I'm not willing to bring the game to a halt just to have a rules lawyer explain that the rules do actually allow him four attacks with bonus damage. When a normal reading (not merely a casual reading, but not studying-for-an-exam reading either) would not find this to be the case. This effect is hidden. It's complex. And there's a normal way of doing it, that happens to be less effective.

But remember the real issue here.

I'm not trying to force you to run your game my way. What we're discussing is whether a player is justified to try to force this ruling into a game or leave the group. As for myself, I'm arguing that that would be a monstrous over-reaction (and enough of our fellow posters have overreacted as it is...).

This rule (or effect of the rules) simply isn't central. It doesn't add crucial value to the game.

In fact, I'm saying it's inelegant and non-intuitive and that the game would be better without it. That's not saying your game is either of those things just because you happen to like it.

 

[Caliban]

I get it. You don't like the rule. You think taking the time to learn potentially complex or subtle rule interactions is a waste and detracts from "true roleplaying" or "a good gaming experience" or whatever you are calling it now.

And if a player doesn't like it, and would rather play with the full published ruleset, they are wrong and should just shut up and play the game the way you tell them. They will enjoy it more if they don't think to hard about what their character can do. Really.

While I'm not interested in playing stupid just to make life easier on the DM or other players, I get your point. It's worthless to me, but I get it. I think most people reading the thread understand your position by now, as you have repeated it ad nauseum.

 

[evilbob]

The first time I played a warlord was when we were starting a new campaign and I rolled TERRIBLE stats.

This is another "advantage" of the warlord: they can play great with bad stats! In fact, I wonder how easy it would be to make a warlord who literally never tried to hit anything? You know someone has.

Another thing I thought of that makes warlords hard to play: they're misleading. Yes, that's right: the way the class is set up, it makes you think that it works more like a fighter (inviting the comparison). I mean, they are both single-stat melee classes that depend on strength and weapon proficiencies to hit. Technically, a warlord should have Str as the highest stat. However, this is one of the only classes where your to-hit doesn't have to be that important - see above. In fact, maximizing your bonuses from your secondary stat is not a horrible strategy.

Since this is different than pretty much every other class, it's easy to miss.

 

[Herschel]

I get it. You don't like the rule. You think taking the time to learn potentially complex or subtle rule interactions is a waste and detracts from "true roleplaying" or "a good gaming experience" or whatever you are calling it now.

And if a player doesn't like it, and would rather play with the full published ruleset, they are wrong and should just shut up and play the game the way you tell them. They will enjoy it more if they don't think to hard about what their character can do. Really.

While I'm not interested in playing stupid just to make life easier on the DM or other players, I get your point. It's worthless to me, but I get it. I think most people reading the thread understand your position by now, as you have repeated it ad nauseum.

That's not at all what he's saying IMO. What he's saying is 'quit trying to create a loophole where there really isn't one unless you try to manipulate the rule in a way it was neither intended nor written.'

 

[Caliban]

That's not at all what he's saying IMO. What he's saying is 'quit trying to create a loophole where there really isn't one unless you try to manipulate the rule in a way it was neither intended nor written.'

What loophole are you talking about? All I see is a discusion about using the Ready action to squeeze a couple of extra attacks worth of bonuses from the Warlord's Favor power. And him saying that rule shouldn't exist because it's unfair to people who can't understand or won't use "complex" rules or subtle rules interactions.

There is no loophole, and the ready action is being used exactly as allowed, with no "manipulation of the rules" involved. So that's not what he's trying to say, or if he is then he really doesn't understand the rule (which I doubt).

 

[Mistwell]

That's not at all what he's saying IMO. What he's saying is 'quit trying to create a loophole where there really isn't one unless you try to manipulate the rule in a way it was neither intended nor written.'

I disagree. I personally think it was intended to work that way, and I feel very confident it was written that way. You call it a loophole, and I think it's not a loophole but you merely do not like it.

 

[Herschel]

I disagree. I personally think it was intended to work that way, and I feel very confident it was written that way. You call it a loophole, and I think it's not a loophole but you merely do not like it.

On the former, that is the basis of this entire debate run in the thread. I see it as rules monkeys trying to cheat the system. Others (including you)see it as the r0xx0rs strategy. On the latter, you would be wrong. I have stated repeatedly why I rule the way I have. It's consistent and concise.

Another question: What would I (or others) have to gain by "cheating the PCs"? I'm a PC about half the time I play. D&D isn't about "winning", it's about "surviving" and having fun. Maybe too many have lost sight of that concept and want it to be about "winning". When I'm a PC and I "live", that's a "win". As a DM, if everyone had fun and maybe beaten to a pulp, that's also a "win". My DM goal is never to kill a character, but to make them fear it could easily happen.

 

[Herschel]

What loophole are you talking about? All I see is a discusion about using the Ready action to squeeze a couple of extra attacks worth of bonuses from the Warlord's Favor power. And him saying that rule shouldn't exist because it's unfair to people who can't understand or won't use "complex" rules or subtle rules interactions.

There is no loophole, and the ready action is being used exactly as allowed, with no "manipulation of the rules" involved. So that's not what he's trying to say, or if he is then he really doesn't understand the rule (which I doubt).

And a perfect example of the differing interpretations. You disagree with his, so your rebuttal is antagonistic while I agree with teh way I interpret what he said and would reply sympathetic.

 

[Caliban]

And a perfect example of the differing interpretations. You disagree with his, so your rebuttal is antagonistic while I agree with teh way I interpret what he said and would reply sympathetic.

His position is that the rule shouldn't exist, not that using it is a loophole. You are the one calling it a loophole. (A position which does not seem to be rational to me, since it's a clearly state rule, and it's being used exactly as it is described in the rules.)

You seem to be making up things to argue about.

 

[N8Ball]

On the former, that is the basis of this entire debate run in the thread. I see it as rules monkeys trying to cheat the system. Others (including you)see it as the r0xx0rs strategy. On the latter, you would be wrong. I have stated repeatedly why I rule the way I have. It's consistent and concise.

Concise is debatable but I will say that you're consistent, just not with the rules on page 291.

The argument against your position down to this:

***The rules direct that Readied actions take place after their trigger (Immediate reaction) and when complete the PC who readied sets initiative before the trigger.***

We must settle on these points before we continue with other points about cheating PC's or unfair manipulation, or whatever else.

It may be constructive to try to summarize your position (as I have) as simply as possible without all the chaff.

You disagree with his, so your rebuttal is antagonistic...

And I wouldn't throw too many stones there Herschel. Especially after you just threw out this one against those of us that disagree with you.

I see it as rules monkeys trying to cheat the system.