What is missing from 4E

[Raven Crowking]

Sigged!

I am not at all sure that the post you just sigged shouldn't be the subject of moderation. Unless there is more to it than you quoted, it would seem to be a clearly rude and imflammatory post.


RC

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I play a warlord who is not only the face and leader of the group, he's also the tank. More often than not, he uses his Inspiring Word ability on himself. In roleplay, this usually takes the form of him defiantly struggling through his grievous wounds with a shout to Bahamut, followed by an appropriately cinematic standard action. Of course, just because he's got more-than-half hitpoints afterwards doesn't mean he doesn't still look like he's just been through a meat-grinder.

I think this character could viably do a solo campaign, if the campaign were tailored for it.

I took the other approach with my fat slob of a Tiefling Warlord; a former mercenary captain who lost his crew in a failed expedition. He is the typical, militaristic, loud-mouthed, charismatic, tactically minded and surprisingly intelligent, swearing former-captain who makes liberal use of:

- Commander's Strike (gets an ally to attack)
- Wolf Pack Tactics (shifts an ally usually into a flanking position)
- Knight's Move (allows an ally to move as a free action)
- as well as a variety of buffs to the party's attacks.

I think this is exactly the type of warlord that rounser is detesting - and to a certain degree, I can see where he is coming from. The tactical warlord is very much like playing the puppet master in combat, controlling the flow of battle, moving one's "pawns" and "rooks" into position and determining or directing a portion of their actions. While all of this is good tactics, and to a degree fun, there is a perceived imbalance in the party. Does this mean the warlord is no good for D&D? I don't think so, but I appreciate both sides of the argument.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Halivar]

I think everything comes down to party dynamics. If you've got a lot of adversarial relationships ("Why did you kill him? I was gonna kill him on my turn! I haven't killed anything yet!"), then I see that as a situation (not saying the only) that a warlord would be a problem.

P1: "Ok, I tell P2 he's got an opening he didn't notice on M1, and tell him to attack. Dude, you get a basic attack on him."
P2: "I don't see why your character would boss mine around, or why my character would listen to you. You play P1 like a goof-ball."

This kind of exchange if it happens, is probably indicative of deeper problems in the group, like working together as a team.

Or, if the warlord player really is being a prig about his party role, then it's probably an issue with the player and not the class. In the alternative he would have rolled a paladin and still been a bossy jerk (not that paladins are, in general, bossy jerks or anything ).

 

[FireLance]

I am not at all sure that the post you just sigged shouldn't be the subject of moderation. Unless there is more to it than you quoted, it would seem to be a clearly rude and imflammatory post.

It's certainly a strongly-worded reply, but I personally don't think that it crosses the line into rude.

Of course, if a moderator thinks so, I'd be perfectly happy to remove it from my sig.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think everything comes down to party dynamics. If you've got a lot of adversarial relationships ("Why did you kill him? I was gonna kill him on my turn! I haven't killed anything yet!"), then I see that as a situation (not saying the only) that a warlord would be a problem.

P1: "Ok, I tell P2 he's got an opening he didn't notice on M1, and tell him to attack. Dude, you get a basic attack on him."
P2: "I don't see why your character would boss mine around, or why my character would listen to you. You play P1 like a goof-ball."

This kind of exchange if it happens, is probably indicative of deeper problems in the group, like working together as a team.

Or, if the warlord player really is being a prig about his party role, then it's probably an issue with the player and not the class. In the alternative he would have rolled a paladin and still been a bossy jerk (not that paladins are, in general, bossy jerks or anything ;P ).

This is true.

However, the warlord player doesn't have to act like a jerk and still cause "issues". For example, when you give a character a particular buff to attack a particular enemy, you're really determining their next action for them. Sure, they could not utilize the buff but that would feel like a waste (and cause the ire of other party members who would have preferred the buff). And so what can happen is that the warlord's player takes on most of the tactical decisions while the other guys get to roll dice. Not that this happens every round for every other character, but it does happen enough that a slight imbalance is noticed. As you say though, a lot depends upon the group. If the group has problems, the warlord player would just be one of many things that could exacerbate the poor group dynamic.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[FireLance]

However, the warlord player doesn't have to act like a jerk and still cause "issues". For example, when you give a character a particular buff to attack a particular enemy, you're really determining their next action for them. Sure, they could not utilize the buff but that would feel like a waste (and cause the ire of other party members who would have preferred the buff). And so what can happen is that the warlord's player takes on most of the tactical decisions while the other guys get to roll dice. Not that this happens every round for every other character, but it does happen enough that a slight imbalance is noticed. As you say though, a lot depends upon the group. If the group has problems, the warlord player would just be one of many things that could exacerbate the poor group dynamic.

I don't see how this is very different from a cleric using lance of faith or righteous brand. If it is a problem, it's not just a warlord problem.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is true.

However, the warlord player doesn't have to act like a jerk and still cause "issues". For example, when you give a character a particular buff to attack a particular enemy, you're really determining their next action for them. Sure, they could not utilize the buff but that would feel like a waste (and cause the ire of other party members who would have preferred the buff). And so what can happen is that the warlord's player takes on most of the tactical decisions while the other guys get to roll dice. Not that this happens every round for every other character, but it does happen enough that a slight imbalance is noticed. As you say though, a lot depends upon the group. If the group has problems, the warlord player would just be one of many things that could exacerbate the poor group dynamic.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

At least 75% of the time you're giving them buffs on the stuff they were going to do anyway. That is, unless the Warlord's player or the player of the character receiving the buff are incompetent. However, that is a problem of player incompetence, not the Warlord.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I don't see how this is very different from a cleric using lance of faith or righteous brand. If it is a problem, it's not just a warlord problem.

True, but the tactical warlord seems built around this style of play. And not to say this is a huge problem either. I was mentioning it as an example of what I thought rounser was getting at.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[thecasualoblivion]

True, but the tactical warlord seems built around this style of play. And not to say this is a huge problem either. I was mentioning it as an example of what I thought rounser was getting at.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

From what I was reading, I though Rounser's criticisms were more conceptual than mechanical.

 

[Halivar]

when you give a character a particular buff to attack a particular enemy, you're really determining their next action for them. Sure, they could not utilize the buff but that would feel like a waste (and cause the ire of other party members who would have preferred the buff).

YMMV. In my group this actually comes up almost every single fight. The warlord will set the rogue up for something, but the rogue will see an alternative tactic and pursue that instead. Now, since the warlord probably did damage with his power, the power is not really "wasted," per se, although not fully utilized. This happens with my a paladin, too, when I use Paladin's Judgment for the 3[W] damage, and nobody needs to spend any healing surges. Since our focus is teamwork, there are never any hard feelings when a player who would have received a buff opts not to take advantage. Each person at the table runs their character as they see fit.

Now, as TCO pointed out, 75% of the time, the warlord is helping someone do something they would have anyways. The aforementioned occurrence happens once a fight, and usually near the end of the fight, where everything turns into a free-for-all.