White Raven Onslaught Revision

[TheLordWinter]

So after some people had mentioned that White Raven Onslaught, the Warlord 1 Daily Power was badly worded and confusing, particularly for new players, I thought I might try my hand at some revision. I hope this helps, I think it's a little bit clearer:

White Raven Onslaught
Warlord Attack 1
You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display true teamwork.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide an adjacent ally 1 square. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, target an adjacent ally and slide him or her 1 square.
Miss: Choose one ally within 10 squares. Until the end of the encounter, after making a successful attack, the ally may choose one adjacent ally and slide him or her 1 square.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Not bad, but you forgot the most important revision.

 

[TheLordWinter]

Not bad, but you forgot the most important revision.

...but what might said most important revision be?

 

[Kordeth]

...but what might said most important revision be?

I'd guess the fact that the biggest "problem" most people had with the power was that the power itself has no proviso saying "you slide one willing ally" or some such and thus will apparently cause legions of jerkstore players to descend upon their gaming tables, sliding their allies willy-nilly into bottomless pits for the giggles of it.

Personally, given 4E's exception-based philosophy I expect it's far more likely that there's a general rule somewhere that says "an ally must be willing to be affected by any power that targets allies" or some such, but lots of folks still seem to be thinking in the 1/2/3E philosophy of "every relevant rule must be spelled out in every power."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd guess the fact that the biggest "problem" most people had with the power was that the power itself has no proviso saying "you slide one willing ally" or some such and thus will apparently cause legions of jerkstore players to descend upon their gaming tables, sliding their allies willy-nilly into bottomless pits for the giggles of it.

Personally, given 4E's exception-based philosophy I expect it's far more likely that there's a general rule somewhere that says "an ally must be willing to be affected by any power that targets allies" or some such, but lots of folks still seem to be thinking in the 1/2/3E philosophy of "every relevant rule must be spelled out in every power."

I think it would be fun if it was "willing target" only, and a obsessive compulsive Warlord with a hang for symmetry would constantly shove PCs & monsters around to maintain symmetry on the battlefield. "Wait, Bob just dropped! I can't make a square with 3 allies. I'll have to slide that Kobold over there. Okay, that grants them combat advantage against Jim, but at least, it's a nice square!"

 

[TheLordWinter]

Ah! Well, given that I've known some players who would quite likely shove allies off pits just because they happened to be cross with them, perhaps it could be a worthwhile addition to add... still! Easily fixed and updated on that count:

White Raven Onslaught
Warlord Attack 1
You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display true teamwork.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide an adjacent willing ally 1 square. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, target an adjacent willing ally and slide him or her 1 square.
Miss: Choose one ally within 10 squares. Until the end of the encounter, after making a successful attack, the ally may choose one adjacent willing ally and slide him or her 1 square.

 

[Korgoth]

You also forgot to change the goofy name.

 

[Lizard]

...but what might said most important revision be?

Giving it a less-lame name?

How about "Battlefield Tactics" or "Cunning Maneuvers" or "Tactical Command" or "Inspiring Tactics" or "Lead By Example" or, well, anything that isn't of the Adjective Animal form?

 

[DreamChaser]

Giving it a less-lame name?

How about "Battlefield Tactics" or "Cunning Maneuvers" or "Tactical Command" or "Inspiring Tactics" or "Lead By Example" or, well, anything that isn't of the Adjective Animal form?

Says someone whose name is "Lizard?" *grin*

What's with the animal hating? Classically, in nearly every mythology and philosophy earth has ever spawned, animals have been looked to as embodying certain traits worth emulating in art, magic, martial art, battle, religion, lineage, etc. Think of kung fu, european coats of arms, wizardly familiars, totems, and so on.

The absence of this name convention would be conspicuous. And Tactical Command and Lead by Example are both uninteresting (IMO) and do no more to describe what the power does that White Raven Onslaught. Barring calling it "Move your allies along with you", some interpretation (ie reading of the power) will be necessary to find out what it does.

DC

 

[Kishin]

Giving it a less-lame name?

How about "Battlefield Tactics" or "Cunning Maneuvers" or "Tactical Command" or "Inspiring Tactics" or "Lead By Example" or, well, anything that isn't of the Adjective Animal form?

No offense, but your 'alternatives' are pretty bland in and of themselves.

Does the name really matter? Is your character shouting it out as he executes it?

Where were all these name complaints when Snowflake Wardance came out in 3E, to name but one?