# Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!



## Ktulu (Mar 14, 2008)

*Warlord Article UP!*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080314

Interesting stuff.  Shows 3 daily powers and really gives the feeling that the warlord will be NOTHING like the cleric (I was worried we'd see two classes that provide tons of healing, where it appears the warlord will provide actions & movement, instead).

Anywho, take a look for yer self!

Ktulu


----------



## Rechan (Mar 14, 2008)

*Design and Developments: Warlord*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080314


----------



## Ktulu (Mar 14, 2008)

Hah, we posted at exactly the same time!  Wooo...ahem...huh...

Well, I enjoyed it...Looks to be a great addition to the group with his own abilities, for sure.


Ktulu


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

I likey,

There is so much fun thematic stuff, there, especially: _White Raven Onslaught_ I can just imagine the PCs surging into a line of troops, each round trying to push themselves through the line of troops to escape


----------



## Simm (Mar 14, 2008)

Text:


> Rob Heinsoo
> Number One: Directing Damage
> 
> Don't play the warlord if your only idea of a good time is personally wreaking havoc on your foes. I love the name of the warlord class. I supported using the name instead of the original "marshal" name we'd drafted from 3rd Edition. But some players' first impression on hearing the name "warlord" is that the class must be tougher than all the other characters, the nastiest battlefield hack-and-slasher in the game. The warlord can hold his own in melee and will frequently save the day thanks to outright combat mojo, but every warlord is more effective as a commander than as a lone hero.
> ...




hmm... Iron Dragon and white raven are back, I wonder if we'll see any of the other Bo9S schools?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 14, 2008)

In before comments about (color) (animal) (attack) naming scheme!


----------



## Gort (Mar 14, 2008)

Whoa, those movement powers are bending my mind. I have no idea how this is going to play out.

It seems like Warlord is the perfect class for that annoying player who won't stop telling other players where to move their character.

_But you see, if you move over _here _then he can sneak attack him and I can put a fireball _here. _Don't forget your tumble skill, it's +12_.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

Well they state that in the article, that yeah... It isn't best for an annoying player to play, but for a player that works well with the rest of the group and is a group that likes discussing tactics, etc. it is good.


----------



## Gort (Mar 14, 2008)

I'm not saying it's a bad thing particularly.

I am that player.


----------



## Satori5000 (Mar 14, 2008)

I am liking 4e more and more with every tidbit that comes out about it.  All of the warlords abilities look great.  4e is going to make combat much more dynamic as opposed the "full attack to 5ft step" option.  I think this is going to be the class for the tactical master or someone who wants to learn how to be very tactical.


----------



## Voss (Mar 14, 2008)

Hmmm.  About what I expected, and I largely like it.  

I'm not really impressed with White Raven Charge, however.  The fact that you can only shift adjacent allies really limits its usefulness- if you get into flanking position you don't want to leave it, and you're not adjacent anyway.  It allows the party to push forward, but only in a block.  It seems like a good way to get surrounded.  The one good use I see is using it to drop back and allow a spellcaster to shift away from a threat for free.


I do think a warlord and rogue would make an really good team.  Particularly if they can pick up a power or two from the other class- that would be a disgusting combination. A pair wielding daggers and granting each other additional sneak attacks.  Nasty.

Pin the foe is really nice, especially at low levels.   Fighter opens up a hole in the enemy battle line with Tide of Iron, warlord pushes through and pins the controller type, and a fast character moves up to finish locking him down.    Add a cleric tossing lance of faith at something to hand out a bonus to an attack.

Or heck, you don't even need to go after the back line.  Warlord and a defender can lock down an elite melee brute (or skirmisher) and keep it away from the squishy members of the party.  

Hmm.  Potential...


----------



## breschau (Mar 14, 2008)

That article made two things crystal clear in my mind:

1. I love the warlord.

2. WotC sucks at naming powers.

I am a 4E lover and can't wait to play, but the more I find out about it, the more I see where the anime/video game haters are coming from. If they're going for tactical leader the least they could do is go with tactical terms instead of using silly names like that.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 14, 2008)

Simm said:
			
		

> hmm... Iron Dragon and white raven are back, I wonder if we'll see any of the other Bo9S schools?



Iron Dragon is new. You're thinking of Iron Heart and Stone Dragon.


----------



## Ktulu (Mar 14, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Iron Dragon is new. You're thinking of Iron Heart and Stone Dragon.





[4e hate sarcasm rant]  oh my god! They combined two powers into one!?!?  This game just isn't for me.  It's obviously for people who want a ton of powers and no roleplaying[/4e hate sarcasm rant]  

Just kiddin'.

Ktulu


----------



## Kunimatyu (Mar 14, 2008)

Iron Dragon Charge, eh?

They're doing it with the crappy names again...


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 14, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> 1. I love the warlord.



Me too! I can't wait to play one. This will be my first 4E character I think.



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> 2. WotC sucks at naming powers.



I've had my rants on WotC naming conventions before, but (if I can make one assumption) these are OK.  

That assumption I referred to is that there are "themes" of Martial powers grouped into "White Raven" and "Iron Dragon" (and "Open Palm" and "Desert Wind and ...).  Like the Schools of Magic of yesteryear there's no hard and fast definition of what's what, but there's a theme.  If you see "White Raven ____" you know it's about buffing allies in some way, or whatever.  That's how ToB/Bo9S works, and it works well.  I have no reason to suspect otherwise.

As a counter-example, this is way "Dragon's Tail Cut", which was actually some kind of sweep the leg attack. Not a helpful power name.



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> I am a 4E lover and can't wait to play, but the more I find out about it, the more I see where the anime/video game haters are coming from. If they're going for tactical leader the least they could do is go with tactical terms instead of using silly names like that.



Last time I checked, "Pin", "Onslaught" and "Charge" were all tactical terms.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 14, 2008)

I am glad to see good old White Raven back.  

I love the design behind the warlord Daily Powers. For a Warlord, a Daily Power is not just a single attack, it is a whole _strategy_ which enables you to do cool things for the duration of an encounter. Because it lasts the whole encounter, it encourages a Warlord to think about the odds and plan ahead,  so he doesn't waste potential uses of the followup reaction abilities by waiting too long to get his Daily Power off in a fight which needs it.


----------



## JesterOC (Mar 14, 2008)

So just to be clear.  The pinned target can not shift, but it can move right?  It has been a while since I have played 3E, if two allies are next to a pinned monster, and it decides to move, do both allies get an AoO on it?

If so that sounds pretty good.  You may miss on the knockout punch but you hose its movement for the entire encounter. Unless I am wrong of course.

JesterOC


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 14, 2008)

Considering that the Iron Dragon is an actual beastie in 4e, the name is no more silly than Bull Rush or Lion's Charge. Maybe that particular animal is simply very infamous for charging - the flavor text certainly seems to imply so.

I like these Warlord powers. It's like snapping your fingers and suddenly the entire freaking party doubles in power or something. Fun!


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Mar 14, 2008)

These powers look sweet. Nothing like the Fighter or Cleric abilities, and those are the most similarities they have. This supports the idea that no, not every class will feel basically the same.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 14, 2008)

This is such deliciousness.

Warlord doesn't look like an easy class to play, but it definitely looks deep and mechanically interesting. I imagine it'll attract players who also are very much into tactical gaming and synergy.......I guess I just described myself, hah. 

With the White Raven name being tossed around, I think its fair to say we'll find a good preview of the Warlord's capabilities in that discipline and possibly Devoted Spirit if we compare it with the Bo9S once we have the full class. 

I seriously hope they bring back White Raven Tactics though. That manuever is just too much fun.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 14, 2008)

Those power names aren't metal enough.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 14, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Iron Dragon Charge, eh?
> 
> They're doing it with the crappy names again...



 Tell me about it. What is it with silly animal names? Next thing you know there'll be maneuvers called Bull Rush!


----------



## breschau (Mar 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I've had my rants on WotC naming conventions before, but (if I can make one assumption) these are OK.
> 
> That assumption I referred to is that there are "themes" of Martial powers grouped into "White Raven" and "Iron Dragon" (and "Open Palm" and "Desert Wind and ...).  Like the Schools of Magic of yesteryear there's no hard and fast definition of what's what, but there's a theme.  If you see "White Raven ____" you know it's about buffing allies in some way, or whatever.  That's how ToB/Bo9S works, and it works well.  I have no reason to suspect otherwise.




But, if that assumption is true, why not simply describe them that way. If it's about buffing call it a "bolstering x" or an "encouraging x" or a "coordinating x." There's no need to use descriptive names this badly.



> Last time I checked, "Pin", "Onslaught" and "Charge" were all tactical terms.




Go check again, onslaught is not a tactical term. It's a "fierce or destructive attack." Aren't they all? If it's not fierce or destructive, it's not much of an attack.

My complaint isn't about the inclusion of tactical terms, my complaint is about the meaningless descriptive text used in their names. "White Raven" is useless. "Iron Dragon" is useless.

Pin the foe isn't bad, but it could be better. A more apt name would be "Coordinated Pin" because it requires an ally to pull off. Hearing "pin the foe" doesn't tell me much. It certainly does nothing to imply the team nature of the power. That's all I'm asking for. Descriptive power names. Descriptive here meaning that they reveal something about the power itself, rather than descriptive as in flowery and useless.

What's wrong with "Shifting Onslaught"? It's far more descriptive of the actual maneuver and therefore helpful to DMs and players to remember. By using the name as a descriptive of what the power actually does it helps DMs and players recall enough about the power that they can get by, possibly even remember what the power actually does. Melf's Acid Arrow is a great example. "Melf" here is useful only as a nod to a designer's character. But, it's perfect. Acid. Arrow. Perfect. One shaft of acid that strikes the target. Simple. "White Raven Onslaught" doesn't tell me anything.

Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.


----------



## D_E (Mar 14, 2008)

The term Bull Rush at least has the advantage of being part of the English language.

And anyway, in 4th Ed it would be "Copper Bull Rush" or somesuch.


----------



## Revinor (Mar 14, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.




For example, encounter power dealing 3[W] damage + immobilize could be named "WWW Web".


----------



## Klaus (Mar 14, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Those power names aren't metal enough.



 What if they were

- Onslaught of the White Star Raven

and

- Heavy Metal Dragon Charge

?


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 14, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> That article made two things crystal clear in my mind:
> 
> 1. I love the warlord.
> 
> ...




This.

I think the rule for "fluffy names" like White Raven Onslaught should be this: Could you strip off the fluffy bit and still have a workable name?

Take Melf off _Melf's acid arrow_ and you've still got _acid arrow_, a perfectly good if rather bland spell name.  Take Bigby off _Bigby's crushing hand_ and you've still got _crushing hand_.  But if you take White Raven off White Raven Onslaught, you end up with a power named "Onslaught," which is pretty shaky as a power name.  And Iron Dragon Charge is even worse--take Iron Dragon off and your power is named "Charge," which is the name of something else entirely.



			
				Belphanior said:
			
		

> Considering that the Iron Dragon is an actual beastie in 4e, the name is no more silly than Bull Rush or Lion's Charge. Maybe that particular animal is simply very infamous for charging - the flavor text certainly seems to imply so.




"Bull rush" is a term used outside the context of D&D; it's like "bear hug."  (Apparently I favor stock market-related examples today.)

"Lion's charge" is a pretty mediocre name, too, but at least everybody at the gaming table knows what a lion is, and might be able to figure out that a lion's charge involves a pouncing attack.  Most players won't have a clue what iron dragons have to do with charging or coordinated attacks.  Especially when you consider that iron dragons won't even be in the first Monster Manual.

And as far as I'm concerned, White Raven Onslaught is what you get when the Citadel wants to make _really sure_ you know winter is coming.  Otherwise it's completely meaningless.


----------



## Mortellan (Mar 14, 2008)

I didn't know this class originated from the Minis Handbook. That explains alot to me now...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2008)

I must really be a grognard. These powers sound so much like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon that it makes my teeth ache.



> Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target cannot shift if at least two of your allies (or you and one ally) are adjacent to it.




Why? Don't know. It's not even two flanking opponents. No save. No way to avoid. Just, the laws of game physics suddenly change for that target.

Presumably, the target can still move, he just provokes Attacks of Opportunity???



> 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, the attacker slides an adjacent ally 1 square.
> Miss: Choose one ally within 10 squares. Until the end of the encounter, the ally slides an adjacent ally 1 square after making a successful attack.




Wow. The amount of potential breakage in this is mind boggling. Plus, this power is best used against a mook as opposed to a BBEG because of the greater chance to hit and the greater effect if it hits. Get out the bucket of snails (or in other words, this will be combined with other powers that increase the chance to hit a given target to help ensure success).

And what if the "adjacent ally" doesn't want to slide? No save? No choice?



> Effect: Until the end of the encounter, as an immediate reaction, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of you can charge a target that you charge.




At least this one says "can". But, the fact that allies can suddenly be the Flash and charge (presumably up to 30 feet) around the board when it is not their turn is a bit unbelievable.


----------



## kheros (Mar 14, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.




Well, that's not really all that great either, and remember that all prior editions also had wonky name conventions where the actual power of the spell wasn't really all that descriptive. So live with it, its not like its a steep learning curve.

And just to add some examples from 3.x: Colour Spray, Weird, Prismatic Spray, Tenser's Transformation, Eyebite, etc. etc. etc. (All these are fluff text names, with nothing at all to indicate the mechanical effect.)


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 14, 2008)

Does anyone know what he means by this? My bold:







			
				Heinsoo said:
			
		

> But against an extremely tough foe, *or when pin the foe misses*....



It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...
Am I completely reading this the wrong way?
Edit: And I really don't like the sports analogies, WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?


----------



## Ktulu (Mar 14, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Go check again, onslaught is not a tactical term. It's a "fierce or destructive attack." Aren't they all? If it's not fierce or destructive, it's not much of an attack.




Fierce & destructive clearly define what the attack does, to me.  I get the feeling that it's a lot of attacks with the intent of quickly and painfully ending the enemies life.




> Pin the foe isn't bad, but it could be better. A more apt name would be "Coordinated Pin" because it requires an ally to pull off. Hearing "pin the foe" doesn't tell me much. It certainly does nothing to imply the team nature of the power. That's all I'm asking for. Descriptive power names. Descriptive here meaning that they reveal something about the power itself, rather than descriptive as in flowery and useless.




Warlord bob to Fighter joe:  Coordinated pin against the ogre!
Fighter Joe:  Did you just shout what you're doing?
Warlord bob: No, I wanted you to help me pin him down so he couldn't get away (takes hit from ogre for not paying attention) Ouch!
FJ: Why didn't you tell me?
WB: I did!


Warlord bob to fighter Joe: Joe, Pin the foe!
FJ: Right, gotcha!


I dunno, it sounds pretty good to me.  I'd have liked many of the abilities to be more like that (I can't, however, in good conscience suggest yelling White Raven Onslaught... You'd get beaten up)



> What's wrong with "Shifting Onslaught"? It's far more descriptive of the actual maneuver and therefore helpful to DMs and players to remember.



  I dunno, I don't like Shifting Onslaught.  It's boring.  It doesn't let me know what I'm doing any more than the other.




> By using the name as a descriptive of what the power actually does it helps DMs and players recall enough about the power that they can get by, possibly even remember what the power actually does. Melf's Acid Arrow is a great example. "Melf" here is useful only as a nod to a designer's character. But, it's perfect. Acid. Arrow. Perfect. One shaft of acid that strikes the target. Simple. "White Raven Onslaught" doesn't tell me anything.



, so, by your example, if White Raven, the great Warlord from the north had designed this maneuver, you'd be ok with that?   :\ 



> Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.




Repeating charge/lasting charge/staggered charge all sound boring though.  The Iron Dragon charge sounds like a tactic Bjorn the destroyer learned after battling the Iron Dragon, Ferros.  Exciting and imaginitive.  Not boring.

I.e.

Bjorn: Everyone, lasting charge formation, on my mark!

or

Bjorn: Everyone, Iron Dragon Charge, on my mark!

Again, it just sounds more exciting.  And it's not like you can't just change the name, anyway.  If you find Repeating Charge to be better, use it


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> I didn't know this class originated from the Minis Handbook. That explains alot to me now...




Where does it say the Warlock originated from the mini's game? The only legacy with the Warlord is the Marshall class from 3rd Edition.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 14, 2008)

...which is from the Minis Handbook, like Mortellan said.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 14, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Those power names aren't metal enough.




To compensate, usage of these powers will be accompanied by the overture and main riff from the following song: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cFBIr3Vx16w


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> ...which is from the Minis Handbook, like Mortellan said.




Is it, I thought it was also a class in ordinary D&D? If not, sorry, thought it was.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Mar 14, 2008)

Warlord...it's like the Marshal, only...not sucky.

I can't wait to write up my warforged warlock/warlord wielding a warhammer....now *that's* metal!


----------



## Voss (Mar 14, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Does anyone know what he means by this? My bold:
> It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...
> Am I completely reading this the wrong way?
> Edit: And I really don't like the sports analogies, WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?




Sports analogies suck.  But, as to the power I think its because the power is broken into 
Hit: <>  and
Effect:  <>

Its a somewhat confusing shorthand if its unfamiliar,  but I think *Effect *is independent of *Hit*, and always takes effect when you use the power.

Not sure why the terminology changed from the paladin smites, however, which had a 'miss' clause.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 14, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...



Actually, I think it does. "Effect" seems to happen regardless of a hit or miss. If it only worked on a hit, the descriptions would be under "Hit."



> Edit: And I really don't like the sports analogies, WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?



Quarterback is an American football thing, so I don't blame you for missing that one.

Point guard, on the other hand, everyone should know, as basketball is a thoroughly international sport.


----------



## Voss (Mar 14, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Point guard, on the other hand, everyone should know, as basketball is a thoroughly international sport.




It is?  Since when?

And... for the record, I've lived in the States for 29 years out of 32, and while I've heard the term, I have no idea what it actually does.  I can only assume it doesn't guard points, since both teams usually get around 100, and only the last minute or so actually matters.


----------



## withak (Mar 14, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> WTF is a point guard or 1/4 back?



They're the on-the-court/field leaders of basketball and American football, respectively.


----------



## Kvantum (Mar 14, 2008)

Even as a 4e hater/3e fanatic, I kinda like this. Except the name. "Warlord" still sounds like a prestige class for a barbarian or fighter who's right on the front lines leading hordes of lesser warriors into the middle of the fighting, not a guy helping other characters gain advantages in combat.

They should have stuck with Marshall, even if Warlord is more of a "kewl p0werz" type of name.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 14, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> 2. WotC sucks at naming powers.




I know! I mean "Bull Rush," WTF?! Why would a medieval fantasy game use a modern American football term invented after the advent of the modern automobile?! They're trying to dumb this game down by using terms that only jocks use!


----------



## Aegir (Mar 14, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Is it, I thought (Marshall) was also a class in ordinary D&D? If not, sorry, thought it was.




It is a normal DnD class. The minis handbook covered the rules for minis combat, but it also covered how to introduce mass combat to a DnD campaign, as well as creating the Marshall, which was all about auras and augmenting its allies (and could be horribly broken in some cases, if not monitored closely).


----------



## Ktulu (Mar 14, 2008)

You know, I almost figure the quarterback is more of a controller, really.  By choosing the play, he's essentially planning on whether the battle takes place up close, to the left, out right, etc...  Sure, he could be assumed to be leader, but if he rolls out and passes the ball, he just changed everyone's attention downfield.  Depending on how good he is at the play action, he's got everyone focused on the runningback and not the tight end, either..

He fits both, well, but I prefer controller (the leader, imo, is the coach).

Ktulu


----------



## withak (Mar 14, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It is?  Since when?
> 
> And... for the record, I've lived in the States for 29 years out of 32, and while I've heard the term, I have no idea what it actually does.  I can only assume it doesn't guard points, since both teams usually get around 100, and only the last minute or so actually matters.



Basically, the point guard controls the offense by getting the ball to his teammates at the right times.

Basketball has been growing in popularity world-wide for a while now, so much so that it's not enough for Team USA to just show up at the Olympics and get their gold medals -- they actually have to _work together_ and _use strategy_, which is not always a given...


----------



## Voss (Mar 14, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> This is such deliciousness.
> 
> Warlord doesn't look like an easy class to play, but it definitely looks deep and mechanically interesting.




Actually, it does look fairly easy.  You hit things, and the other players do things.  All you have to do is hit things and give your buddies the type of action or bonus they want.  

In all seriousness, it will be a lot like the other classes, if things pan out.  You get 3-4 class features, some racial abilites, and usually (except possibly humans and half-elves), 2 at will powers, 1 encounter power and 1 daily power.  Use whichever seems best.


----------



## arscott (Mar 14, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Does anyone know what he means by this? My bold:
> It doesn't mention in the power desription that the 'pin' effect works if it misses but that text seems to imply on a miss the power pins but not damages...or something...
> Am I completely reading this the wrong way?



The _Effect_ entry of any attack (in this case, making it difficult for the target to shift) applies whether or not the attack hits.  If it's something that only happens if the attack is successful, it'll be listed under _hit_.


----------



## arscott (Mar 14, 2008)

I'm familiar with bullrushes, the plant, but I hadn't realized that the phrase was actually used in a combat-related context outside of gaming.

I've seen Bum Rush used several places, and I assumed that WotC coined bull rush as a less potentially offensive term.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 14, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> I've seen Bum Rush used several places, and I assumed that WotC coined bull rush as a less potentially offensive term.




Bull rush is a American football term. It was invented sometime after 1940, when American football began to grow into mainstream popularity.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 15, 2008)

D&D is so sportsgamey.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Mar 15, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> - Onslaught of the White Star Raven




I'd totally play something that let me use "White Star Raven" powers.

Of course, the setting better involve space, and a ridiculous helping of anime or pulp sci-fi.  So I probably wouldn't play in that setting... but if I _did_, White Star Raven is too awesomely retarded to pass up.  

(I've come to accept that things can be both retarded and awesome.)


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

I have the feeling 4E is going to be very funny! I agree with the other posters who says the names are silly. I guess I have to open up to this kind of high fantasy.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Why? Don't know. It's not even two flanking opponents. No save. No way to avoid. Just, the laws of game physics suddenly change for that target.
> 
> Presumably, the target can still move, he just provokes Attacks of Opportunity???



They avoid it by not being hit in the first place, their "save" or "defense" is their AC. Anything after that is unnecessary complications. This is not changing a "law of physics" any more stunning fist changes the laws of physics.

And yes, "shift" means movement which does not provoke attacks, a characters normal "shift" is the equivalent of a 5 foot step. 




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Wow. The amount of potential breakage in this is mind boggling. Plus, this power is best used against a mook as opposed to a BBEG because of the greater chance to hit and the greater effect if it hits. Get out the bucket of snails (or in other words, this will be combined with other powers that increase the chance to hit a given target to help ensure success).



If any DM in the history of D&D has allowed bag of rats style exploits, I'd like to hear about it. Without that it's mostly good for getting people out of melee, and isn't worth wasting the extra damage to not use it on a powerful for, who'll probably have a high enough AC to prevent it being a sure bet.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And what if the "adjacent ally" doesn't want to slide? No save? No choice?



Uh, I'm sure you could just say "I'm not your ally anymore", it's not big deal.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> At least this one says "can". But, the fact that allies can suddenly be the Flash and charge (presumably up to 30 feet) around the board when it is not their turn is a bit unbelievable.



No, the idea that people stand next to each other getting hit and waiting for their turn to happen is unbelievable. Accepting the obvious abstracted nature of turns, all you have is a class based around pushing people to do more than they're normally capable of, pushing people to do more than they're normally capable of.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it does. "Effect" seems to happen regardless of a hit or miss. If it only worked on a hit, the descriptions would be under "Hit."



 Yeah weird, though that some powers have a miiss effect listed. I assume that is only if it is _different_ to the hit effect.







			
				Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Quarterback is an American football thing, so I don't blame you for missing that one.
> Point guard, on the other hand, everyone should know, as basketball is a thoroughly international sport.



 I know what a quarterback _is_, even if I have only watched a few games of 'US-rugby wearing armour cos they can't take a real tackle' . I don't have a clue about basketball positions- dull backwards-forwards game IMO (known as windscreenwiper in these parts ); the 'WTF' was more to 'WTF' do these guys do with relation to the rest of the team?
Not that it matters 'cos I can *see* what the Warlock does- my party now has a new NPC for me to run -hooray- I always have to run an NPC cleric cos no one in the group wants to play CoDzilla. It is nice to have a change, as long as his healing is upto scratch......


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

I dunno about that.

Since it states that "_While the warlord's cool 1st-level daily exploit sets up a teamwork benefit, brute strike has the keyword "Reliable," meaning that the power isn't expended if the attack misses. Eventually, as long as the fighter is alive to swing, that brute strike is going to connect -- the warlord doesn't have that certainty._"

So that means it is different from Fighter Powers that are Reliable:

Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.
Daily
Martial, *Reliable*, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Since the Warlord abilities don't that means if you miss, well you miss.

Pin the Foe Warlord Attack 1
No matter where your foe turns, one of your allies is waiting for him.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action (no Reliable in that)
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target cannot shift if at least two of your allies (or you and one ally) are adjacent to it.

So I think Effect is simply what this Exploit does beyond affecting the enemy.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 15, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> If any DM in the history of D&D has allowed bag of rats style exploits, I'd like to hear about it. Without that it's mostly good for getting people out of melee, and isn't worth wasting the extra damage to not use it on a powerful for, who'll probably have a high enough AC to prevent it being a sure bet.



I'm sure they exist, but they're the type of DMs I'd avoid.

Mostly, I see this power as a way for characters like the Wizard to get backed out of an enemy Fighter's or Rogue's threat range without getting whacked in the process (it's a slide, not a shift, so the Fighter doesn't get a free attack). I also see it as an opportunity to give the ally a free square of movement toward initiating a flanking position.

The only problem I might see RAW is near the edge of a cliff, so hopefully that part was clarified, at least.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 15, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> Basketball has been growing in popularity world-wide for a while now, so much so that it's not enough for Team USA to just show up at the Olympics and get their gold medals -- they actually have to _work together_ and _use strategy_, which is not always a given...



Lately it's been a given that USA Basketball doesn't do those things.

/off-topic


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 15, 2008)

I like the class abilities, but like others here, I don't like the names.

It's definitely a step up from the Marshall though.  

Ken


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 15, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Take Melf off _Melf's acid arrow_ and you've still got _acid arrow_, a perfectly good if rather bland spell name.  Take Bigby off _Bigby's crushing hand_ and you've still got _crushing hand_.  But if you take White Raven off White Raven Onslaught, you end up with a power named "Onslaught," which is pretty shaky as a power name.  And Iron Dragon Charge is even worse--take Iron Dragon off and your power is named "Charge," which is the name of something else entirely.




Except those are the names of the people who invented them. Of course you can get rid of those, they were never added on as descriptions of the effect to begin with! Strawman.

I'd much rather have evocative names than descriptive ones. Silence, 15' radius permanently soured me on such names.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> D&D is so sportsgamey.



lol I agree. I hope to hear about something else than powers, grid, shift, tactical, blah blah. I want to see a cool non-combat element. What is outside monsters and combat? Rituals, fluff about planes. I really want to believe D&D has abstract and deep immersive element too. Not only the stuff I'm going to make up in my head, but that there are elements about characters behaviour, not alignment. But something like quirks characters has to choose. I don't know I guess it's not something people want. Just positive boosts and powers. It's starting to sound like a Dur-A-Cell commercial: And you keep going, and going, and going!


----------



## Bishmon (Mar 15, 2008)

Ok, while I agree that the names aren't that good, I think people should be cautious before labeling them 'high fantasy', 'videogamey', or 'anime'. There's a number of names in modern martial arts that are also a bit silly, such as an anaconda choke, Superman punch, gator roll, guillotine choke, axe kick, omoplata, gogoplata, rear naked choke, darce choke, etc. So to think that these sorts of odd names only fall in the realm of more fantastic or unrealistic mediums is a bit off-base.

That being said, I wish WotC would do better than these sort of odd names.

As for the warlord, so far so good. I really like the idea behind it, so I'm eager to see the mechanics. The three powers presented were fine, definitely didn't do anything to dissuade me, I'm just eager to see a good bit more to know if it comes close to my hopes for the idea.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 15, 2008)

Pale Jackal said:
			
		

> I'd totally play something that let me use "White Star Raven" powers.
> 
> Of course, the setting better involve space, and a ridiculous helping of anime or pulp sci-fi.  So I probably wouldn't play in that setting... but if I _did_, White Star Raven is too awesomely retarded to pass up.
> 
> (I've come to accept that things can be both retarded and awesome.)



 "Star", in this case, being something to increase the "metal" quota of the ability, by way of the Star Child persona embodied by Paul Stanley from KISS.

One could also go Space Ace, after Ace Frehley.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Mar 15, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> And... for the record, I've lived in the States for 29 years out of 32, and while I've heard the term, I have no idea what it actually does.  I can only assume it doesn't guard points, since both teams usually get around 100, and only the last minute or so actually matters.



The "stereotypical" point guard is usually a (relatively) short, quick guy with good ball-handling skills.  His primary role is to distribute the ball to his teammates and get the offense moving.  He usually doesn't score many points, but he often gets a lot of assists (an assist is when a player passes the ball to a teammate that leads to a direct score).  Good examples of point guards are John Stockton, Steve Nash, and Jason Kidd (if those names mean anything to you    ).

EDIT - Never mind.  Answered a while ago.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 15, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I know! I mean "Bull Rush," WTF?! Why would a medieval fantasy game use a modern American football term invented after the advent of the modern automobile?! They're trying to dumb this game down by using terms that only jocks use!



 You fail at sarcasm. I first learned the term "Bull's Rush" through D&D 3.0, and I instantly knew it was a maneuver akin to a bull rushing at a target. This is the first time I hear that it was invented for American football.

I don't actually mind Iron Dragon Charge (although, if the point is that the ally keeps charging the same foe you do, something like "Charging Onslaught" would be appropriate), but White Raven Onslaught has no relation to what the power actually does (I suppose some sort of flavor text will explain it).


----------



## breschau (Mar 15, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> I'd much rather have evocative names than descriptive ones. Silence, 15' radius permanently soured me on such names.




That's a perfect example of the other extreme. I wouldn't want that either. Somewhere between that kind of silliness and the silliness of "Iron Dragon Charge" there has to be some middle ground.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Why? Don't know. It's not even two flanking opponents. No save. No way to avoid. Just, the laws of game physics suddenly change for that target.



I'm beginning to get worried about this edition of the game. It seems that it requires more imagination from players than previous editions; this has lead to problems and will probably lead to more problems.

It seems pretty obvious that "Pin the Foe" is about the warlord committing to tracking a foe and calling out his or her movements.


----------



## cheddar bearer (Mar 15, 2008)

Does look really interesting. I like the idea of combining some of the ideas in Bo9S with the marshal class. Never used the marshal class myself something about the use of "auras" put me off. I know its a really petty thing but I don't know something about it didn't quite appeal to me.

Anyway this definitely sounds intersting. Still not sold on 4e but at the very least I will be stealing some of this class sounds really good.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 15, 2008)

I recently finished playing a Bard through the entire Age of Worms campaign. Straight Bard levels 1-20, no prestige classes. Part of the reason I did this was to convince another player - who'd played a Bard in a previous campaign - that it's possible to design a fun Bard. I was perhaps a bit overoptimistic.

Oh god the Warlord looks wonderful [breaks down in tears...]


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

I don't think "Pin" is that hard to figure out, all it simply means is that the Warlord has placed the enemy into a position where it cannot "Shift" away. 

It can do so against a single person because the enemy is simply dodging a single person, but it cannot do so against two, so it cannot shift... Thus a shift move would simply be a ordinary OA-inducing movement action.

The reasoning could be as simple as a successful hit, damages the ability of the enemy to move swiftly and avoid both attacks from the PCs, like it normally could.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 15, 2008)

Here's the breakdown on the various power clauses as far as I can tell-

*Hit:* This section only applies if you hit.
*Miss:* This section only applies if you miss.
*Effect:* This section always applies.

From what I've seen so far the *Miss* section is used when you want to describe a lesser version of an effect (not to be confused with the *Effect* section of a power) described in the *Hit* section.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

Pre-4E talk
-----------
Designer1:Is it a fun power? 
Designer2:Yes. 
Designer1:Is it believable? 
Designer2:Not really, but who cares?

EDIT: This is totally fictional. But I can't think of anything else when I look at the new powers.

It's not that I don't like it. But It would be fun to have an explanation of what makes this possible.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 15, 2008)

This is actually the first class preview that has really turned me off. Three things in particular about the Warlord bother me.

1. The names are very cheesy and anime-ish. This is D&D, not Exalted. Wuxia/anime style names don't belong in a medieval fantasy game. These names are, IMHO, totally inappropriate for the setting. If this were an oriental campaign book, that might be a different matter. But this class is going to be in the core book.

2. White Raven Onslaught appears to allow allies to move each other around even if they are unwilling. This was one of my worst fears about the warlord, that it would have too much control over other players' characters. I'm not at all pleased to see this fear being realised.

3. The powers lack any sense of (you guessed it) versimilitude. There's no believable explanation for how these techniques work. We're just supposed to suspend disbelief and accept that warlords can apparently slide people around the battlefield, keep them from moving, allow them to spontaneously charge when it's not their turn, etc merely through "teamwork" and "inspiration." This is definately what people have been talking about when they say that 4e feels more like a board game than an RPG. And the Warlord class, more than any other, seems to exemplify that style of play.

I really wish they had kept the Bard instead.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> They avoid it by not being hit in the first place, their "save" or "defense" is their AC. Anything after that is unnecessary complications. This is not changing a "law of physics" any more stunning fist changes the laws of physics.




Not according to what we have so far. 



> Pin the foe's advantage is that it locks down the target's movement whether the attack hits or misses






			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> If any DM in the history of D&D has allowed bag of rats style exploits, I'd like to hear about it. Without that it's mostly good for getting people out of melee, and isn't worth wasting the extra damage to not use it on a powerful for, who'll probably have a high enough AC to prevent it being a sure bet.




Not in tactically intelligent games. There, one would take a mook out with it to accomplish two goals simultaneously: 1) potentially reduce the number of opponents, 2) give allies a huge mobility advantage.

Sure, it might make sense to use it against stronger foes on occasion, but the typical use of it will be to change the odds of battle. And, I am not talking about the actual bag of rats exploit, rather a perfectly reasonable attack of a mook with various abilities in order to gain a significant upperhand.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Uh, I'm sure you could just say "I'm not your ally anymore", it's not big deal.




First off, we do not know if the rules allow for that. Secondly even if they did, this would mean that the ally would suddenly lose other benefits (like auras and such). So, the fact is, what we have so far is no choice, no save. Maybe another rule allows allies to ignore this type of thing. Maybe not.


----------



## DreamChaser (Mar 15, 2008)

I accept that what I'm about to type may be deemed crazy and get me branded a brainless 4e lover but here it goes.

I (note the self referential term that does not apply to anyone else) find myself interpreting many comments about the lack of descriptiveness in naming conventions baffling. Why?

Because I suspect that themes that are descriptive in practice (if not literally) will rapidly emerge. Take the classing examples of Bigby's or Power Words or Mordenkainen's or Prismatic. Grognards (sheesh that is an obnoxious term but I use it to further demonstrate my point) know exactly what to expect from each of these categories of spells. If a spell has Bigby's in it, there is a very very very good chance that it is a Force spell and relates to grabbing your opponent. Prismatic probably has random effects based upon the color of the rainbow. Mordenkainen's probably relates to "warriorizing" yourself, and Power Word probably doesn't allow a saving throw but deals debilitating effects based upon HP.

Additionally, grognard is as meaningless term unless you have the background to grok it.

Similarly, White Raven, Iron Dragon, Irridescent Petunia, Maleficent Starfish appear as meaningless and undescriptive to us now as any of the above appear to any newby (okay, White Raven appears to be similar to its descriptor purpose from Bo9S - lead the party in outflanking the opponents). But the point stands.

As the designers have said, we haven't seen everything yet. What appears undescriptive may actually be quite clear once we have learned the system.

And I don't want "Hit and Shift Rush" as a power name...that just seems lame and uninteresting.

DC


----------



## hennebeck (Mar 15, 2008)

This whole "silly name" thing is ridiculous.

Here are some other "silly names".

http://www.bucktobacco.org/resources/docs/rodeo_terms.pdf
CATCH AS CATCH CAN
CROW HOPPER
HOOKY
JERK DOWN RULE
PIGGIN' STRING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics
pepperpotting
Shoot-and-scoot
Human wave attack
Hedgehog defence
Dragon's teeth
Coup de grâce


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shotokan_techniques
horse stance
crane stance
open-palm rising block
knife-hand sweeping low block
leg snapping wave block
Hammer-fist scissor strike


A name's a name.
Deal with it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Ehh, I don't know but to me all the powers make sense in my books. As soon as I read each power I could visualize how that would work in-game.

As for controlling other players, it simply allows them to slide or charge, you aren't designating where they are sliding or charging, so it is giving them the opportunity to slide or charge. Which I wouldn't designate as controlling.

Especially when you consider these one's with other player movement work for the entire encounter that means people can skip it first time, second time, third time, but use it fourth time if they wish.

As for the names, they are game-terms, they don't affect in-game stuff so I really don't care one way or they other what they are called in many regards. Sure some names are stupid, but that doesn't affect the actual mechanics.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 15, 2008)

Bring on the flavorful names!


----------



## Rechan (Mar 15, 2008)

hennebeck said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics
> pepperpotting
> Shoot-and-scoot
> Human wave attack
> ...



You forgot Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. 

 

And of course then there's sports terms...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> As for controlling other players, it simply allows them to slide or charge, you aren't designating where they are sliding or charging, so it is giving them the opportunity to slide or charge. Which I wouldn't designate as controlling.




Not according to the rules we have so far. From the ScaleGloom Hall handouts:



> Forced Movement
> 
> Certain powers and effects allow *you* to pull, push, or slide a target.




The rest of the description reinforces this idea that the controller actually controls the movement (or in the case of White Raven Onslaught, the successful attacker).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 15, 2008)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Maleficent Starfish... meaningless and undescriptive



No wai!!!!!!!


----------



## Rechan (Mar 15, 2008)

The Iron Dragon Charge says that the person you designate _can charge_, not Must charge.

Similar to Feather Me Yon Oaf, it's that anyone CAN make an immediate ranged attack. Not that they _must_.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The Iron Dragon Charge says that the person you designate _can charge_, not Must charge.




Precisely.

But, White Raven Onslaught does not say "can". It says "you slide". Nothing in it about a choice or a save.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Yes, but we are talking about a enemy target in which, you would wish to do so. 

With abilities that give movement to your ally. It is silly to think it would work under the same rules as forcefully moving an enemy. Your giving an opening to charge or slide to an ally, not forcing them to slide to try and put them into a detrimental position like you would with an enemy.

So, all would be fine you add "can" to the Effect? Would a DM/Player really nitpick a single word/lack of word?


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 15, 2008)

Merge Powers Activate!

Slide Target Thread Into Allied Thread To Create The Form Of Mega-warlord Thread!


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Yes, but we are talking about a enemy target in which, you would wish to do so.
> 
> With abilities that give movement to your ally. It is silly to think it would work under the same rules as forcefully moving an enemy. Your giving an opening to charge or slide to an ally, not forcing them to slide to try and put them into a detrimental position like you would with an enemy.
> 
> So, all would be fine you add "can" to the Effect? Would a DM/Player really nitpick a single word/lack of word?




You haven't been over to the Rules Forum a lot, have you?  

This is not 3E. This is not 3.5. The designers are aware that there is massive discussion on the Internet about game rules. Such discussions have been going on for nearly a decade now. So, the designers should be aware that they have to be precise.

From what we know so far, the designers are being precise. A controller controls. Not his targets (even if they are allies).

So far, the rules do not support your assumption here. And, we might get errata some day that supports your POV on this rule. Or, there might be specific Controller rules that we have not seen so far that supports your POV. However at the moment based on what we know so far, your assumption is faulty because we have to assume that the designers are being precise.

Welcome to the world of video game design.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

hennebeck said:
			
		

> A name's a name.
> Deal with it.



Blue fire reeks first glove.  Night Fountain?


----------



## Kishin (Mar 15, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually, it does look fairly easy.  You hit things, and the other players do things.  All you have to do is hit things and give your buddies the type of action or bonus they want.
> 
> In all seriousness, it will be a lot like the other classes, if things pan out.  You get 3-4 class features, some racial abilites, and usually (except possibly humans and half-elves), 2 at will powers, 1 encounter power and 1 daily power.  Use whichever seems best.




I disagree. A lot of these powers require manuevering, and the person using them to have really good court vision to know how the shifting and preventing shifting will work best.

You're oversimplifying.


----------



## JoelF (Mar 15, 2008)

I'm not crazy about the pin the foe power having no apparant limits on what it can target.  I can't quite see how 3 human fighters, no matter how coordinated, are going to stop a collosal dragon from moving, shifting, or 5' stepping any way it wants to.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Merge Powers Activate!
> 
> Slide Target Thread Into Allied Thread To Create The Form Of Mega-warlord Thread!



Man moderators are so anime!


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm not crazy about the pin the foe power having no apparant limits on what it can target.  I can't quite see how 3 human fighters, no matter how coordinated, are going to stop a collosal dragon from moving, shifting, or 5' stepping any way it wants to.




Yup.

But, there are other synergies that might be more problematic.

I suspect that there will be several powers/abilities in the game that state "When you shift, you can ...". What this single simple power might be able to do with no save is prevent enemies from using their powers.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm not crazy about the pin the foe power having no apparant limits on what it can target.  I can't quite see how 3 human fighters, no matter how coordinated, are going to stop a collosal dragon from moving, shifting, or 5' stepping any way it wants to.




It simply states the target cannot shift, which simply means that the target cannot perform that specific movement that doesn't create a OA. 

So for your example, a dragon can move and get a OA, however it cannot shift since that shift would be then a ordinary move and provoke a OA. Which I think makes perfect sense that a group of fighters has thanks to the Warlock set themselves up in the position that they are able to strike out whenever the dragon moves.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm not crazy about the pin the foe power having no apparant limits on what it can target.  I can't quite see how 3 human fighters, no matter how coordinated, are going to stop a collosal dragon from moving, shifting, or 5' stepping any way it wants to.



You're such a simulationist.  geez

This is D&D.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm not crazy about the pin the foe power having no apparant limits on what it can target.  I can't quite see how 3 human fighters, no matter how coordinated, are going to stop a collosal dragon from moving, shifting, or 5' stepping any way it wants to.



It doesn't stop them moving, it only means they cannot shift (i.e. move without provoking an AO). They can still move but the 'surrounders' will get appropraite AOs.....
Edit: Ninja'd by Seraph, 
Thinking about it, that power is not un-realistic enough for me  DnD is too simulationist


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> It doesn't stop them moving, it only means they cannot shift (i.e. move without provoking an AO). They can still move but the 'surrounders' will get appropraite AOs.....




Who said that the attackers have to surround the creature?

There can be a dragon taking up 16 squares and this "non-magical" ability still allows 2 opponents next to it on one side to prevent it from shifting directly away from them.

This is a game mechanic power. The sole purpose of it is to modify the rules as written. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form follow the descriptive text:



> No matter where your foe turns, one of your allies is waiting for him.




Now, if they stated that it only occurs if allies have flank, then it would make more logical sense based on the descriptive text.

Course, the rational for it is pretty weak to begin with. If the controller is actually calling out commands to inform his allies where to go and what to do, what happens if they cannot hear him? And if so, how come the enemies cannot take advantage of those commands as well? And why can the allies instantly react to those commands (and why are the enemies ever unable to decipher them)?

That's the problem with game mechanics whose sole function is to modify other game mechanics. They sometimes do not make a lot of logical sense.


Personally, I am going to have a lot of problems with the verisimilitude of the martial powers if they are going to accomplish magical sounding effects (especially with no save against foes).

I probably will have very few problems with the divine or arcane powers.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

It isn't so much that the Warlord is calling out commands as much as he through his attack has allowed two PCs to position themselves adequately to engage the target if it tries to shift/move.

As for them being simply adjacent, well it is not like the two PCs in-game would be simply standing there going, "oh it went that way, guess we can't hit it", it would be more along the lines, of 
_
"The fighter swung around to the side as the dragon turned to run. His sword swing makes the dragon veer again into the sword of the second fighter."_

For that to happen they don't have to be flanking.

I think by leaving it more open, WoTC is giving us permission to be more dramatic and narrate our own combat more.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 15, 2008)

Coup de grace is silly, how?  It means "killing blow" in french.  The military terms listed (with the possible exception of pepperpotting) are actually all very descriptive and give you a good idea of what they are.  When hedgehogs are threatened, they collapse into spiky balls.  Guess what a hedgehog defense involves?  etc.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 15, 2008)

I'm thinking everyone in the party plays a warlord and takes Iron Dragon Charge as thier daily. 

That way, whenever one of us charges, we all charge!  Twenty-five attacks per round.  It will rock.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said that the attackers have to surround the creature?



Sorry poor choice of words, I should have just said allies.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There can be a dragon taking up 16 squares and this "non-magical" ability still allows 2 opponents next to it on one side to prevent it from shifting directly away from them.



They are not _preventing_ it moving so I have no problems with this, the Warlord co-ordinates in such a way as to give the allies AOs if it moves, thats it.
But yes the flfuf text is a little _off_; I hardly pay attention to that stuff personally. My players and I will add the appropriate narrative desription during the game. A big part of the fun IMO, and 4E will make it easier to do more outrageous stuff


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Sorry poor choice of words, I should have just said allies.



Who said allies have to "surround" it?



> They are not _preventing_ it moving



Yes they are.  It isn't required that ALL movement be prevented.  On the dragons' turn it may desire to shift and that movement is prevented.  It prevents movement.



> so I have no problems with this, the Warlord co-ordinates in such a way as to give the allies AOs if it moves, thats it.



 Are you houseruling already?  Cause I don't see that in the article.


> But yes the flfuf text is a little _off_; I hardly pay attention to that stuff personally. My players and I will add the appropriate narrative desription during the game. A big part of the fun IMO, and 4E will make it easier to do more outrageous stuff



Outrageous:  good.  Irrational: Bad


----------



## Evilhalfling (Mar 15, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> D&D is so sportsgamey.





hehehe

to sig or not to sig. that is the question


----------



## Voss (Mar 15, 2008)

I can actually swallow _pin the flank_.  The allies are simply coordinating their attacks enough that the enemy can't withdraw with provoking attacks.  Nothing is mystically keeping him there, he's just off balance and can't back out of the melee without exposing  himself to attack. 

Silence and how it interacts with warlord powers is another issue.  One I suspect the 4e team solved by removing silence entirely.  Or everybody suddenly knows handsign- some sweeping fluff rationalization of one sort or another.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I can actually swallow _pin the flank_.  The allies are simply coordinating their attacks enough that the enemy can't withdraw with provoking attacks.  Nothing is mystically keeping him there, he's just off balance and can't back out of the melee without exposing  himself to attack.



Seriously, did I miss something?  I see "cannot" shift.  I don't see anything about provoking.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yes they are.  It isn't required that ALL movement be prevented.  On the dragons' turn it may desire to shift and that movement is prevented.  It prevents movement.
> 
> Are you houseruling already?  Cause I don't see that in the article.




They are preventing a shift in that, they are preventing the Dragon from moving without causing a OA, so the Dragon can still move the distance of a shift, he will simply be attacked by a OA, like he would with normal movement.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not according to the rules we have so far. From the ScaleGloom Hall handouts:
> 
> The rest of the description reinforces this idea that the controller actually controls the movement (or in the case of White Raven Onslaught, the successful attacker).



There did seem to be a disconnect between the article text ("warlords allow the annoying overbearing players to get their fix without being so annoying") and the powers listed.  Which even aside from the "slide" thing, are going to involve the warlord player ordering people around so they can take advantage of his powers.  "Nono, move over here so you're within 5 squares of me before I use my Iron Dragon Charge!"  That would seem to make such players even harder to deal with.

Hopefully the bigger picture will prove that fear unfounded.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Seriously, did I miss something?  I see "cannot" shift.  I don't see anything about provoking.




Any movement besides a shift that isn't a special power will provoke a OA.


----------



## lutecius (Mar 15, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> 3. The powers lack any sense of (you guessed it) versimilitude. There's no believable explanation for how these techniques work. [...]
> I really wish they had kept the Bard instead.



That's what I thought when i read how the warlord would heal and buff people basically by yelling at them (I can’t remember which designer’s blog it was, but the cool justification felt like every Leonidas wannabe’s wet dream. It was some time ago, so hopefully they saw the annoyance potential and changed that since.)

But now I’ve seen what they’ve done to the warlock (“teleport each time you off someone”) and the fighter (per day powers, marks), I’m not holding my breath for rational mechanics anymore.
I don’t see why the bard would be spared. I don’t think I will enjoy the “otherworldly patron” fluff either.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Seriously, did I miss something?  I see "cannot" shift.  I don't see anything about provoking.



Cannot shift doesn't mean cannot move.  It means you can't move without provoking opportunity attacks.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Any movement besides a shift that isn't a special power will provoke a OA.



Right, but they can ALSO shift.  And this power takes that away.  That isn't the same thing.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 15, 2008)

Yeah remember a shift is spending a move to go 5' without drawing an AoO. This power doesn't stop the dragon from spending a move to go 5'. He just can't do it without drawing an AoO.

So really there is no movement prevention here. Just defense prevention.


----------



## JoelF (Mar 15, 2008)

Just to throw another hypothetical, the same two allies using Pin the Foe against a fine opponent (say a half-fiend intelligent housefly warlock 6, just for kicks), I'm not sure how they could pin something that small in any way that would restrict its movement (or cause it to provoke OAs if it did move, depending on your point of view.)  

Sure this example is a lot sillier than my earlier dragon one, but the general point I'm trying to make is that it seems very odd that a tactical manuver has zero restrictions related to relative sizes of the foes.  Or other ways that it wouldn't work.  As someone mentioned, what about silence if the allies can't coordinate their attacks, or in darkness where they can't see each other to coordinate.  Or what about if one of the allies is a summoned monster (which admittedly PCs won't have in the PH1 probably), or an animal intelligence companion or pet?  How do those creatures coordinate through the warlord's powers if he can't communicate with them?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Right, but they can ALSO shift.  And this power takes that away.  That isn't the same thing.




Your right this power does take away the ability for the dragon to move 5 feet and avoid a OA, but the Dragon can still move thus provoking a OA.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> It isn't so much that the Warlord is calling out commands as much as he through his attack has allowed two PCs to position themselves adequately to engage the target if it tries to shift/move.
> 
> As for them being simply adjacent, well it is not like the two PCs in-game would be simply standing there going, "oh it went that way, guess we can't hit it", it would be more along the lines, of
> _
> ...




Allow to position?

Your rational fails. This power occurs until the end of the encounter (as long as any two allies are adjacent). Why? Because the rules says so. Your rational does not describe why that long duration of this "superior postioning" would exist. Nor does your rational describe a 2 square wide corridor scenario where the opponent is merely backing away.

And why could the allies not get this superior positioning without the Warlord's help?

Face it. This is a mystical supernatural ability that allows some weird rule modification, just because a designer thought it would be cool.  

One cannot rationalize it beyond "that's how the rule reads".


And, that is a verisimilitude problem in an RPG. Not for all players, but for some. The reason we have DMs and rules in DND and do not just all do whatever we want is so that everyone at the game can have a common understanding and agreement of what is going on. When the game designers create fantastical martial powers, they force a type of sub-genre (e.g. like Wuxia or "superheroes") on an entire gaming community.

But, the most annoying thing about this power is not that one cannot really understand how or why this mystical sounding thing works (the mechanics are easy, the rational is illogical). What is most annoying is that it has no saving throw. It automatically takes away one (or more if powers can trigger off of shift) of an opponent's abilities with no chance of failure (shy of the enemy TPKing the PCs or flying or guaranteeing that two alies will never be adjacent or some other non-typical event).


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Hopefully the bigger picture will prove that fear unfounded.




Agreed.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Who said allies have to "surround" it?



No one, I was just picturing that in my head when I wrote my reply. Surrounding has nothing to do with it as I said a poor choice of words I should of used allies not surrounders.







			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Yes they are.  It isn't required that ALL movement be prevented.  On the dragons' turn it may desire to shift and that movement is prevented.  It prevents movement.



No, it does not. If the enemy wants to move one square (as with a shift) he can; if he wants to move more than one square, he can. What does happen to him is that it provokes AOs if he does move away from the allies. 







			
				DDXP rules said:
			
		

> ...you can also use a move action to shift; this lets you move one square without suffering an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies.





			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Are you houseruling already?  Cause I don't see that in the article.





			
				DDXP rules said:
			
		

> Moving away from an enemy adjacent from you usually provokes an opportunity attack.



In no way is this irrational, IMO.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

JoelF said:
			
		

> Just to throw another hypothetical, the same two allies using Pin the Foe against a fine opponent (say a half-fiend intelligent housefly warlock 6, just for kicks), I'm not sure how they could pin something that small in any way that would restrict its movement (or cause it to provoke OAs if it did move, depending on your point of view.)
> 
> Sure this example is a lot sillier than my earlier dragon one, but the general point I'm trying to make is that it seems very odd that a tactical manuver has zero restrictions related to relative sizes of the foes.  Or other ways that it wouldn't work.  As someone mentioned, what about silence if the allies can't coordinate their attacks, or in darkness where they can't see each other to coordinate.  Or what about if one of the allies is a summoned monster (which admittedly PCs won't have in the PH1 probably), or an animal intelligence companion or pet?  How do those creatures coordinate through the warlord's powers if he can't communicate with them?




Well first off, the Warlord simply has placed the PCs in the position to keep the target from OA. He isn't actually controlling their actions/telling them when to strike, he set it up they have to follow it through.

As for the other things, well a extremely small character and darkness that would give negatives to the PCs to hit the target on a OA.

As for the animal companion/pet, I think having a dog growling at a target while another character is also adjacent works quite well. The dog will obviously react when the target moves, besides its ordinary attack, and there you go OA.


----------



## Bishmon (Mar 15, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Yeah remember a shift is spending a move to go 5' without drawing an AoO. This power doesn't stop the dragon from spending a move to go 5'. He just can't do it without drawing an AoO.
> 
> So really there is no movement prevention here. Just defense prevention.



But how does that work? If there's a total of six people on three sides of a large dragon, he could shift back and keep his defense up, but if there's a single warlord and an ally, he can't? What's the warlord secret? "Hey, Ally Bob, um, I know you've never possibly considered this scenario, so if you see him trying to take a step back to get out of range of us, hit him." Or "Hey, Mr. Dragon, if you take a step back out of range, kindly drop your defenses. We won't hit you, I swear."

Someone earlier mentioned that it seems like a lot of powers are requiring a lot of mental gymnastics to explain and that after awhile it's just gonna get to be too much, and I think I agree. I don't have much of a problem having to come up with an explanation for why a power works, but if I've got to do that continuously for a dozen powers? Two dozen powers? That's gonna be rough.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Right, but they can ALSO shift.  And this power takes that away.  That isn't the same thing.



??? You can use your move action to shift (move 1 square without provoking AOs) You can also use your standard action to move or shift. You cannot move and ALSO shift without using your standard action. As shift differs from a 3E 5' step in that it is just a different use of you move action NOT an added extra.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Allow to position?
> 
> Your rational fails. This power occurs until the end of the encounter (as long as any two allies are adjacent). Why? Because the rules says so. Your rational does not describe why that long duration of this "superior postioning" would exist. Nor does your rational describe a 2 square wide corridor scenario where the opponent is merely backing away.
> 
> And why could the allies not get this superior positioning without the Warlord's help?




Well first off the reason why the allies couldn't do that themselves is behind the whole point of the Warlord is that he is a master of knowing how to manipulate the battlefield so he knows that by first attacking a enemy to unsettle him, and then positioning two PCs to stop him from shifting.

As for the opponent moving down the corridor, he can still back down the corridor and provoke a OA, he cannot shift now though since the PCs are prepared for any kind of dodge or meanuvour he would use to do this, thanks to the Warlord's initial strike and positioning.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I can actually swallow _pin the flank_.  The allies are simply coordinating their attacks enough that the enemy can't withdraw with provoking attacks.  Nothing is mystically keeping him there, he's just off balance and can't back out of the melee without exposing  himself to attack.




But, why can they not coordinate if the Warlord is back at the inn? Why can they not do this every encounter? Every round? Every opponent?

Well, because of rules balance and the fact that the design team couldn't think of a good marital controlling power that makes sense as a once per day.

Unlike Arcane or Divine powers where the very fact that they are mystical allows for explanations as to why they can only be used once a day.

Per encounter can make a bit of sense for martial powers (fooled me once, shame on you, you cannot fool me a second time). But, it's a real difficult stretch to understand the concept of a Daily Martial Power ("oh, you pull a muscle every time you use it, so you cannot use it until the next day" huh?  ).



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Silence and how it interacts with warlord powers is another issue.  One I suspect the 4e team solved by removing silence entirely.  Or everybody suddenly knows handsign- some sweeping fluff rationalization of one sort or another.




Fluff. When stretching for rational, I guess that's as good as any.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well first off the reason why the allies couldn't do that themselves is behind the whole point of the Warlord is that he is a master of knowing how to manipulate the battlefield so he knows that by first attacking a enemy to unsettle him, and then positioning two PCs to stop him from shifting.
> 
> As for the opponent moving down the corridor, he can still back down the corridor and provoke a OA, he cannot shift now though since the PCs are prepared for any kind of dodge or meanuvour he would use to do this, thanks to the Warlord's initial strike and positioning.




hehe

PC 1: "We've been doing this superior position maneuver for 20 years now. Tell me again why we cannot do it without the Warlord's help."

PC 2: "Laws of Physics. We are merely pawns of the Warlord. And he is a pawn of the great god Daily."

PC 1: "Oh, come on!"

PC 2: "Yup. Fact of life."



Order of the Stick is going to have a field day with these new rules.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Per Day abilities for Martial is viewed as, "through the chances of the situation and simply luck you manage to pull a Exploit that is extremely difficult. The difficulty of the Exploit and the requirements it needs to be pulled off are to the point that it only happens once a day." The Martial character is probably trying the whole fight to pull it off, but it only actually gets pulled off when you use it.

As for why the Warlord is needed, well comes down to the fact that the Warlord seeing how he has such knowledge of the ways of war has noticed that in this circumstance if he can get two PCs into pinning the target they can do this. It is a situation that only comes across because of chance/luck.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> hehe
> 
> PC 1: "We've been doing this superior position maneuver for 20 years now. Tell me again why we cannot do it without the Warlord's help."
> 
> ...




*Points to post I just wrote*


----------



## hong (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, why can they not coordinate if the Warlord is back at the inn? Why can they not do this every encounter? Every round? Every opponent?




All of your issues can be solved by the simple strategem of not thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All of your issues can be solved by the simple strategem of not thinking too hard about fantasy.



All of my issues? There are a lot of them 
Oh you were talking about _4E issues_..........


----------



## Bishmon (Mar 15, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All of your issues can be solved by the simple strategem of not thinking too hard about fantasy.



When rules provoke the response of "don't think too hard" I'm thinking that's rarely a good thing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Per Day abilities for Martial is viewed as, "through the chances of the situation and simply luck you manage to pull a Exploit that is extremely difficult. The difficulty of the Exploit and the requirements it needs to be pulled off are to the point that it only happens once a day." The Martial character is probably trying the whole fight to pull it off, but it only actually gets pulled off when you use it.
> 
> As for why the Warlord is needed, well comes down to the fact that the Warlord seeing how he has such knowledge of the ways of war has noticed that in this circumstance if he can get two PCs into pinning the target they can do this. It is a situation that only comes across because of chance/luck.




And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary. hehe. Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.

You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

It isn't that it is that the Warlord deems it necessary, it is that yup, for the whole fight he has been doing his best to set up good attacks, etc. Just that when the PLAYER decides to use the Per-Day, in-game the Warlord happens to find a opening to use that strategy.

The Warlord has no clue he has an abilities by these names, all he knows is he can set up good strategic advantages for his allies when the opportunity arises.

This is simply broken down into specific abilities for the sake of the player and mechanics of battle.


----------



## Darn (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary. hehe. Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.
> 
> You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.




Not when _warlord_ deems it necessary- when _player_ deems it so. Narrative control to players. A good thing in my book.  :\

Edit: Ninja'ed! This board is so anime.


----------



## hong (Mar 15, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> When rules provoke the response of "don't think too hard" I'm thinking that's rarely a good thing.



 On the contrary, the capacity not to think is a very useful thing indeed.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You haven't been over to the Rules Forum a lot, have you?
> 
> This is not 3E. This is not 3.5. The designers are aware that there is massive discussion on the Internet about game rules. Such discussions have been going on for nearly a decade now. So, the designers should be aware that they have to be precise.




There is another way Grasshopper. Campbell say "Rules for roleplayiing games can be written with the assumption that the game is played by humans with the ability exercise judgment to ensure a fun play experience". Is it possible that the game is being written to be played and not for the express reason of enabling rules forum discussion ?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Darn said:
			
		

> Not when _warlord_ deems it necessary- when _player_ deems it so. Narrative control to players. A good thing in my book.  :\




Exactly rules/mechanics are not the physics of the world, nor the exact knowledge of the characters. It is the ability to influence and affect the narrative course of an adventure/story.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary. hehe. Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.
> 
> You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.



Honestly, I think that is what the designers have in mind.  The fact that the player chooses when the warlord's tactics succeed is no more or less outrageous than players choosing when to use action points, especially in 3E when a typical usage of an action point is to modify a die roll.  The player of a 3E cleric with the luck domain choses when the character gets lucky and gets to reroll; it's no different from the player of a 4E warlord choosing when the character's tactics pay off.


----------



## hong (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary. hehe. Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.
> 
> You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.



 You'll notice, for example, that I'm not the one having problems.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> good marital controlling power




You keep using controller. 
Warlord is a LEADER.
Please get your facts straight.

"If you're wondering how he blocks the shift,
 And other Tactics facts.
 Just repeat to yourself, It's just a game,
 I really should just relax."


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> It isn't that it is that the Warlord deems it necessary, it is that yup, for the whole fight he has been doing his best to set up good attacks, etc. Just that when the PLAYER decides to use the Per-Day, in-game the Warlord happens to find a opening to use that strategy.




If only the power did not last the entire encounter, then this explanation would work for me (it wouldn't explain the rest of how the power works, but it would be a sufficient explanation as to why Daily martial powers are Daily powers). But with Pin the Foe as an encounter long power, this explanation means that the player decides when to really screw up the laws of game world physics.

Thanks for trying though. And I don't mean that facetiously.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> It isn't that it is that the Warlord deems it necessary, it is that yup, for the whole fight he has been doing his best to set up good attacks, etc. Just that when the PLAYER decides to use the Per-Day, in-game the Warlord happens to find a opening to use that strategy.
> 
> The Warlord has no clue he has an abilities by these names, all he knows is he can set up good strategic advantages for his allies when the opportunity arises.
> 
> This is simply broken down into specific abilities for the sake of the player and mechanics of battle.



This- I can see how this is not enough for some people (I am a recovering simulationist) - but it is good enough for me.
And I love the narrative control thing, it is how we play now, and 4E will be better for this. I hope


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If only the power did not last the entire encounter, then this explanation would work for me (it wouldn't explain the rest of how the power works, but it would be a sufficient explanation as to why Daily martial powers are Daily powers). But with Pin the Foe as an encounter long power, this explanation means that the player decides when to really screw up the laws of game world physics.
> 
> Thanks for trying though. And I don't mean that facetiously.




Well it lasts till the other PCs cannot maintain their position on the target, ie: they stopped pinning the target. So I think this is simply a continuation, of it. 

All you really need to say, is the Warlord hampered the targets ability to dodge multiple attacks when shifting and thats it, whenever it gets pinned it can't shift since it cannot dodge the multiple attacks when it tries to move.


----------



## Mortellan (Mar 15, 2008)

Hmm, I wonder, should PCs led by a Warlord be called a Warband? And do the other PCs have to have the same alignment or faction as their Warlord?


----------



## Bishmon (Mar 15, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> There is another way Grasshopper. Campbell say "Rules for roleplayiing games can be written with the assumption that the game is played by humans with the ability exercise judgment to ensure a fun play experience". Is it possible that the game is being written to be played and not for the express reason of enabling rules forum discussion ?



The less intuitive the rules get, the more problems players are going to have imagining how the rules fit into the broader narrative. And considering this is a game played mostly in one's imagination, that's an issue.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not according to what we have so far.



Huh, I should have been more careful.

I still don't consider it significantly different/more powerful/more WSoD breaking than the Fighter's "attack someone shifting" powers.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not in tactically intelligent games. There, one would take a mook out with it to accomplish two goals simultaneously: 1) potentially reduce the number of opponents, 2) give allies a huge mobility advantage.
> 
> Sure, it might make sense to use it against stronger foes on occasion, but the typical use of it will be to change the odds of battle. And, I am not talking about the actual bag of rats exploit, rather a perfectly reasonable attack of a mook with various abilities in order to gain a significant upperhand.



I meant that since original attack does 3[W] it may not be worth using it on something that doesn't have that many hp, which means it will likely have a deacent change to miss. As a rogue you have a level one attack power that lets you do the same thing to yourself, so if people aren't using a bad of rats & AoO then a Warlord daily power which might or might not give the party a version of a rogue power, except it can only move allies adjacent to you is good, but no better than what I would expect from a daily power.

In fact, now that I look at it, we've got one power that gives everyone a basic fighter ability, and one that give everyone a basic rogue ability, huh.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> First off, we do not know if the rules allow for that. Secondly even if they did, this would mean that the ally would suddenly lose other benefits (like auras and such). So, the fact is, what we have so far is no choice, no save. Maybe another rule allows allies to ignore this type of thing. Maybe not.



Pff, play a Dwarf!

More seriously, this is a game style thing, in our game, if one player starts messing around with another's character without asking them and there isn't a good IC reason, we just tell them to stop being a jerk, this might not be helpful, but I'm essentially incapable of seeing how this could be a problem.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> You keep using controller.  You really don't understand 4e.
> 
> Warlord is a LEADER.
> 
> ...




Please don't tell me what I do or do not understand. That's rude.

I only used that word since someone else did. I really could care less if he is a leader or a controller or something else. The roles have no in character importance and hence, have no bearing on a verisimilitude issue. The power sources, on the other hand, do.

As for my level of relaxing, what does it matter to you if I discuss this type of rule design and am not a fan boy about it? And what does that have to do with the topic?


----------



## hong (Mar 15, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> The less intuitive the rules get, the more problems players are going to have imagining how the rules fit into the broader narrative.




"The warlord inspires and directs his companions on the battlefield by exercising his tactical insight to spot weaknesses in his enemies' defenses."

I got your narrative right there.


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Exactly rules/mechanics are not the physics of the world, nor the exact knowledge of the characters. It is the ability to influence and affect the narrative course of an adventure/story.




I agree that rules mechanics are not the physics of the world, nor do I think that characters have exact knowledge of how they work.  And, I like rules (like action points) which allow players to influence the narrative of the story.  I am also, incidentally, extremely excited about 4e, because I write the story and the world and mostly want rules mechanics out of WotC that make a fun combat sub-game.

But, I also have to agree that the powers need an in-game rationalization.  In the story, a power is something the /character/ does.  I don't mind the gamist per-day limitation.  Why doesn't he do it again?  No opening, I guess.  Maybe too tired.  But I need to know what the character is doing, and that needs to be closely related to the effect.  Otherwise, you get these weird effects like "I must heal my friend, so I guess I'll hit this guy..."

I'm not sure I can point to any one power that is impossible to justify in the majority of circumstances.  Sure, it's a little harder to explain how you are limiting the movements of the fiendish housefly warlock.  But, frankly, any story with a fiendish housefly warlock is already well into the narrative-of-the-weird, so stranger explanations may be necessary for a number of things.  

My concern is the cumulative effect of many powers that are a challenge to explain.  It just seems like there will be a lot fights that stop so the table can figure out what exactly is happening in the game world.  My guess is that some tables won't care, and other tables will get good at figuring out how to turn 4e combat into a coherent narrative.  (Maybe those later tables will avoid certain powers?)  

But, in the short term, seems like many of us are going spend more time going "huh?!?", which is hardly desirable.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well it lasts till the other PCs cannot maintain their position on the target, ie: they stopped pinning the target. So I think this is simply a continuation, of it.




It lasts until the end of the encounter. If the other PCs can re-maintain an adjacent position after losing it, then (at least according to what is written), they regain the pin.

Hence, the reason I have a problem with your "when the moons align just right" explanation. Those moons align for the entire encounter as long as PCs can move up on this target. And if that was a divine moon aligning, I would be ok with it. But, not a martial one. That's a real stretch (at least for me).


----------



## Darn (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It lasts until the end of the encounter. If the other PCs can re-maintain an adjacent position after losing it, then (at least according to what is written), they regain the pin.




The warlord does something that shifts the momentum of combat against this particular foe, and with rare display of coordination the party keeps her/him/it/wot? under pressure through the rest of the battle, even if the poor thing occasionally manages to disengage.

Works for me. Guess I'm lucky that way


----------



## Kishin (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Please don't tell me what I do or do not understand. That's rude.
> 
> I only used that word since someone else did. I really could care less if he is a leader or a controller or something else. The roles have no in character importance and hence, have no bearing on a verisimilitude issue. The power sources, on the other hand, do.
> 
> As for my level of relaxing, what does it matter to you if I discuss this type of rule design and am not a fan boy about it? And what does that have to do with the topic?




Welcome to D&D. Simulationism isn't exactly top priority here.

Then again, I don't see difficulty rationalizing and describing combat manuevers and Warlord commands.

But that's just me.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It lasts until the end of the encounter. If the other PCs can re-maintain an adjacent position after losing it, then (at least according to what is written), they regain the pin.
> 
> Hence, the reason I have a problem with your "when the moons align just right" explanation. Those moons align for the entire encounter as long as PCs can move up on this target. And if that was a divine moon aligning, I would be ok with it. But, not a martial one. That's a real stretch (at least for me).




Oh I agree that it wouldn't make much sense if it was simply positioning that caused it. But that is why I went on to describe how in the initial strike the Warlord someone hindered the targets ability to shift/dodge while moving against multiple foes (this could also be seen as the "moons aligning" since in-game this hindrance could be the spark to make the Warlord realize he can position his companions to the disadvantage of the target).

This hindrance could come in a variety of things, slicing open a tendon, sand in the eyes, kick to the groin, etc... Which actually now that I think about it could make for a fun dirty-fighting Warlord.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> PC 1: "We've been doing this superior position maneuver for 20 years now. Tell me again why we cannot do it without the Warlord's help."
> 
> PC 2: "Laws of Physics. We are merely pawns of the Warlord. And he is a pawn of the great god Daily."
> 
> ...



Player 1: "We've been playing baseball on this team for 5 years now, hundreds of games, and all of us in the outfield have seen what the pitcher does.  Why can't we just take over?"

Player 2: "Laws of physics.  We can't throw fastballs.  Or last for six innings, for that matter."

Player 1: "Oh, come on!"

Player 2: "Yup. Fact of life."


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> But, in the short term, seems like many of us are going spend more time going "huh?!?", which is hardly desirable.




And that's the cruz of the issue.

It is not that some of us are trying to be difficult or obtuse or anti-4E. Many of the people who have these disconnects are excited to try 4E.

It's that game mechanics without good rationals is cool for the sake of cool, and for no reason that lends itself to a good believability framework. And that framework is needed by some of us to get a good mental handle on some aspects of the game.

It's great that some people can ignore it or even embrace it. Some of us have different horses in the race (i.e. different motivations for playing, different ways to have fun, different design elements that suspend our level of disbelief, etc.).

For me, the main thing is plausibility. The 1 1 1 diagonal rule, or the insta-heal overnight, or some of these martial powers will become bothersome.

I really don't think I'll have much of an issue with the arcane powers or the divine powers (magical elements can be weird and non-plausible by definition) or racial abilities or any of that stuff.

Just the mundane stuff not being mundane.

And, I do not really have an issue with mundane stuff becoming fantastical by high level. The Rogue has so much skill in avoiding traps that he pulls off Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon moves at level 20.

I just have a real plausibility or believability issue with it at level one.

Mundane stuff (like martial powers) should be relatively believable, explanable, and mundane at low level. And I don't mean mundane as in boring, I mean mundane as in "it can happen in the real world with real martial fighting techniques".


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Which is why I am hoping WoTC will invest time in Lexicons and general Combat-Fluff for each class. It may not give fluff for each power, but it will give the players/DM the general feel for how each power works in-game thanks to each classes combat fluff.

That could solve some of the "huh" problems.


----------



## tomtill (Mar 15, 2008)

*imagination*

I can't imagine why there's so much trouble imagining rationales behind some of the powers available to the players to help narrate the character's activities.

I mean, we are talking about adding role playing to tactical battle scenes!

What could be better than that?

This is a game about.....IMAGINATION!

The explanation for a particular power does not have to be the same each time. 

The event occurs by the rules. 

It's up to the player/DM to narrate the description of the event--this is role playing. 

Does the warlord use his superior tactical skills to expose an opening? Does he inspire his allies, intimidate his foes? Does he cause an (abstracted) grievous wound hampering the opponent for the encounter? Yes! As needed or desired by the narrative.

The powers ARE gamist: ALL rules are, by definition. It's a game.

The narrative can be as gamist or as simulationist as your table desires.

Want it more simulationist? Use your IMAGINATION to come up with a suitable narrative.

Remember it's a game about IMAGINATION!

Challenged? Ask for help.

Contrary by nature? Unwilling to suspend disbelief, even for a(n otherwise) really good movie/book/game? Somehow convinced that another game system is more "real"?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Well, you know.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 15, 2008)

Do we know what it means for a power to be "reliable?"  I don't think I've seen it before...or if I have, I didn't notice it until now.

Anyway, about the warlord.  I don't like it...too much emphasis on moving other creatures around, too flashy, not front-loaded enough, lame power names.  I want a class that will make an enemy bleed from the ears, not move him around the room.  Now, I may not like it, but that doesn't make it a "bad" class.  After all, there are plenty of award-winning movies out there that I can't stand, and I still have no idea why Justin Timberlake's music is so popular. (shrug)

If I had to rank the characters in order of most-to-least favorite, based solely on what we have seen so far, I would rank them thusly:

Rogue (most favorite so far)
Fighter
Ranger
Cleric
Paladin
Wizard
Warlock
Warlord (least favorite so far)

Doubtlessly, I will be revising this list once my 4E PHB comes in.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 15, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Do we know what it means for a power to be "reliable?"  I don't think I've seen it before...or if I have, I didn't notice it until now.



It means it's not expended on a miss. You can keep trying until you hit with it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Reliable means that even if you miss that Daily Power isn't gone. So a fighter can miss with his Reliable Daily 5-times in a row then hit on the 6th.

Damn ninjas.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Do we know what it means for a power to be "reliable?"  I don't think I've seen it before...or if I have, I didn't notice it until now.



It means that it's not expended if you miss, I believe all Fighter Dailys are like that, but I could be as wrong as I'm slow, I'm very very slow.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 15, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> I want a class that will make an enemy bleed from the ears, not move him around the room.  Now, I may not like it, but that doesn't make it a "bad" class.



Okay, but that's not the point of the warlord. If you're trying to make foes bleed from the ears, this is not the class you're looking for.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Okay, but that's not the point of the warlord. If you're trying to make foes bleed from the ears, this is not the class you're looking for.



Exactly.  That's why it's at the bottom of my list.  I'm not saying it sould be at the bottom of _everyone's_ list...


----------



## FireLance (Mar 15, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm thinking everyone in the party plays a warlord and takes Iron Dragon Charge as thier daily.
> 
> That way, whenever one of us charges, we all charge!  Twenty-five attacks per round.  It will rock.



I think the limit of one immediate action per character per round will still apply, so that's a maximum of 10 attacks per round. The characters will also have to fulfill the requirements of a charge, so they must move at least 2 squares and cannot move through enemies. Depending on the current tactical situation, this may impose a further limit on the number of viable charges. Finally, the characters may provoke opportunity attacks if they are already in melee or must move through an opponent's threatened area in order to charge. While the character could still charge, he may be better off not charging.


----------



## Ten (Mar 15, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> When rules provoke the response of "don't think too hard" I'm thinking that's rarely a good thing.




Yeah, down with spell casting, it destroys verisimilitude!


----------



## Khuxan (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I only used that word since someone else did.




Actually, you were the first person on this thread to use the term controller to refer to the warlord.

But I agree that you can discuss the warlord's powers without using 4E specific terminology. After all, new players to the game aren't going to know a leader from a controller either - and yet they're still going to have doubts about the powers.


----------



## Vomax (Mar 15, 2008)

In general the shift in 4E seems to be away from "this is exactly what takes place when you use this action" to "this is the result of using this action".  So rather than describe exactly _how_ Pin the Foe works, you just know what happens when it works and the power lets you make it work once per day.  Cause and effect have changed from being both contained in the rules; now cause is in the hands of the players and the DM, whereas the rules deal mostly with effect.

Certainly there is only so much you can make work on your own.  For example, I'm not sure how a power available to all fighters that, say, encased the target in a block of ice would work.  You just have to trust that the designers are working with believability in mind.

I can see how this doesn't sit well with people who enjoy a finer level of granularity, but I honestly can't complain that the designers wanted to make things cooler simply for the sake of making them cooler.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 15, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It is?  Since when?
> 
> And... for the record, I've lived in the States for 29 years out of 32, and while I've heard the term, I have no idea what it actually does.  I can only assume it doesn't guard points, since both teams usually get around 100, and only the last minute or so actually matters.




Definitely not a game that is JUST about the last minute.  But, you have to watch many games before you see the difference.

Anyway, the point guard (if they are traditional in nature) guides the team strategy.  They can score points, but more often they provide an assist to another player to score points.  They have the best "court vision" of any position in the game, trying to know at all times where everyone on their team is, where all the other teams players are, where everyone is going, where people will block each other, and where gaps are or will open in the defense.  A good point guard can make an OK team very good (like, for example, Steve Nash did for the Phoenix Suns).  A bad point guard can make an OK team bad (like, for example, what happened to the Los Angeles Lakers for the past few years until this year - when they finally got some decent point guards going).  

In this case, I think the analogy of a Warlord to a basketball Point Guard is very apt.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Vomax said:
			
		

> In general the shift in 4E seems to be away from "this is exactly what takes place when you use this action" to "this is the result of using this action".  So rather than describe exactly _how_ Pin the Foe works, you just know what happens when it works and the power lets you make it work once per day.  Cause and effect have changed from being both contained in the rules; now cause is in the hands of the players and the DM, whereas the rules deal mostly with effect.




Which is why it is problematic for some people.

Why can a Fighter now walk through a brick wall? This power is no more explanable than Pin the Foe, it's just drawing the line at a different place in the sand.



			
				Vomax said:
			
		

> I can see how this doesn't sit well with people who enjoy a finer level of granularity, but I honestly can't complain that the designers wanted to make things cooler simply for the sake of making them cooler.




Come on! The word "cool" shows up 217 times in Races and Classes. "Cool" is the new "Fun".


----------



## Kobu (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And what if the "adjacent ally" doesn't want to slide? No save? No choice?




That bit throws up a red flag for me. The power as written gives the player running the warlord control over other people's characters. That's exactly what a lot of people feared when they heard the name.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If only the power did not last the entire encounter, then this explanation would work for me (it wouldn't explain the rest of how the power works, but it would be a sufficient explanation as to why Daily martial powers are Daily powers). But with Pin the Foe as an encounter long power, this explanation means that the player decides when to really screw up the laws of game world physics.
> 
> Thanks for trying though. And I don't mean that facetiously.



I agree that the long duration of Pin the Foe is nonintuitive, and that the nonintuitive (from a story perspective) powers can make it more challenging to role play combats and to suspend disbelief.

My best guess is that Pin the Foe typically represents the warlord figuring out how a particular enemy defends itself when it shifts and then showing his comrades how to nullify that defense, at least when two of them threaten the enemy.  It's not about physics, it's about tactics at a level beneath the level of abstraction used by the game mechanics.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 15, 2008)

Vomax said:
			
		

> In general the shift in 4E seems to be away from "this is exactly what takes place when you use this action" to "this is the result of using this action".  So rather than describe exactly _how_ Pin the Foe works, you just know what happens when it works and the power lets you make it work once per day.  Cause and effect have changed from being both contained in the rules; now cause is in the hands of the players and the DM, whereas the rules deal mostly with effect.




I should hope not. That would make the game rather inaccessible for new players. I don't see how any new player could hope to understand what is happening without good descriptions.

It also puts an unnecessary burden on everyone at the game table to figure out what is really going on--unless you are strictly looking at the game as a very abstract board game rather than an RPG.


----------



## Vomax (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Which is why it is problematic for some people.
> 
> Why can a Fighter now walk through a brick wall? This power is no more explanable than Pin the Foe, it's just drawing the line at a different place in the sand.
> 
> ...




You're right about the line in the sand, and I guess the developers drew it where they felt the greatest number of people would be comfortable.  Personally I like most of what I've seen, apart from the cleric and warlock powers which seem to be damage + something more or less random.  Hopefully the PHB will paint a better picture of the classes as a whole that makes the powers easier to understand.

And as for "cool", well, sometimes things are just cool.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

The way I see the warlord's power is as if he was the puppet master and everybody on the battlefield are his subject.

IMO, it would have been perfect for a Psionic power source not a Martial one.


----------



## Vomax (Mar 15, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> I should hope not. That would make the game rather inaccessible for new players. I don't see how any new player could hope to understand what is happening without good descriptions.
> 
> It also puts an unnecessary burden on everyone at the game table to figure out what is really going on--unless you are strictly looking at the game as a very abstract board game rather than an RPG.




If you're used to 3E then it is a big shift, but if you're just starting it seems like coming up with your own descriptions for your abilities is actually going to help you get into character better.  For example, the trip rules in the 3rd edition rulebook paint a pretty clear picture of what happens when you go to trip someone.  Whereas a power that simply results in your opponent winding up knocked over leaves it up to you to decide how that happened.  Nothing was stopping you from thinking of it differently in 3E, but the way it was written certainly indicated a certain order of operations, so to speak.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> PC 1: "We've been doing this superior position maneuver for 20 years now. Tell me again why we cannot do it without the Warlord's help."
> 
> PC 2: "Laws of Physics. We are merely pawns of the Warlord. And he is a pawn of the great god Daily."
> 
> ...




PC 1: "We've watched the rogue gut monsters when he flanks for 20 years now. Tell me again why we can't gut monsters when we flank?"

PC 2: "Laws of Physics. He started out as a street urchin, is skinny, uses a tiny weapon and wears barely little armor."

PC 1: "Oh come on!"

PC 2: "Yup. Fact of life."


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> I agree that the long duration of Pin the Foe is nonintuitive, and that the nonintuitive (from a story perspective) powers can make it more challenging to role play combats and to suspend disbelief.
> 
> My best guess is that Pin the Foe typically represents the warlord figuring out how a particular enemy defends itself when it shifts and then showing his comrades how to nullify that defense, at least when two of them threaten the enemy.  It's not about physics, it's about tactics at a level beneath the level of abstraction used by the game mechanics.




And, this is a semi-reasonable explanation (not totally since it means that the opponent is never able to change his defensive shift mechanism to mimic some other defender that he sees or has seen in the past, i.e. there is no save).

But, it's more of a problem that it takes 6 forum pages for someone to come up with a quasi-reasonable rational though. It's a real issue if a lot of powers are this non-intuitive.


In fact, I think you've allowed me to sum up one of my issues with this.

This power screams at me that the designers went from game mechanics to fluff, not the other way around. It seems likely that they came up with an idea how to modify game mechanics (in this case, the Warlord appears to modify movement capabilities with some of his powers and so they decided to nerf enemy shifting), then went searching for a rational why a Warlord could do that.

I think the powers would be more intuitive and logical if the fluff idea was thought of first, and then the most appropriate game mechanic was applied to it. Whether this actually happened for this power or not I do not know, it's just so non-intuitive that it seems very likely.

I've felt this way with a lot of the latter splat books like Bo9S and PHB II. A lot of the feats and maneuvers and such in these books follow a general theme, but they appear to be crunch ideas looking for fluff explanations.


----------



## physics_ninja (Mar 15, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> My best guess is that Pin the Foe typically represents the warlord figuring out how a particular enemy defends itself when it shifts and then showing his comrades how to nullify that defense, at least when two of them threaten the enemy.




I like that explanation.  At least it explains why the power continues to work if the Warlord decides to run like a Paladin.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> It also puts an unnecessary burden on everyone at the game table to figure out what is really going on--unless you are strictly looking at the game as a very abstract board game rather than an RPG.



Actually, there were three different reactions to ToB style powers in my group(well, four, the fourth being "I don't really care either way"). Mine was "hey, nice options for fighters", my old GM's was "those are stupid/munchkiny/don't make sense", the third one was to use the fact that characters actually get different abilities every round to help create a dynamic description of combat, one which helps to really move the game away from two guys standing in front of each other and hacking at each other.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that describing exactly what happens in the gameworld, what the rules happen to represent _in this particular case_ is for many people the very definition of what makes roleplaying different and worthwhile, and ToB/4e style maneuvers/exploits can help make that more interesting, if not easier.


----------



## Vomax (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This power screams at me that the designers went from game mechanics to fluff, not the other way around. It seems likely that they came up with an idea how to modify game mechanics (in this case, the Warlord appears to modify movement capabilities with some of his powers and so they decided to nerf enemy shifting), then went searching for a rational why a Warlord could do that.
> 
> I think the powers would be more intuitive and logical if the fluff idea was thought of first, and then the most appropriate game mechanic was applied to it. Whether this actually happened for this power or not I do not know, it's just so non-intuitive that it seems very likely.
> 
> I've felt this way with a lot of the latter splat books like Bo9S and PHB II. A lot of the feats and maneuvers and such in these books follow a general theme, but they appear to be crunch ideas looking for fluff explanations.





I don't completely disagree, as some of the powers don't appear to have much basis in reality, but isn't fluff->mechanics really what led to spellcasters being so overpowered in the previous edition?  _Of course_ the guy who can shoot lightning from his fingertips and fly around the room is going to beat the guy who waddles around and hits people with his sword, but it's not really fair for the sword waddler.

Ideally going the other way will result in a much more balanced game, though that will apparently come at the cost of easily understood or "realistic" abilities.  I suppose, in the end, it's one of those things that's not going to have an answer that will satisfy everyone.  People looking to play a game will want numbers that work whereas people looking to experience a story will want things to make sense (assuming a reasonable suspension of disbelief).  Not that you can't have both, but it ain't easy.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, why can they not coordinate if the Warlord is back at the inn? Why can they not do this every encounter? Every round? Every opponent?



Again I must raise my concern that 4E is going to be really badly received because it demands imagination of gamers.

In 1E, it was explicitly stated in the rules that the roll to hit during a round was meant to represent the best attack out of a number of attempts during a short period (actually a minute). Later editions appeared to focus on one roll per action. This focus on specific action may have encouraged players to think of each action in very stark terms.

In 4E, it seems that the game designers once again expect that the players will imagine that their characters are doing their best in their attacks and their tactics, more than simply what the single role suggests. However, past editions may have damaged the imagination of the standard D&D player to the point where this edition cannot find a favourable reception.

The D&D rules appear to limit the effectiveness of the attempts of certain combat manoeuvres based on the demands of the narrative of the game. Unfortunately, the D&D player may be demanding a simple game-play mechanic that does not rely on imagination.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

I am somewhat concerned we are seeing martial powers not getting the respect they deserve.  In particular, that the class abilities of the Warlord, the martial leader, are being questioned in importance as something that any party should manage if it is at all possible.  If a coordinated group can prevent shifting with tactics, why do they need a warlord to do so?  Sometimes it seems as if only explicitly magical powers get any respect as abilities that can be modeled by the system and kept exclusive and powerful.  If the only way you can imagine a PC is able to coordinate a party's attacks and movements to have powerful effects on the overall flow of D&D's tactical combat system is to have magical powers, then I think you're going to have to declare powers such as Pin the Foe magical.  Frankly, I think it's a bit disappointing, since it seems to indicate that the scope for non-magical abilities in many people's minds is very limited.  I just suspect that if the Warlord character were a Battle Caster with *spells* that allowed all of these tricks, rather than exploits that result from non-magical tactical ability, we wouldn't be having much of this discussion.  This is going to come up again and again, I think, as the designers come up with broad ways for martial characters to compete on the same field as spellcasters.  

Every martial character's powers are vulnerable to the question of "why can't everyone do this"?  If the only way to get respect is to have magical powers, then we should just go the Earthdawn route and have all of the classes have explicit magical powers.  Then the Warlord can have magical battle affecting powers that manage exciting game effects and not have to constantly defend these effects from the charges that they seem too magical.  The Warlord's powers are quite straightforward, he has the ability to coordinate attacks, movement and the actions of his allies to allow for additional attacks and movement and actions during combat.  In the limits of D&Ds turn based combat system, the designers are modeling this with the powers we've seen.

(Edited to remove controller-leader mix-up)


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 15, 2008)

I like how people are going after the Pin one, easily the least-objectionable (fluff-wise) of these powers.

How, oh how could they ever justify the warlord denying an opponent the ability to "shift"? Easy! The warlord just smacks the opponent really hard in the shin/kneecap/foot, making him/her/it move more gingerly. The enemy can still move around, but they're limping too much to move agilely and avoid OAs.

The when-anyone-attacks-an-adjacent-ally-gets-to-shift-unless-you-miss- in-which-case-you-designate-someone-who-gets-to-let-his-allies-shift power is MUCH weirder. Make fun of that for a while.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 15, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Again I must raise my concern that 4E is going to be really badly received because it demands imagination of gamers.




There's a big difference between imagination, which all RPGs require, and complete suspension of disbelief, which only more contrived rules require. Everyone who plays an RPG is using their imagination, whether it's imagining your character, the castle he's exploring, or the orcs he's fighting. Labeling anyone who is opposed to a rule in 4th edition as lacking or being opposed to imagination is not only condescending and rude, it's simply not true.

The previous poster nailed it. Some games start with imagination, fluff, story, drama and then translate those things into mechanics. The result are rules which are usually pretty well-founded in their universe. Since what characters can do is based upon drama and imagination, the resulting rules tend to be believable. Others always takes mechanics first, and often don't even bother to try to translate that into drama. The result is that what the characters do often makes little to no sense from a dramatic point of view. It's not about imagining it, it's about simply accepting that outcome whether or not it's believable. 4th edition, unfortunately, seems to have been born of the latter approach to game design.

And to those who say "magic isn't realistic, so nothing else has to be realistic either", this really is entirely missing the point. No, magic is not realistic, neither are orcs or elves. But those things can be believable, whether or not they are realistic. Realism and believability are two very different things. Many games go to great lengths to explain how and why magic works in their setting. It's often believable, even though it is obviously not real. And those are the magic systems I tend enjoy the most. In D&D, with the old vancian style magic, it was mechanics first, fluff last. The result was a magic system that left many who saw it thinking to themselves "I can't imagine that if magic were real it would work this way." 

And the various explanations that they came up with over the life of the game were quite contrived. From 2nd edition's memorize and forget system to 3rd editions "partially cast in advance", stockpiled spells explanation, the whole system really felt artificial and, dare I say, lame. I think the lack of believability around vancian magic is perhaps the main reason it was so unpopular. From a mechanics standpoint, it worked great. It helped balance magic and provide alot of strategic elements to playing a spellcaster. But it just didn't make much sense. Ironically, 4th edition has largely eliminated vancian-style magic, but lost alot of believability in other areas.


----------



## StarFyre (Mar 15, 2008)

*yuck*

this gives more examples of what I see as 'artificial tactics'.

When I say artificial, I mean tactics that aren't really true tactics, but abilities (that don't really  have any reason to do what they do) that force a situation that shouldn't be.

FOr example, if the Warlords' powers were truly 'magical' then the 'rules' of magic (no rules really by definition, rules are done as per the individual world, game, book , etc), could indicate when the warlord attacks, magical energy comes from his brain and forces stuff to move around.   fine. he becomes a type of swordsage character WITH magical powers.

THe wayit's written, it doesnt sound like magical, yet he can force people to move it sounds like?  OR stop a creature from doing something?

We currently use 'of turn' movements as a house rule. the way we do it is if you delay your action to see whathappens, then every init. segment after that, i allow players to move around, shuffle, etc to give a more flowing/real life type of battle.  

The warlord abilities appear to force this.   

Like Joel's opinion; i have told my players, stuff like this (even in 2e or 3e where it existed) will work on humanoids and ogre sized stuff, but don't expect to hit demogorgon, or an ancient great wyrm that is 400 ft long or the dreamer (spelljammer 30 mile long monster) and stun it.  

Example of real tactics that we had in the last dragonbattle I DMed...

THe dragon was massive...it was in the lair...players tried researching ahead of time in the towns how to deal with it.  they got nets of dark sun giant hair (we play planescape, so almost anything can be bought in sigil..only city i allow more thna a scroll or potion to be purchased) and boulders that were reduced attached with stoneshape and some very good drawing work to explain what they doing.

They entered the lair (some stuff happned here but won't bother with it).

the dragon woke up..it saw them.  Now the key to a dragon..Don't let it get into the air....

the dragon roared at them, and during dialogue, a player charged..the dragon charged it and used breathe as it moved forward. players dodged to the side.  outside though, players were upthe slope of the mountain..with the nets and boulders. the dragon just charged right thru the players in the cave (at it's size, sorry..u AIN'T stopping it regardless unless u got a wall of force or a cannon)...the dragon charged out, knocking 2 players down and trampling one...(i give large creatures extra abilities that make sense for them). however, outside, players dropped the net. the dragon moved partially but it got it's wing and hind leg.  the dragon ended up failing save on a bad rol of mine and fell to a lower ledge area..causing damage. the dragon started to try and rip thru it. arrows and spells came at it.

fighters, and wizards started targeting explosive spells and grenade like stuff INTOthe mountain to bring part of it down on the dragon. 
However, the dragon used a breathe to melt thru the netting... the players engaged it. the dragon grabbed one of them and tore his body in half (we use a special critical hit chart and some 'attack types' can cause auto criticals) and tossed it at other party members....

at this point, the dragon took to the air and rained some specific dragon spells down onthe party but it stayed out of range of most stuff....

(Players did end up winning but won't getinto all of it).

THAT is how, IMHO, you run a cinematic, tactical, beautiful combat...almost all our fights are done to this detail level. 

I do like many aspects of 4E, but alot of it also turns me away.  I'vegot so much house rules on the go right now, in planning stages, some done, etc to bring what we don't like up to par.

I can see the warlord's powers being changed to make more 'sense' for what he is and to allow for such truly cinematic battles..not forced tactics that give the impression of cinematics.

Sanjay


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Mar 15, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I am somewhat concerned we are seeing martial powers not getting the respect they deserve.  In particular, that the class abilities of the Warlord, the martial controller, are being questioned in importance as something that any party should manage if it is at all possible.  If a coordinated group can prevent shifting with tactics, why do they need a warlord to do so?  Sometimes it seems as if only explicitly magical powers get any respect as abilities that can be modeled by the system and kept exclusive and powerful.  If the only way you can imagine a PC is able to coordinate a party's attacks and movements to have powerful effects on the overall flow of D&D's tactical combat system is to have magical powers, then I think you're going to have to declare powers such as Pin the Foe magical.  Frankly, I think it's a bit disappointing, since it seems to indicate that the scope for non-magical abilities in many people's minds is very limited.  I just suspect that if the Warlord character were a Battle Caster with *spells* that allowed all of these tricks, rather than exploits that result from non-magical tactical ability, we wouldn't be having much of this discussion.  This is going to come up again and again, I think, as the designers come up with broad ways for martial characters to compete on the same field as spellcasters.
> 
> Every martial character's powers are vulnerable to the question of "why can't everyone do this"?  If the only way to get respect is to have magical powers, then we should just go the Earthdawn route and have all of the classes have explicit magical powers.  Then the Warlord can have magical battle affecting powers that manage exciting game effects and not have to constantly defend these effects from the charges that they seem too magical.  The Warlord's powers are quite straightforward, he has the ability to coordinate attacks, movement and the actions of his allies to allow for additional attacks and movement and actions during combat.  In the limits of D&Ds turn based combat system, the designers are modeling this with the powers we've seen.



THANK YOU.  

To expand upon that, if every martial character's powers are vulnerable to the question of "why can't everyone do this?", then why even differentiate martial classes?  Heck, why even differentiate classes at all??

Why is the ranger better with a bow than most everyone else?  Why does only the fighter get to stop people from moving when he hits with OA's?  Why does only the rogue get sneak attack?  The same answer to those questions answers why only warlords can position their allies in the ways we see in their powers:  because that is what they focus their training on.  Just as rangers focus training with a bow, and rogues focus on being sneaky and striking when least expected.  

If advanced tactical maneuvering and combat techniques are simple enough that one can simply "pick it up" through pure observation, why can't we all be Jackie Chan or Tony Jaa or Napoleon?  

To broaden the point, why can't every wizard do what a warlord does?  Why isn't every cleric as sneaky as a rogue then?  If you want to justify it by saying that your characters are heroes and exceptionally above average, then why can't every fighter sling spells or pray with the same potency as clerics?  They've certainly been around them long enough, had the time to observe enough magic usage that, if advanced combat techniques are truly that easy to master, they should know how to be a spell slinger by now, right?

I think the design philosophy behind the warlord powers (and every martial character's powers, and the powers system in general) is excellent.  It takes time, practice, dedication, and a knack to pull off the things that these heroes do.  It's not just something you can watch 1000 times and then be able to do yourself.  And as soon as you bring "well, then, I practice it" into the picture, you're talking multiclass training - spending time developing the talents of another class, instead of advancing in your original field of expertise.  

I guess the gist of what I'm trying to get at here is this:  just because something is non-magical doesn't mean that it is easy, or even that any given person can accomplish the feat if they practice enough.  They are extraordinary, and difficult.


----------



## Dark080matter (Mar 15, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I am somewhat concerned we are seeing martial powers not getting the respect they deserve.  In particular, that the class abilities of the Warlord, the martial controller, are being questioned in importance as something that any party should manage if it is at all possible.  If a coordinated group can prevent shifting with tactics, why do they need a warlord to do so?  Sometimes it seems as if only explicitly magical powers get any respect as abilities that can be modeled by the system and kept exclusive and powerful.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Warlord's powers are quite straightforward, he has the ability to coordinate attacks, movement and the actions of his allies to allow for additional attacks and movement and actions during combat.  In the limits of D&Ds turn based combat system, the designers are modeling this with the powers we've seen.




*This.*  Just say no to attention-hogging Wizards.  Better still, let's nerf-bat them all into Evokers and scatter all of their ridiculously multi-focused utility belt abilities to the four corners of the wind (ie. an actual Illusionist class, actual Necromancer, give Psion his own unique playground of mind-control etc.) so that all the classes get similar amounts of cool impressive, mechanically interesting abilities.

I like the Wizard and his arcane buddies, really I do.  But then again I like other classes too. In 3.5,  I had to consistently multi-class and feat dip out of 3 or 4 different books just so I could have a warrior-archetype who felt like he had 1/3 of the variety of battlefield options of a similar-level spellcaster (Bo9s of course made this task more manageable).  And then of course it sucked due to lack of focus!

The argument that I've seen made that "well it's simple really, you should just pick a Fighter if you want to roll dice and not think too hard about things, and a Wizard if you don't mind massive bookkeeping.  We won't look down on you at all, sir." always felt a little disingenuous to me.  So I'm happy to see what was begun with Bo9s come to completion with 4e setting things straight on this score.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

I'm wondering, will we see the comeback of disciplines a-la Bo9S in 4E? Or will it be just name of powers that sound like Bo9S maneuvers?


----------



## JesterOC (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yes they are.  It isn't required that ALL movement be prevented.  On the dragons' turn it may desire to shift and that movement is prevented.  It prevents movement.




It does not prevent movement, the dragon can move if it wants to. It prevents a special type of movement.  A shift allows the target to move and not provoke an attack of operatunity.  It can't shift but it can move. If the DM decides not to move the target that is a tactical descision.  You can't claim that just because one particular special case type of movement is not allowed that no movement is allowed.   



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Are you houseruling already?  Cause I don't see that in the article.




No he isn't.  Since the target can't use shift to step away from attackers, then it must use a move action.  And using a move action will  provoke an AoO.  The target now must make a tactical choice, move and get exposed to extra hits, or not and deal with the current situation.  This could induce some targets to stay put (thus being pinned) or they will risk the AoO's try to better it's position.  Either way it is a cool effect and will be fun for the party to pull off.  

JesterOC


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 15, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I am somewhat concerned we are seeing martial powers not getting the respect they deserve.  In particular, that the class abilities of the Warlord, the martial controller, are being questioned in importance as something that any party should manage if it is at all possible.  If a coordinated group can prevent shifting with tactics, why do they need a warlord to do so?  Sometimes it seems as if only explicitly magical powers get any respect as abilities that can be modeled by the system and kept exclusive and powerful.  If the only way you can imagine a PC is able to coordinate a party's attacks and movements to have powerful effects on the overall flow of D&D's tactical combat system is to have magical powers, then I think you're going to have to declare powers such as Pin the Foe magical.  Frankly, I think it's a bit disappointing, since it seems to indicate that the scope for non-magical abilities in many people's minds is very limited.  I just suspect that if the Warlord character were a Battle Caster with *spells* that allowed all of these tricks, rather than exploits that result from non-magical tactical ability, we wouldn't be having much of this discussion.  This is going to come up again and again, I think, as the designers come up with broad ways for martial characters to compete on the same field as spellcasters.
> 
> Every martial character's powers are vulnerable to the question of "why can't everyone do this"?  If the only way to get respect is to have magical powers, then we should just go the Earthdawn route and have all of the classes have explicit magical powers.  Then the Warlord can have magical battle affecting powers that manage exciting game effects and not have to constantly defend these effects from the charges that they seem too magical.  The Warlord's powers are quite straightforward, he has the ability to coordinate attacks, movement and the actions of his allies to allow for additional attacks and movement and actions during combat.  In the limits of D&Ds turn based combat system, the designers are modeling this with the powers we've seen.




Very good post, and I agree with you, but I feel compelled to point out that the warlord is the martial leader, *not the martial controller.*


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 15, 2008)

A very interesting preview. I cannot wait for the first couple of players who choose a warlord and come up with interesting stories about his background, training and powers....   

... wait, i´m doing something wrong, do i?

Ahem.

Ah...

Verisimilitude!


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

It first look, I was kind of skeptical about the warlords' powers. But after reading the fluff text many times, it is now making more sense. Another important factor is that these are daily powers, and the third power is a level 9 warlord attack.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> fighters, and wizards started targeting explosive spells and grenade like stuff INTOthe mountain to bring part of it down on the dragon.



Your description does sounds very exciting, although I do wonder where exactly the non-spellcasters' class abilities came into play.  It sounds as though they were relegated to managing nets, grenades and making basic attacks.  You specifically mention that the wizards got to use their iconic spellcasting abilities to aid in defeating the dragon.  Did the fighters get a chance beyond making basic attacks?


----------



## Derren (Mar 15, 2008)

I agree with KarinsDad and Falling Icicle. This powers are completely unbelievable.

Why can a Warlord pin down an enemy only once a day? Why remains the enemy pinned down for the whole combat even if the warlord moves away after applying this ability and this enemy is not threatened by any PC for several turns?
Why can the warlord forcibly move his allies around? How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I agree with KarinsDad and Falling Icicle. This powers are completely unbelievable.
> 
> Why can a Warlord pin down an enemy only once a day? Why remains the enemy pinned down for the whole combat even if the warlord moves away after applying this ability and this enemy is not threatened by any PC for several turns?
> Why can the warlord forcibly move his allies around? How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?




Why can a wizard cast arcane spells? Why can a warlock cast eldrish blast, why can a rogue sneak attack, why can a monk stun, why why why why???

Training!

PS: yes, I know that we have no idea if the monk can stun in 4e, I just thought it fit well tematically or something.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I agree with KarinsDad and Falling Icicle. This powers are completely unbelievable.
> 
> Why can a Warlord pin down an enemy only once a day? Why remains the enemy pinned down for the whole combat even if the warlord moves away after applying this ability and this enemy is not threatened by any PC for several turns?
> Why can the warlord forcibly move his allies around? How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?



If you truly believe that these abilities are outside of your comfort zone for non-magical abilities, then I suggest that you take the Warlord class, rename it the Battle Sage and make it an arcane class.  Then you can use the Pin the Foe and similar abilities as magic without having to strain your suspension of disbelief in how these things can be accomplished by a martial character in D&D abstract combat system.


----------



## Imp (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Why can the warlord forcibly move his allies around? How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?



It's very easy to forget this because there isn't cause to look at it very closely 99% of the time, but initiative and turn order in D&D is a total and complete abstraction for the sake of playing a game and, in all of its implementations, is even more of a hash than hit points are, wrt "reality". It's a way of making a giant flurry of near-simultaneous actions make sense and not very much more.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I agree with KarinsDad and Falling Icicle. This powers are completely unbelievable.



I'm sure you've heard all this before, but what the hell.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Why can a Warlord pin down an enemy only once a day?



This is a complaint about the nature of the martial power system, not these particular abilities. The narrative, player controlled yet not necessarily character controlled nature of the powers has been explained several times in this thread and others.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Why remains the enemy pinned down for the whole combat even if the warlord moves away after applying this ability and this enemy is not threatened by any PC for several turns?



Because the Warlord has slashed it's tendons? Because the Warlord has shown and helped their allies find a particular weakness in that monsters movement strategies/modes? Because not being in melee for 12-18 seconds doesn't change the fact that it's still off balance from the Warlord's attack?


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Why can the warlord forcibly move his allies around?



Because they're his allies, and they trust him to make the right tactical choices.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?



Because people perform better and faster with proper guidance, support and encouragement. Maybe the Warlord planned out a bunch of possibilities with the party before hand allowing them to react to the situation faster than before, or maybe the warlord pushes them forward and onwards with a stirring speech. Pick one that's appropriate for the particular battle and have fun with it.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?



Because he knows how to get the most out of the grid the situation? Or because people don't move exactly 30 feet per round, but a bit more or less, and the warlord knows how to use that excess or usually wasted movement?


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Why can the warlord forcibly move his allies around?



Because they are his ally - you accept his commands/tactics. If you don't want to, just say no - because being allied implies sharing consent over the action. Oh, you mean that rules lawyer definition of ally?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Revinor (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> How can the warlord hasten his allies with nonmagical abilities?




I would not focus too much on 'nonmagical'. Martial is a power source. On epic levels, we will probably see fighters auto-ressurecting from death. I would rather see martial as para-magic thing (not affected by antimagic/wild magic fields/whatever) - bit supernatural.

I hope you are familiar with Dune from Frank Herbert. Is Bene Gesserit Voice a magic ability? No, it was explained as very advanced form of behaviour manipulation/hypnosis. Still, for all the practical purposes it is pure magic. I would see martial powers which are not purely action-based similar to that - something working on the level of subconscious mind, aikido-like usage of opponents momentum AND expectations. 

Obviously, you can argue that none of these should work on mindless ooze. No real momentum, no mind, most of the explanations will not fit here. But do we really want to have special case for oozes?

I personally don't have any issue with martial powers being able to influence the opponents. For me, issue is that this influence is expressed in terms of battlemap squares, not role play effects. We have to discover the meaning of the power from the game effect, instead of trying to find game result of narrative action. But I hope I'll manage.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

I would say that one change I might make in the movement rules for White Raven Onslaught is that while the attacker can pick the square that the other player can slide into, the other player doesn't *have* to move.  I think that would represent the fact that under the Warlord's direction/inspiration the party is working to manipulate the battlefield to create safe openings to move, but not remove autonomy from the other player (i.e., keep you damn dirty paws off my PC!)

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a general rule for this situation in the PH.  Something along the lines of: Veto, a PC can as a free action choose to not to take any action or move granted by another allied PCs actions.


----------



## Ian O'Rourke (Mar 15, 2008)

As the months have passed I've just come to the conclusion that if you look at 4E as a board game it all makes sense.

More specifically a competitive board game to be played at organised play events with organised play having a lot of similarities to an MMO at the table.

Everything makes sense then. This isn't a snark, it's just the way I've come to view it and it all falls into place...for me, anyway.


----------



## Ipissimus (Mar 15, 2008)

I don't have any problem with the Warlord. I do think part of the problems people are having is looking at the powers from the wrong direction.

The Warlord isn't 'mystically pushing' people around. He's using his skills and oratory ability to help his comrades, much like the Bard used to inspire competance with music. He is creating opportunities in the flow of the combat, the way leaders do on the battlefield, in such a way his fellow PCs can exploit to thier own advantage.The Warlord can do this because he has the practical strategic and communicative ability to do so where others lack the training and knowledge required to perform the task.

It's two different types of training, in real armies officers don't go to the same schools as the grunts for good reasons. Of course, this doesn't stop the officer from being a muppet, but that's a separate issue as PCs are assumed to be competant in their basic abilities.

Pin the Foe allows the Warlord to co-ordinate with another character to hem in an opponant, unless the opponant is willing to brave their steel. In effect, it eliminates the ability to get away without risk.

White Raven Onslaught represents a grand co-ordinated tactic designed to apply pressure to the enemy and control the space through increased mobility. Like a fireball in close quarters, no it's not going to be useful in every situation.

Iron Dragon Charge is all about the meat of combat: Increasing your damage output by getting more allies into combat faster.

These are personal-level tactics rather than squad-based which are the domain of the entire party. Granted, White Raven Onslaught branches into the squad-based tactics a little, but when used in a situation where the extra movement is welcome it will be a boon (I just hope that the slide isn't mandatory, that would be annoying). Each provides a distinct combat advantage in certain situations, choosing the power to fit the situation is going to be the Warlord's challenge.

The other point of 'how' can someone do this in a round, I don't have problems here either. A round is 6 seconds... 6 seconds is a long time in a fight. It doesn't take 6 seconds to make one basic attack, I even think 1 basic attack and 8 AoOs wouldn't take a trained warrior 6 seconds. Particularly not a heroic warrior. So a leader character that can use that time to better effect appeals to me.

Of course, the downside is that the Warlord will have the unique ability to get a party killed in a variety of new ways... much like a Wizard could char-broil his party with a too-nasty fireball, a Thief could cause much pain by setting off the wrong trap, etc.


----------



## med stud (Mar 15, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> A very interesting preview. I cannot wait for the first couple of players who choose a warlord and come up with interesting stories about his background, training and powers....
> 
> ... wait, i´m doing something wrong, do i?
> 
> ...



Gustavus II Adolphus (a big name in military history) started leading armies to victory by the age of 16. He was a natural talent and was raised to lead people. Alexander the Great was 33 years old _when he died_, early in his career he was easily in the agespan of a starting D&D character.

If you don't want kings for lvl 1 PCs (which I understand), there are lots of chieftans and the like who was born and raised to lead other people. There are also natural talents. Look through a history book and you will find that there are many 15 year olds who were competent leaders.

If you just make a tiny effort, you will find it well in the realm of the believable with a level 1 warlord.


----------



## Revinor (Mar 15, 2008)

Ian O'Rourke said:
			
		

> More specifically a competitive board game to be played at organised play events with organised play having a lot of similarities to an MMO at the table.




I would say that it is a board game, then CARD game and only then MMO. I see a lot more influence from Magic the Gathering then from World of Warcraft. And there is some RPG part you can do between you 'play the game' 

Jokes aside, if we were able to roleplay 2nd ed AD&D were archers where shooting 1 arrow per minute and dual classing human had to forget his previous class to not 'pollute' his experience with new one, we can manage the boardgame elements in 4th ed.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 15, 2008)

Just a quick note on movement in D&D:
From the D&D Experience, we know this:

To move on your own desire (barring any exceptional situations and powers), you need to spend a move action. This does even apply if you shift. Shifting is the type of voluntarily movement that allows you to avoid Opportunity Attacks and basically the 3E 5 ft step, except that it still costs a full move action. 

So, if a power disallows you to shift, it doesn't mean your movement is restricted. It just means that due the circumstances, you are under so much pressure that you can't move careful enough to avoid an Opportunity Attack. In a way, this power creates "difficult terrain" (shifting on difficult terrain is usually impossible in 4E, barring - as always - exceptional powers and abilities.)

Sliding is generally movement outside of your turn, typically involuntarily or forced - and does not provoke attack of opportunity. Presumable because you are not actively concentrating on your movement which lets you "drop" your guard. 
I take the Warlords White Raven Onslaught ability to mean that the movement is voluntarily, but due to the cover of a successful attack from the allied attacker, it is "safe" (does not provoke Opportunity Attacks).


My worry here is that I am not sure that the ally can choose not to move, which would make it involuntary and allies bossing each other around. Without having seen further contexts of "slide" powers, I am not sure.


----------



## Ian O'Rourke (Mar 15, 2008)

Revinor said:
			
		

> I would say that it is a board game, then CARD game and only then MMO. I see a lot more influence from Magic the Gathering then from World of Warcraft.




I'd agree with that. My MMO comment was more related to organised play.


----------



## tomtill (Mar 15, 2008)

*forced movement*

I don't know if the warlord's ally slides are forced or not. It's not clear from what I have seen so far.

However, if they are forced, in a way it is just enforced role-playing.

After all, if you have a warlord in your party, it's because you respect and trust his martial tactical abilities. You trust him to make the right decisions in the heat of battle. 

This doesn't necessarily mean that he leads the party. But in battle, you have learned to trust his instincts, and when he says jump, you jump.

That's role-playing. And, if for some reason your character has an occasional need to break his instinctual response to the warlord's commands, I'm sure the DM can adjudicate that on an exceptions based approach.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 15, 2008)

tomtill said:
			
		

> That's role-playing.




No, that's railroading, and completely antithetical to the design philosophies of 4e.

"Touching my pawn" is NOT FREAKING COOL.

Seriously.

What if my character hates the Warlord but adventures with him out of need?  I might like to refuse to use his "tactics".  Later on I might see the benefits and accept them, cementing a relationship building of trust.

Yeah, that's roleplaying.  "YOU MUST TRUST ME IT SAYS WARLORD ON MY SHEET, I AM A LEADER YOU MUST LISTEN TO MEEEEEEEEE!" not so much.


----------



## Jon Wake (Mar 15, 2008)

Common sense seems to tell me that you can never force another player on the same side to take an action.  This seems to agree with the design philosophy mentioned in the article: you never have to do what a warlord tells you, but it pays off if you do.

I'm really curious, and I know I'm just baiting the bear, but how is an expert at small squad tactics who, after studying the reactions of a monster can direct his buddies to exploit it is any stranger than a monk who can punch a hole in a wall?

Can't make sense of it in RP terms?
Here:

Drogo the Warlord watches his friends swarm the Red Dragon.  It snaps, dodges, spits fire and slashes out with its claws.  Drogo sees it in a completely different way, not as a single animal but as a shifting mass that follows patterns.   There--the break in the pattern--a bare flank when it spins its bulk into place.   

"YARICK!" he shouts to his fighter, "Black Cloud, two-by-two!"   

Yarick nods, knows the code and presses in to the left flank of the beast.  Why didn't he see it sooner?  The dragon twists whenever it pushes forward, exposing thin scale.  

Yarick puts his axe into the beasts flank, a sloppy blow, but a few scales fly off.   The dragon can move, but now Yarick knows what to look for.

There, see?  This gift of verisimilitude I give to you, for I so love the term.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

It should be clear from the powers and class descriptions we've seen so far that the Warlord isn't just some guy shouting out orders here and there.  The concept is that he's a preternatural tactical genius, who can spot opportunities in battle and weak spots in defenses in ways that other characters can't.  Just as the fighter class represents a combatant well above and beyond "a good warrior", the warlord class isn't just a character who can give orders.  Turn based combat leads to abstraction and problems with simultaneity.  Characters aren't standing stock still between their turns, they are assumed to be jockeying for position, looking for attack opportunities and ensuring that their own defenses are in order.  The number of actions a character gets as well is also an abstraction, as it has been in every edition of D&D.  It doesn't represent literally how many swings or actions a character could attempt in the time alloted, just how many are effective overall.  Giving another character an action doesn't represent some kind of time-distortion power or magical haste acceleration.  It simply represents giving another character another opportunity by the abstracted game rules.


----------



## Derren (Mar 15, 2008)

And why can the warlord use this command only once a day?

Its easy to make examples when you ignore what really happens.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And why can the warlord use this command only once a day?



Considering that this is in no way unique to this ability of the Warlord and is common to all of the daily powers of martial classes, I assume that this can be phrased as a more general and common complaint about martial characters having per day and per encounter powers.  Since this is one of the central conceits of 4e's martial character designs, it should be addressed for all such abilities, not simply one in isolation.  Here are two ideas:

Such abilities are actually quasi-mystical, as the martial power source is only the least magical of the power sources.  Therefore, daily and per encounter martial abilities represent the preparation and expenditure of focus that can't simply be repeated like mundane skills.

The use of such powers represents an unusual opportunity, not something that can be found at the PCs wish.  A PC can't use the ability more than daily or per encounter because the opportunity comes only so often in the system and the PC's decision (and any other requirements) dictate when that opportunity arises.  The explanation is largely narrative as to when and how the opportunity arises.


----------



## Derren (Mar 15, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Such abilities are actually quasi-mystical, as the martial power source is only the least magical of the power sources.  Therefore, daily and per encounter martial abilities represent the preparation and expenditure of focus that can't simply be repeated like mundane skills.




That works unless some other rules contradict it. Some people might not be happy with magical martial abilities but its the most plausible explanation. But this explanation becomes problematic when the daily or encounter abilities aren't really mystical at all like tripping enemies. (NPC halberd wielders can trip people, why can't the heroic or even paragon guy do this unless he is empowered by mystical energy?)







> The use of such powers represents an unusual opportunity, not something that can be found at the PCs wish.  A PC can't use the ability more than daily or per encounter because the opportunity comes only so often in the system and the PC's decision (and any other requirements) dictate when that opportunity arises.  The explanation is largely narrative as to when and how the opportunity arises.




Then you have problems when you have two warlords (or other martial class) in the party. Why can warlord 1 use the opportunity and warlord 2 can't (because he used his daily already)? Because he can't see this opportunity? But what when he has a higher level than the other warlord (maybe even much higher level)? Why can the low level warlord see an opportunity that the high level one can't?


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And why can the warlord use this command only once a day?
> 
> Its easy to make examples when you ignore what really happens.



It's easy to make more examples when you ignore the rest of the thread. And all the other ones. This has been discussed to death. You're taking it far too literally.

We understand you hate 4E with a passion. All of us. We get it.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

Ian O'Rourke said:
			
		

> As the months have passed I've just come to the conclusion that if you look at 4E as a board game it all makes sense.
> 
> More specifically a competitive board game to be played at organised play events with organised play having a lot of similarities to an MMO at the table.
> 
> Everything makes sense then. This isn't a snark, it's just the way I've come to view it and it all falls into place...for me, anyway.



While I would agree that unlike many other RPG's, you _could_ play it like Descent or Heroquest, and unlike say, Cthulu or Cyberpunk, it would still be fun, although it is quite complicated compared to such games. The reason it's doing that is because D&D has always been based primarily around doing the types of things that those games do, with the major important difference being the assumption that the rules represent something beyond just "rules" that they're actually abstractions representing what's _really_ going on. The fact that what many D&D players spend much of their time doing (delving dungeons) is being made more interesting and playable can only be a good thing from my PoV.

What I see as a lot of the disconnect being here, is the difference between people who think D&D rules should/do represent a world which is like our world, but with magic and elves, and PCs go adventuring, and another group of people who think D&D rules should/do represent a Heroic Fantasy story, with appropriate tropes and memes.

If I'm reading a book or a comic (or even watching a movie), the action is already abstracted and scripted, if a character is spurring another character on, or putting an opponent off their balance, most of the time I don't really care about the details, they just _do it_. The Warlord is the "tactical guy" he has the ability to spur other characters on or penalise opponents because the narrative says that the power of "tactics" lets him do that. If it's interesting and fun to plot the details out blow by blow I will, if it's not, I'm happy to just say it happens and move on with the story, whereas there appear to be a bunch of people who can't deal with that.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Then you have problems when you have two warlords (or other martial class) in the party. Why can warlord 1 use the opportunity and warlord 2 can't (because he used his daily already)? Because he can't see this opportunity? But what when he has a higher level than the other warlord (maybe even much higher level)? Why can the low level warlord see an opportunity that the high level one can't?



Why can one Warlord manage to hit the Dragon when the other one fails, even if the second one is higher level and has a higher attack bonus?


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Then you have problems when you have two warlords (or other martial class) in the party. Why can warlord 1 use the opportunity and warlord 2 can't (because he used his daily already)? Because he can't see this opportunity? But what when he has a higher level than the other warlord (maybe even much higher level)? Why can the low level warlord see an opportunity that the high level one can't?



Not that he _can't_ see it, but he _didn't_ see it, or he was not in a position to take advantage of it. You're being far too literal again. I don't know why using your imagination to explain these things is presenting such a problem to D&D players, who presumably use their imaginations all the time.


----------



## Vomax (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Then you have problems when you have two warlords (or other martial class) in the party. Why can warlord 1 use the opportunity and warlord 2 can't (because he used his daily already)? Because he can't see this opportunity? But what when he has a higher level than the other warlord (maybe even much higher level)? Why can the low level warlord see an opportunity that the high level one can't?




Warlord 1 is in the right position to see the opportunity the opponent presents and warlord 2 isn't.  Maybe warlord 2 is picking his nose.

4E's abilities dictate parts of the story to you.  Your warlord _can_ spot these opportunities all the time but in practice he only spots them once per extended rest because that's what the power says.  As the player, you get to decide when the stars align and the enemy lets you pull off these maneuvers.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Then you have problems when you have two warlords (or other martial class) in the party. Why can warlord 1 use the opportunity and warlord 2 can't (because he used his daily already)? Because he can't see this opportunity? But what when he has a higher level than the other warlord (maybe even much higher level)? Why can the low level warlord see an opportunity that the high level one can't?



Because this explanation has the opportunity arising and being spotted by Warlord 1 because the player has chosen to use his ability at that time.  If you are accepting that such opportunities arise and are spotted when a martial character chooses his per encounter or daily power than this shouldn't be a problem.  If you object in principle to such narrative methods of explaining opportunities, than this is merely another way that such explanations will be unsatisfying to you.  Mere level is not sufficient to disallow this, since there is nothing to say that higher level characters are always and at all times superior to lower level ones.  

Frankly, I believe the addition of per encounter and daily martial exploits to such character's abilities is worth any initial discomfort.  Otherwise, we will be restricting all martial characters to at will abilities that will, of necessity, need to be balanced as at will.  This would mean not having the ability to pull out the Big Move during battles, surely a signature of many forms of fantasy action.  You could create a method to constantly be determining opportunities for such special moves, but every system I have seen for doing so complicates the game considerably to the same rough end result: they end up using the power per encounter or per day.

I expect that house-rulers who like the other aspects of 4e, but dislike per day and per encounter martial exploits will create systems that will attempt to simulate opportunities in more complicated ways that try to model the relationships between opponents, timing and combat advantages.  I also suspect that such systems in play will considerably slow down play to little gain overall.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And why can the warlord use this command only once a day?



Did people have complaints about "Stunning Fist" in 3.5?  Or the Rogue's "Defensive Roll"?  Do people still?

That's the biggest problem I have with people complaining about 1/day or 1/encounter abilities.  The 3.5 rules have _always_ had them, and I've never seen people complain about that.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> My worry here is that I am not sure that the ally can choose not to move, which would make it involuntary and allies bossing each other around. Without having seen further contexts of "slide" powers, I am not sure.




Based on what we have from ScaleGloom Hall, it sure seems to be involuntary. However, making it voluntary would probably be an early house rule for many DMs.

What I find interesting about this is that I suspect that either one of two things will happen in some games:

1) The game stops as everyone sits and discusses exactly which ally should be moved and where s/he should be moved to.

2) Some DMs will not want those types of slowups, so they will institute special "table talk" rules concerning the push/pull/shift decisions, either none at all, or limited time, or each player gets to say one thing, or some such.


----------



## Voss (Mar 15, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Did people have complaints about "Stunning Fist" in 3.5?  Or the Rogue's "Defensive Roll"?  Do people still?
> 
> That's the biggest problem I have with people complaining about 1/day or 1/encounter abilities.  The 3.5 rules have _always_ had them, and I've never seen people complain about that.




Really?  Never?  It was one of my biggest problems with 3.5 and Monte's Arcana Unearthed.  If all you had was /day abilities, once you used them, you were essentially playing an NPC class

But to yes, to answer your question.  People did and do complain about them.  They aren't quite as limiting in 4e design as they were in Monte's hands, but some of decisions on what should be dailies and what shouldn't are... aggravating.  Though not in this particular case, for me, anyway.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Really?  Never?  It was one of my biggest problems with 3.5 and Monte's Arcana Unearthed.  If all you had was /day abilities, once you used them, you were essentially playing an NPC class
> 
> But to yes, to answer your question.  People did and do complain about them.  They aren't quite as limiting in 4e design as they were in Monte's hands, but some of decisions on what should be dailies and what shouldn't are... aggravating.  Though not in this particular case, for me, anyway.



Yeah, the Champion really put me off Arcana Unearthed, but the things that annoyed me weren't the things that annoy people about the 4e Daily powers, so it's kind of off topic.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Vomax said:
			
		

> I don't completely disagree, as some of the powers don't appear to have much basis in reality, but isn't fluff->mechanics really what led to spellcasters being so overpowered in the previous edition?  _Of course_ the guy who can shoot lightning from his fingertips and fly around the room is going to beat the guy who waddles around and hits people with his sword, but it's not really fair for the sword waddler.
> 
> Ideally going the other way will result in a much more balanced game, though that will apparently come at the cost of easily understood or "realistic" abilities.  I suppose, in the end, it's one of those things that's not going to have an answer that will satisfy everyone.  People looking to play a game will want numbers that work whereas people looking to experience a story will want things to make sense (assuming a reasonable suspension of disbelief).  Not that you can't have both, but it ain't easy.




This is a bit of a copout. The designers should be able to go from the descriptive idea to the mechanics, and then say 'Is this balanced?". If it's not, then don't add it to the game or look for a different similar or less potent mechanic which works.

There is no real need to go from mechanics to description, but it looks like that has been done in some cases.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Based on what we have from ScaleGloom Hall, it sure seems to be involuntary. However, making it voluntary would probably be an early house rule for many DMs.
> 
> What I find interesting about this is that I suspect that either one of two things will happen in some games:
> 
> ...



But this boils down to the group itself, i.e. "are you playing with idiots, or not?" I mean, if you don't want your PC to be moved, tell it the warlord player and the DM. It's not even house-rule level, it's common sense: It's not _forced_ movement, otherwise you could move enemies as well, right? Hence it requires consent. Rules as intended, RAI.

And for the "once per day" thing... why have most great scientist only one really big breakthrough? Because you can only do that much brilliance in a lifetime.

Why do pupils and students usually write only one exam on a day and not more?

Same for tactical acumen - you cannot be in a hyperaware focused state all the time, where you see every opening - you can only pull that off once or twice, then you lose focus, get tired (mentally), run out of luck, set yourself under pressure...

Cheers, LT.


----------



## tomtill (Mar 15, 2008)

*military hierarchy*



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> No, that's railroading, and completely antithetical to the design philosophies of 4e.
> 
> "Touching my pawn" is NOT FREAKING COOL.
> 
> ...





Well, I'm no military genius, but I'm pretty sure that just about every military power in the world acknowledges the tactical benefits of having a group leader of some sort who has the authority to issue military commands that all the soldiers under his rank MUST obey (with certain exceptions in extreme cases). To me, that's why it's strange that some people have trouble with the "powers" of the warlord. They are mundane. They happen every day in wars around the world. Sure, not those exact powers, but remembering that D&D battle is an abstraction, very very similar powers. Watch a few war movies. Watch how the leader leads. That is the warlord. Making military judgements, coming up with strategies, issuing orders with words, gestures, and leadership.

A party with a warlord is like a squad with an extremely competent group leader. They excel because of his direction, his insight, his tactical genius, his intuition and their willingness to follow him.

That being said, I understand that players playing a game do not like the idea of other players touching their stuff. So I doubt that forced movement of allies is RAW. BUT, if it is, I can see why the default response is to allow the warlord to do his thing. That is role playing. You are adventuring with him, so you do respect his abilities, by default. There is no time for democracy in the midst of a battle. The military superiority of disciplined troops versus a bunch of fighters is well established. If you want to role play an exception to this rule, I'm sure your DM can accommodate you with an exceptions based approach.

This is, after all, the HUGE advantage of pen and paper D&D to any computer game, and why, all comparisons aside, D&D, even 4th edition, is in no way a computer game. The rules are guidelines, not hard-coded railroading. Follow the rules, and the designers promise it will be balanced and fun. Feel free to break them as need be. Absorb the consequences.

The most recent podcast explicitly points out that one design goal of 4th edition is to remove the extra player—the rule book—and reinstate the DM as the ultimate arbitrator of the game. The 4e DMG is supposed to have tables that give us the expected game effects if we want to arbitrate alternate rules, assisting the DM in balancing house rules with the rest of the game. Sounds great. Can't wait to see it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> There's a big difference between imagination, which all RPGs require, and complete suspension of disbelief, which only more contrived rules require. Everyone who plays an RPG is using their imagination, whether it's imagining your character, the castle he's exploring, or the orcs he's fighting. Labeling anyone who is opposed to a rule in 4th edition as lacking or being opposed to imagination is not only condescending and rude, it's simply not true.
> 
> The previous poster nailed it. Some games start with imagination, fluff, story, drama and then translate those things into mechanics. The result are rules which are usually pretty well-founded in their universe. Since what characters can do is based upon drama and imagination, the resulting rules tend to be believable. Others always takes mechanics first, and often don't even bother to try to translate that into drama. The result is that what the characters do often makes little to no sense from a dramatic point of view. It's not about imagining it, it's about simply accepting that outcome whether or not it's believable. 4th edition, unfortunately, seems to have been born of the latter approach to game design.
> 
> ...




Well said (I hate when posters just say "well said" to another poster, but you pretty much nailed it here).



			
				Revinor said:
			
		

> I would not focus too much on 'nonmagical'. Martial is a power source. On epic levels, we will probably see fighters auto-ressurecting from death. I would rather see martial as para-magic thing (not affected by antimagic/wild magic fields/whatever) - bit supernatural.




I think I'm going to have to take this advice.

The Martial Power source is supernatural. Not magical per se, but supernatural.

This paradigm shift will allow me to blow off verisimilitude in this case. It's unfortunate that I have to take such a step, but I think I will need to do so for my game. Otherwise, these types of issues will continue to plague me.


----------



## eleran (Mar 15, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But this boils down to the group itself, i.e. "are you playing with idiots, or not?" I mean, if you don't want your PC to be moved, tell it the warlord player and the DM. It's not even house-rule level, it's common sense: It's not _forced_ movement, otherwise you could move enemies as well, right? Hence it requires consent. Rules as intended, RAI.
> 
> And for the "once per day" thing... why have most great scientist only one really big breakthrough? Because you can only do that much brilliance in a lifetime.
> 
> ...




Don't waste your breath man.  H4ters will hate no matter what.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 15, 2008)

A good example for a Warlord-like character can be found...and I don't mean this as snarky towards the new edition at all...in the anime "Rental Magica". The leader of a group of magicians of different traditions has the ability to predict an opponent's moves and tactics, and direct his group so that their attacks' effect is maximized.

Granted, he gets that ability from a magical talent called "Glam Sight" in the anime, and it's not really healthy for him to use it too often, but the effect is what you get with the warlord, too.

For an example scene, go youtube...it's at 3:00 of the clip.
And yeah, it is a mix of Tenchi Muyo and Ghost Hunt.


----------



## Rel (Mar 15, 2008)

Folks,

If you think it's worth your time to render explanations to Derren about his problems with per-encounter or per-day abilities for martial characters, please do so without snark.  If you don't then just move on with the discussion.

Thank you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But this boils down to the group itself, i.e. "are you playing with idiots, or not?" I mean, if you don't want your PC to be moved, tell it the warlord player and the DM. It's not even house-rule level, it's common sense: It's not _forced_ movement, otherwise you could move enemies as well, right? Hence it requires consent. Rules as intended, RAI.




RAW are for the most part RAI. If the rules were not RAI, then why does the designer not write it the way he intends?

As to it being forced or not, so far Forced is RAW and RAI (to our knowledge).

And yes, player 1 could ask Warlord playing player 2 to not force his PC to move and that is reasonable. However, under certain dire circumstances, the Warlord player might just force PC 1 to move and the DM should enforce that decision (if Forced is the rule).

At that point, player 1 can react in any way he sees fit (from blowing it off, to quitting the game and anywhere in between).

But if Forced is the rule, then that rule should be enforced unless the DM house rules otherwise. And, this has nothing to do with "playing with idiots or not". It has to do with the DM being consistent with rules adjudicating and following both RAW and RAI.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The Martial Power source is supernatural. Not magical per se, but supernatural.
> 
> This paradigm shift will allow me to blow off verisimilitude in this case. It's unfortunate that I have to take such a step, but I think I will need to do so for my game. Otherwise, these types of issues will continue to plague me.



I think this is, indeed, the best route for people who dislike the idea of per day, per encounter martial abilities that are "too magical"  As I said before, it seems to restrict non-magical characters and abilities to a pretty narrow class of concepts.  It's too bad that powers that affect combat and tactics in this way are seen as perfectly fine for a Battle Mage with spells, but not a Warlord with tactical genius.  If non-magical abilities are going to compete with magical ones in D&D I think that they're going to need much broader definitions and scope, especially at higher levels.


----------



## Derren (Mar 15, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I think this is, indeed, the best route for people who dislike the idea of per day, per encounter martial abilities that are "too magical"  As I said before, it seems to restrict non-magical characters and abilities to a pretty narrow class of concepts.  It's too bad that powers that affect combat and tactics in this way are seen as perfectly fine for a Battle Mage with spells, but not a Warlord with tactical genius.  If non-magical abilities are going to compete with magical ones in D&D I think that they're going to need much broader definitions and scope, especially at higher levels.




Yes, this is imo the best solution because it not only solves the daily martial etc. problems but also problems like "why are PCs different than NPCs". The PCs are magical, the NPCs aren't.

If that explanation is viable depends on how many NPCs have /encounter powers and how much  WOtC pronounces that martial powers are nonmagical (which is demanded from quite a lot of people). As long as it is just fluff its easy to change, but when there will be abilities which only affect magical ones which does not include martial powers (antimagic field or things like this) this solution becomes harder to implement.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> As long as it is just fluff its easy to change, but when there will be abilities which only affect magical ones which does not include martial powers (antimagic field or things like this) this solution becomes harder to implement.




For me, I think that if I rule that Martial Powers are supernatural and there are things like Dispel Magic or Antimagic Fields in the game, then I will probably also rule that those effects will affect Martial Power sources just like they do Arcane and Divine Power sources.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  

Course, this is totally dependent on how the rest of the rules are written and subject to change once we get the rest of the rules.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 15, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> "If you're wondering how he blocks the shift,
> And other Tactics facts.
> Just repeat to yourself, It's just a game,
> I really should just relax."



Ladies and gentlemen, we have this week's .sig


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen, we have this week's .sig



Nice choice.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> It does not prevent movement, the dragon can move if it wants to. It prevents a special type of movement.  A shift allows the target to move and not provoke an attack of operatunity.  It can't shift but it can move. If the DM decides not to move the target that is a tactical descision.  You can't claim that just because one particular special case type of movement is not allowed that no movement is allowed.
> 
> No he isn't.  Since the target can't use shift to step away from attackers, then it must use a move action.  And using a move action will  provoke an AoO.  The target now must make a tactical choice, move and get exposed to extra hits, or not and deal with the current situation.  This could induce some targets to stay put (thus being pinned) or they will risk the AoO's try to better it's position.  Either way it is a cool effect and will be fun for the party to pull off.
> 
> JesterOC



My bad.
I was not previously aware that the shift was a nerfed version of the 5 foot step, now requiring a move action.  That certainly does make a difference.

Not sure I care for THAT change.  And other problems that force "its just a game" to be the only explanation remain.  But I didn't know the shift change and was wrong on that.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

The best way to relax is by simply choosing to play a game that does a vastly better job of making sense.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Don't waste your breath man.  H4ters will hate no matter what.



myrmidon mantra


----------



## LowSpine (Mar 15, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Iron Dragon Charge, eh?
> 
> They're doing it with the crappy names again...




Hear, hear.


I don't mind the powers in themselves, but the names stink - like the name Warlord.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 15, 2008)

My thoughts...

I like it. I can see this are a prelude to what the Bard will become.

For those that don't like this approach for the Warlord, let me ask... Do you enjoy playing (or have you ever) playing a Bard? I can see if the Bard class wasn't for you, neither would the Warlord be. Just an observation.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 15, 2008)

1) A D&D party that uses coordinated small unit tactics is really sweet.

2) Assuming the Warlord is as least as well written as the Book of Nine Swords White Raven school, this class will achieve that goal as well or better than anything I can think up.

3) Sure, there's some details that don't make sense if you pick at them.

4) But that's always been the case and I suspect it always will be the case.

5) So, if the choice is between getting cool small unit tactics, but having to ignore some small details in terms of lost simulationism, or else not getting cool small unit tactics at all, I'll take the small unit tactics.

6) And frankly, these sorts of things rarely come up in my games.  I find that the only players who spend their time trying to poke holes in the gameworld are those who are both experienced and bored.  This can be fixed by keeping the game flowing quickly, changing underlying assumptions so the plot isn't the same as last game, and making sure to have at least one newer player.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 15, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Did people have complaints about "Stunning Fist" in 3.5?  Or the Rogue's "Defensive Roll"?  Do people still?




Yeah, actually, I did and do.  And I've hated Vancian casting since the days of red box/blue box.  The sins of the old edition do not excuse the sins of the new.

I'm prepared to accept the 4E dailies as "metagame narrative," but I still wish they'd found a logical non-metagame explanation.  I do not appreciate anything that pushes the players away from making decisions in-character and encourages them to focus on the metagame.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 15, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> My bad.
> I was not previously aware that the shift was a nerfed version of the 5 foot step, now requiring a move action.  That certainly does make a difference.
> 
> Not sure I care for THAT change.  And other problems that force "its just a game" to be the only explanation remain.  But I didn't know the shift change and was wrong on that.



There are other aspects that changed in the "action economy" compared to 3E. 
There is full round action anymore, for starters. Things that weren't move actions without being related to movement in 3E (like drawing a weapon) are now either standard or minor actions. 
In 3E, you could take 5 ft steps only if you didn't move at all, which happened relatively often thanks to all the actions that cost you your regular move action (fullround attacks the primary one). And there were many cases where you didn't use your move action at all - for example a spellcaster in melee would typically cast a spell as a standard action and use a 5 ft step (but no move) to avoid Attack of Opportunities from casting. 



> Yeah, actually, I did and do. And I've hated Vancian casting since the days of red box/blue box.
> 
> I'm prepared to accept the 4E dailies as "metagame narrative," but I still wish they'd found a logical non-metagame explanation.



I don't like the Vancian casting (as related to memorisation/spells per day), but mostly due to its negative impact on designing the encounter "flow" in an adventure. 

I think I really begin to like the "metagame narrative" since it seems to give a lot more leeway for abilities. Previously, you had to limit "special moves" by making them very difficult to use. This unfortunately meant that maneuvers like trip or disarm where harder to pull off, and thus were rarely used succesful - until you got the right feats, leading to an "special move spamming" that wasn't really satisfying, either. The "metagame narrative" approach allows you to get the effect of an ability that is rarely used, but when it is used, it has a good chance of success. Without ever running into the "spamming" problem. Maybe 4E will allow you to use the same _n_encounter powers each encounter, but at least each individual power will be different. 
I once played a Fighter that was strongly specialised in tripping, also having feats like Defensive Sweep to trigger trip attempts on failed attacks. It was pretty effecive, but it still sometimes felt a bit like overdoing - the same effect each round, basically. (But the alternative would have been weapon specialisation, and that's even more boring... Though possibly even deadlier...)


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 15, 2008)

I like the warlord, I was unsure how it would work for my games.

I sympathise with the crew who feel 4e breaks their game reality, but D&D has always had this kind of stuff and I believe the extra player participation in the battle narrative will make up for it. 

Interactive fiction all the way!!...


----------



## GoLu (Mar 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think I really begin to like the "metagame narrative" since it seems to give a lot more leeway for abilities. Previously, you had to limit "special moves" by making them very difficult to use. This unfortunately meant that maneuvers like trip or disarm where harder to pull off, and thus were rarely used succesful - until you got the right feats, leading to an "special move spamming" that wasn't really satisfying, either. The "metagame narrative" approach allows you to get the effect of an ability that is rarely used, but when it is used, it has a good chance of success. Without ever running into the "spamming" problem. Maybe 4E will allow you to use the same _n_encounter powers each encounter, but at least each individual power will be different.




I know what you mean.  I basically understand the encounter powers as a totally unrealistic rule that produces fun, interesting, and entirely reasonable end results.  Special move spamming is, in my opinion, neither fun nor verisimilitudinous, and the rule forces people to mix it up a bit more.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 15, 2008)

edit: _apologies to bryond. That was needlessly snarky._


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 15, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Interactive fiction all the way!!...



For the win, baby.

For the win.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Yeah I think one major difference between 3.5 and 4e is this.

3.5 mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards world-building/simulation. Where the rules and mechanics are the strict and true laws of that world.

4e mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards narrative/story-building. Where the rules and mechanics are there to allow players to influence and engage in a narrative storyline through a world not as heavily dependent on strict rules to govern the way it works.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And why can the warlord use this command only once a day?




New house rule: everyone can use there encounter/dailies more than once, but every time you use it beyond its "safe" limit, you take a penalty. This could include penalties to d20 rolls, penalties to defenses, automatic fatigue/exhaustion/another status ailment, % chance of failure, temporary ability score penalties, or even temporary negative levels. 

You want to try the same tactic over and over? Ok, but its going to fail you eventually. You want to over-rely on one spell? Well, it might sap your body and mind. 

Ta.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> 4e mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards narrative/story-building. Where the rules and mechanics are there to allow players to influence and engage in a narrative storyline through a world not as heavily dependent on strict rules to govern the way it works.



And for those of us whose play-styles already lend themselves to shared narrative control, 4e is an early Xmas gift. 

But I agree that this shift in focus can be disconcerting to those with other styles.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> And for those of us whose play-styles already lend themselves to shared narrative control, 4e is an early Xmas gift.




Oh definitely, it makes me quite excited and envious of my players (I am DMing).


----------



## StarFyre (Mar 15, 2008)

*yes*

To the person whoasked (sorry, forgot whom)...

Yes, the warriors did get to fight instead of just doing support roles.  The one who got grabbed actually power attacked the dragon...but didn't do near enough to slice right through the arm, etc and thus got grabbed a couple rounds later.  As well, one warrior who uses bows more all the while (even whne the dragon charged out of the cave) was unleashes volley after volley at it.

Our fights though, like real life, do have a component where some people or enemies won't always be useful and the tactics of it is, my players tend to find ways to make themselves useful.

Ie. i can't hurt the enemy for some reason, so I'll start knocking over stuff so we can use it as cover from their archers, or I will start causing a distraction by causing a smoke screen, etc.

It's more about survival overall, instead of "I have touse my cool power or this game sucks"

Maybe it's a bit more simulationist in that way? my players don't mind 

Also, we do all sorts of stuff, regardless of rules..heh if it takes more than 30 seconds or so to find a rule, then it's just a basic d20 roll or action point to do it.
Can't be bothered with rules 

Sanjay


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 15, 2008)

I do not know if it has been said yet, but I hope the Warlord gets some powers that do not require melee attacks.


----------



## Bishmon (Mar 15, 2008)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I do not know if it has been said yet, but I hope the Warlord gets some powers that do not require melee attacks.



Well that just wouldn't be any fun.

I suppose I'm only half-joking. It's nice that support classes don't just have to stand in the back and spend all their turns on everyone else, but it does seem like they're taking it in the opposite direction where all support actions are now keyed off making attacks. At least from the example powers we've seen in the Design & Development articles and most the the D&D Experience stuff.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Well "Feather Me Yon Oaf" as far as we know, I don't believe required a attack first to trigger.

Also I suspect Warlords will have a nice number of Utility Powers that will be really handy and Utility will of course not require an attack.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I do not know if it has been said yet, but I hope the Warlord gets some powers that do not require melee attacks.



For attack powers, I think there's a strong possibility that the class will get some ranged buffing and damage, plus Warlord will get utility powers just like other classes.

@Vagabundo. All for one, and one for all!


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 15, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But I agree that this shift in focus can be disconcerting to those with other styles.



You are dead on. Since D&D XP, I had some doubts about 4E. But, slowly I'm getting the hang of it.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 15, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You want to try the same tactic over and over? Ok, but its going to fail you eventually. You want to over-rely on one spell? Well, it might sap your body and mind.
> 
> Ta.



Or use an action point. Would be a sweet house rule.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Or use an action point. Would be a sweet house rule.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




I would say if your using that house-rule it should be 2 action points. Using the same Daily Power twice is REALLY powerful and should have more of a cost. So they should have to go through the extra trouble of fighting for two encounters before earning that second action point to spend on that extra Daily Power.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I would say if your using that house-rule it should be 2 action points. Using the same Daily Power twice is REALLY powerful and should have more of a cost. So they should have to go through the extra trouble of fighting for two encounters before earning that second action point to spend on that extra Daily Power.




Yeah, and when that Solo Dragon gets to do the same, "the suffering will be legendary, even in hell."


----------



## Jon Wake (Mar 15, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Yeah, actually, I did and do.  And I've hated Vancian casting since the days of red box/blue box.  The sins of the old edition do not excuse the sins of the new.
> 
> I'm prepared to accept the 4E dailies as "metagame narrative," but I still wish they'd found a logical non-metagame explanation.  I do not appreciate anything that pushes the players away from making decisions in-character and encourages them to focus on the metagame.




Yeah, except that if WoTC changed all these factors, a very good case could be made for the game being 'not D&D', as opposed to the shrill nerd scream of rage that deserves mocking and rebuke now.

If you really hate per day abilities so much, there are many other games out there that are much better suited to your play style.   GURPS (at least for sub 500 point games) works fantastically well.  Castles & Crusades is a lovely system.   

Huge swaths of D&D have never made any in-world sense.   Or you've had to break out the mind-caulk to get them to work.  The problem evaporates when you realize that D&D is not built to be all things to all people.


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 15, 2008)

Warlord thinks to himself:  "Every time the beast dips its shoulder, it tries to disengage"

Warlord tests his theory with a vicious attack just at that moment and confirms his suspicions.

Warlord to Fighter:  "When he dips his shoulder, press the attack"


OR:

Warlord thinks to himself:  "Every time the beast dips its shoulder, it tries to disengage"

Warlord tests his theory and the beast sidesteps his maneuver - the shoulder dip this time wasn't a tell.

Warlord to Fighter:  "I see no hidden weaknesses"


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 15, 2008)

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> The problem evaporates when you realize that D&D is not built to be all things to all people.




I think that ought to be 4E's marketing slogan.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I would say if your using that house-rule it should be 2 action points. Using the same Daily Power twice is REALLY powerful and should have more of a cost. So they should have to go through the extra trouble of fighting for two encounters before earning that second action point to spend on that extra Daily Power.



Then it would be a double house rule, cos you can only use 1 AP per encounter 
But I agree, another use of a /day power is too much for an AP. If it is not already in I will HR that you can use an AP for a re-roll of a failed attempt of your daily (i.e. attack roll misses) cos it is real sucky when your big power misses, my players really didn't like that in our little 4E play test. I mean *really* didn't like it- not one hit with their /day powers in the whole thing


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Then it would be a double house rule, cos you can only use 1 AP per encounter
> But I agree, another use of a /day power is too much for an AP. If it is not already in I will HR that you can use an AP for a re-roll of a failed attempt of your daily (i.e. attack roll misses) cos it is real sucky when your big power misses, my players really didn't like that in our little 4E play test. I mean *really* didn't like it- not one hit with their /day powers in the whole thing




Do Reliable Daily Powers get the chance to reroll? or Daily Powers with an Effect (if Effect is something that happens no matter if it is hit or miss)? Or Hit and Miss Daily Powers?

Since then, for Effect it be mainly for the damage only and for Reliable, well they can just use it again. Also with Hit or Miss something happens even when you miss, so can they reroll to get a Hit or since they didn't completely "miss" do they not?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

I mean what I said- HR 'use an AP to re-roll a /day power attack'. Like the luck domain power in 3E, simple. It is not that useful for some powers (such as reliable) but if you want to use an AP to re-roll a reliable powers attack roll help yourself.
Edit: the re-roll happens before the effects of the power are applied; you use the result of the re-roll whether it is better or worse than the first roll- it in effect becomes the roll for that power. I will use it just cos my players ALL missed their /day power attack rolls during the entire mini adventure -therefore not happy bunnies!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 15, 2008)

Ouch >< Your group must have pissed off the dice gods badly to get that kind of luck.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Ouch >< Your group must have pissed off the dice gods badly to get that kind of luck.



Yep 5 players, plus me running the cleric as NPC-at least the wizard slowed some baddies though!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 15, 2008)

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> Yeah, except that if WoTC changed all these factors, a very good case could be made for the game being 'not D&D', as opposed to the shrill nerd scream of rage that deserves mocking and rebuke now.
> 
> If you really hate per day abilities so much, there are many other games out there that are much better suited to your play style.   GURPS (at least for sub 500 point games) works fantastically well.  Castles & Crusades is a lovely system.
> 
> Huge swaths of D&D have never made any in-world sense.   Or you've had to break out the mind-caulk to get them to work.  The problem evaporates when you realize that D&D is not built to be all things to all people.



Just because someone doesn't like one aspect from D&D doesn't mean that another system that lacks this aspect will automatically be better suited for him. Because I am pretty sure that despite my reservations on Vancian magic, 3rd edition D&D was still one of the best - if not the best - game suited for me. I don't care about "traditional" D&D or any stuff like that. I want to find the system that works best (from the existing ones) for me and my group. In the past, that has been 3.5, and it looks like in the future, it will be D&D 4E. It doesn't have to be. I would have been perfectly happy if anyone came out with a system totally unrelated to D&D that works just as well - but that didn't happen yet. And might never will, since considering the resources (human as financial) of WotC, they are still the most likely to create a good game...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, if a power disallows you to shift, it doesn't mean your movement is restricted. It just means that due the circumstances, you are under so much pressure that you can't move careful enough to avoid an Opportunity Attack. In a way, this power creates "difficult terrain" (shifting on difficult terrain is usually impossible in 4E, barring - as always - exceptional powers and abilities.)




I can think of other restrictions that it creates though.

For instance - if an enemy is adjacent to a fighter it can shift (and incur an OA from the fighter) or move (and incur an OA from the fighter which prevents it from moving).

So a creature which is prohibited from shifting could end up with no way of moving away from a fighter at all!

Then there is things like the ranger per encounter ability "Fox's Cunning" which allows them to shift and attack as a reaction to being attacked themselves. Oops, if you can't shift then a large portion of the benefit of that ability goes away.

I'm just saying that there are a number of knock-on effects which we know *already* as a result of something being denied a shift...

Cheers


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 16, 2008)

A good way out of the Pin the Foe attack is to use a power that pushes or slides the fighter away (or stun, daze and so on).


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 16, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> 4e mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards narrative/story-building. Where the rules and mechanics are there to allow players to influence and engage in a narrative storyline through a world not as heavily dependent on strict rules to govern the way it works.




With all due respect, I have the exact opposite impression. To me, it seems 4th edition is a glorified tactical boardgame with stricter, more contrived rules. There's nothing more narrative about 4th edition combat than 3rd edition, that I can see. It seems to me that it's just the opposite. 4th edition has more emphasis on the board and the strict rules that make the boardgame simulation work, and much less concern for the narrative of the battle.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary. hehe. Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.
> 
> You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.




this make me think. in Larry Niven discworld it was hypothesized that luck was actually a kind of psionic power, following from that 4e martial classes are not really martial, but psionic and have the power to alter fate to mkae come up some increduibly inprobable circustances, but not for more than once for day.
When a fighter, warlord or rogue use an encounter or daily powers what he is actually doing is use his latent psionic powers to alter probabilities so that the circumstances necessary to make their tecniques works come up, some powers can be reused after just a little rest, other can be attempted only after a longer rest.
Hey, as rationalizations goes this is as good, if not better, than any other I've heard.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 16, 2008)

As for house rules for encounter/daily powers, I've been thinking of doing recharge like the monsters get. You can use any one of your encounter powers per encounter, but can't use another during that encounter unless you roll a 5 or 6, for example. The same could be done with daily powers, just that each roll would take place from one encounter to the next, rather than 1 turn to the next.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 16, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> As for house rules for encounter/daily powers, I've been thinking of doing recharge like the monsters get. You can use any one of your encounter powers per encounter, but can't use another during that encounter unless you roll a 5 or 6, for example. The same could be done with daily powers, just that each roll would take place from one encounter to the next, rather than 1 turn to the next.



I see where you are going but the only problem with that is a PC is likely to use one of his /enc power on his first turn, is possible, in every combat. (and the other in the second turn, etc.) This will maximise the number of opportunities he gets to use it again during that encounter, if you see what I mean.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> PC 1: "We've watched the rogue gut monsters when he flanks for 20 years now. Tell me again why we can't gut monsters when we flank?"




You can, if you take a level of rogue.


----------



## Intrope (Mar 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> this make me think. in Larry Niven discworld it was hypothesized that luck was actually a kind of psionic power, following from that 4e martial classes are not really martial, but psionic and have the power to alter fate to mkae come up some increduibly inprobable circustances, but not for more than once for day.
> When a fighter, warlord or rogue use an encounter or daily powers what he is actually doing is use his latent psionic powers to alter probabilities so that the circumstances necessary to make their tecniques works come up, some powers can be reused after just a little rest, other can be attempted only after a longer rest.
> Hey, as rationalizations goes this is as good, if not better, than any other I've heard.



 You're actually thinking of Ringworld (discworld is Pratchett). But that is a interesting idea for psychic powers! (Of course, Teela was something of an anti-defender; everyone *but* her took damage...)


----------



## wgreen (Mar 16, 2008)

Hay guyz,

On a related note, I know everyone hates The Forge, but I still gotta quote Edwards's Provisional Glossary:



			
				The Provisional Glossary said:
			
		

> Fortune-at-the-End (FatE)
> 
> Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) following the full descriptions of actions, physical placement, and communication among characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and associated links.
> 
> ...



Sound familiar?    I think 3.5 is typically played using FatE, and it looks like 4E will be typically played using FitM.  But you can definitely play 3.5 using FitM, which actually tends to work better in terms of making players not feel like losers when they whiff.  Time will tell whether or not 4E can be easily played using FatE.

-Will!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> You can, if you take a level of rogue.



Just like you can do kewl warlord stuff if you take Warlord Training!


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 16, 2008)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I do not know if it has been said yet, but I hope the Warlord gets some powers that do not require melee attacks.



As far as I can tell, once you get to a decent level, character's daily and encounter powers are half attack, half utility, and I would assume the Utility powers wouldn't be attacks. There also may be some attacks (like FMYO) where the Warlord herself doesn't attack, but her allies do.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I can think of other restrictions that it creates though.
> 
> For instance - if an enemy is adjacent to a fighter it can shift (and incur an OA from the fighter) or move (and incur an OA from the fighter which prevents it from moving).
> 
> ...



Sure, there are some limitations on some movement-related abilities. But in your first example, the victim could still spend a standard action to move, and IIRC, the Fighter won't be able to use his power to stop him again, since he can't make a second opportunity attack against the victim. If the victim already spend its standard action - well, too bad for it.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 16, 2008)

On the Forced Movement thing - won't ally be a voluntary status?

On the narrativism/FitM thing - some of us have been saying this about 4e for months!



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And this "extremely difficult" chance/luck situation occurs whenever the Warlord deems it necessary.



No. It happens once per encounter/day (as  apppropriate) when the warlord's _player_ chooses.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Gotta love those "Laws of Probability" breaking Warlords.



And those simulationists who can't separate the player (who obeys and applies the rules of the game) and the character (who obeys the laws of the gameworld, which are constructed by the joint narrative effort of players and GM).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You don't even see how off in right field your explanations sound, do you? They sound rational to you, right? Or are you just pulling my chain with this stuff? I gotta admit, it's very imaginative.



I take it you're not familiar with the wide range of games that use various sorts of fortune-in-the-middle and other metagame mechanics?


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Designer1:Is it a fun power?
> Designer2:Yes.
> Designer1:Is it believable?
> Designer2:Not really, but who cares?



Pretty much.

The whole sports analogy is necessary because there's nothing there natively, it doesn't fit the genre.

I got disappointed by the contents of 3E's monster manual - that was probably the biggest objection I had to that edition's core.  This is a first for me, in that this content actually has me verging on angry at how hamfisted the design thinking has been here, rather than just disappointed.


> This power screams at me that the designers went from game mechanics to fluff, not the other way around.



It was a design trend in 3E, too, which is why so many of the new monsters in the MM stunk.  They either haven't learnt their lesson, or fail to see a problem with this approach at all, maybe.


> Addendum: The warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?" The warlock's not the only class like that, but it's a clear example.



And that's where they've lost the plot, IMO.  If this isn't self-evidently cross-eyed, I don't know what is.  I could design something which was based on providing a laser rifle game experience, but it wouldn't fit D&D's core.  Leaving "does it fit" as an afterthought is just plain bad design, IMO.  (As it happens, the warlock fits D&D one heck of a lot better than the "warlord".)

Grr.  I really, really don't like this stuff.  It's looking like the game is in the hands of extremists who shouldn't have been let loose on the core.  The pendulum has swung too far, I hope there's a backlash against this kind of design come 5E.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 16, 2008)

Intrope said:
			
		

> You're actually thinking of Ringworld (discworld is Pratchett). But that is a interesting idea for psychic powers! (Of course, Teela was something of an anti-defender; everyone *but* her took damage...)




D'oh!!!! wrong geometric form. Sorry, It was almost 2.00 AM when I posted that.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> And that's where they've lost the plot, IMO.  If this isn't self-evidently cross-eyed, I don't know what is.  I could design something which was based on providing a laser rifle game experience, but it wouldn't fit D&D's core.  Leaving "does it fit" as an afterthought is just plain bad design, IMO.  (As it happens, the warlock fits D&D one heck of a lot better than the "warlord".)



I'm not sure I see the problem with designing the game that people want to play rather than designing a world that might be no fun to play at all.

Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time:

-Playing a fighter is boring since all you can do is swing a weapon over and over again.  But it makes sense, because someone without magical powers can't do anything more extravagant
-Player a cleric is boring since all you do is heal.  But it's realistic since it takes time to chant a prayer and put your hands on someone and there's no way for a non-magical class like a fighter to heal itself
-Save or die is no fun, you spend a year playing the same character and building him up to 15th level only to drop dead on the first round of combat against a random encounter.  But it's realistic since creatures that turn you to stone should either work or not, no inbetween.

Designing the other way around creates the exact gameplay experience that people want in exchange for having to explain it in a way that might be a bit of a stretch.

Instead you get a situation where someone sits down and says "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a class where you could coordinate your allies in a way that made them better.  To actually be the battlefield commander.  You could inspire them to greater heroics, get them into tactical positions and inspire them to keep going after taking damage."  And you end up with the Warlord.  Which is a fun class to play.  Once you roll for initiative and start thinking about how best to use your powers, you realize that there is a gameplay experience that is rather unique, new, and fun to play.

It, however, wouldn't be possible if constrained to the first way of designing.  The first way of designing says that just talking to someone can't bring back hitpoints, move people into a position faster than they could get there themselves, or give allies abilities they didn't have before.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Only magic can do that.

And that's a shame to miss out on fun simply because fun isn't allowed to happen if it doesn't "make sense".


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 16, 2008)

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> Common sense seems to tell me that you can never force another player on the same side to take an action.  This seems to agree with the design philosophy mentioned in the article: you never have to do what a warlord tells you, but it pays off if you do.
> 
> I'm really curious, and I know I'm just baiting the bear, but how is an expert at small squad tactics who, after studying the reactions of a monster can direct his buddies to exploit it is any stranger than a monk who can punch a hole in a wall?
> 
> ...




Good point.

If there was a rule that say "the warlord had to see the target in action at least for 1 round before to use this power" which it isn't.

THe warlord can enter in combat, win initiative, hit the moster before it even move and gain the bonus.

"hey guys, this monster that I never seen before have a obvious weakness of which I have no reason to know about, just exploit it and it is better make it worth it because if the monster escape and we had to combat it another time before tomorrow we would not be able to use this weakness again."


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 16, 2008)

About the warlord powers I think there is a another interesting aspect to consider. 
Take the white raven onslaught, for example, nowhere in the power description it say the ally must be conscious, able to move or even alive, it only must be "adiacent". So you could use it to move an asleep character, one immobiized, i.e. in a chocker grasp, or even a dead or dying one.
That is certainly a useful thing to do, but how do you rationalize it it?

I just hope 4e rules are really, really solid and well written because I keep seeing a lot of powers like this, not only for the warlord, that could be abused or easily create confusion, or simply create situations that don't make any sense outside of a "it is just a game" context.

Or what if the warlord die in combat or is someway disabled? And what about powers that make you switch side? What happen if some enemy "charm" the warlord? Does his new allies keep the bonuses of his active dailies? does his previous allies keep theirs? and how can you explain it? And I won't even try to consider if the warlord is a double crosser and willingly choose to switch sides in the middle of a combat.

It just seems that "making sense" wasn't one of the first priority in 4e designing process.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time:



I think this is a furphy, because the warlord's abilities seem to be able to be able to be folded into existing classes.

It would _make sense_ that the mage was a brilliant spell tactician at higher levels, the rogue a brilliant scout and infiltrate tactician, the fighter a brilliant battlefield tactician in general...we don't _need_ the warlord for this play experience.  The rogue can realistically offer the fighter good tactical advice on sneaking.  The current tropes have it covered.  Ideally, warlord should killed and it's stuff taken, but there were probably game balance and marketing reasons why that didn't happen.

Like wanting to have another "leader" class in the matrix.  Bad reason for justifying a core class's existence.

Heck, even the warlock is just the wizard through a different lens.  There's a false dichotomy at work here - you pay attention to both priorities at once (the "does it fit" and the "is the gameplay fun"), and don't compromise one in favour of the other, as is clearly the case with the so-called "warlord".


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

WTF is a "spell tactician"?


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> WTF is a "spell tactician"?




Someone that use spells tactically, I suppose.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> WTF is a "spell tactician"?



Gee, I dunno hong...someone who doesn't fireball their allies, for instance?

I'm being facetious, though.  In 4E, it'd probably manifest as some sort of mechanical bonus or effect that helps allies through use of magic or in using magic.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Someone that use spells tactically, I suppose.



 Oh, well I'm glad that's cleared up. Although why it's important to distinguish them from people who use spells non-tactically still escapes me. Maybe it's a schtick protection thing.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Gee, I dunno hong...someone who doesn't fireball their allies, for instance?
> 
> I'm being facetious, though.




Really?



> In 4E, it'd probably manifest as some sort of mechanical bonus or effect that helps allies through use of magic or in using magic.




... or you could just use the warlord class.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> ... or you could just use the warlord class.



Or you could just shake your head and hope for better design than that come 5E, and fold the abilities into existing classes where they thematically already belong, as opposed to some contrived nothing-class D&Dism which dilutes D&D's relevance to fantasy in general.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Or you could just shake your head and hope for better design than that come 5E, and fold the abilities into existing classes where they thematically already belong, as opposed to some contrived nothing-class D&Dism which dilutes D&D's relevance to fantasy in general.




You could. But unlike you, I will be playing D&D in the meantime!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I think this is a furphy, because the warlord's abilities seem to be able to be able to be folded into existing classes.
> 
> It would _make sense_ that the mage was a brilliant spell tactician at higher levels, the rogue a brilliant scout and infiltrate tactician, the fighter a brilliant battlefield tactician in general...we don't _need_ the warlord for this play experience.  The rogue can realistically offer the fighter good tactical advice on sneaking.  The current tropes have it covered.  Ideally, warlord should killed and it's stuff taken, but there were probably game balance and marketing reasons why that didn't happen.
> 
> ...



You're right. We don't need a Warlord. 
But what was the Rogue for? I mean, come on, we could make a Fighter specializing in trap-detection - and sneak attacking is just good roleplaying and laying ambushes, we don't need some artificial, uasi-magical game effect that justs adds some damage dice just because we happen to get in the right position!

Do we really need a Wizard, by the way - okay, nobody can cast fireball, but that's just killing people in a different way. A Fighter can do that too, right? Come to think of it, how many traditional fantasy stories contained wizards throwing 20 ft radius fireballs anyway? Merlin certainly never did throw fireballs, and I doubt Gandalf did. It's obviously an artificial mechanic added just to provide the play experience of someone affecting multiple areas. I could see a place for it in a modern game, when you play an artillery commander, but that's hardly what D&D - traditionally medieval fantasy - is about!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I think this is a furphy, because the warlord's abilities seem to be able to be able to be folded into existing classes.



Sure, you could.  But then you are just creating even broader roles for all of the classes.


			
				rounser said:
			
		

> It would _make sense_ that the mage was a brilliant spell tactician at higher levels, the rogue a brilliant scout and infiltrate tactician, the fighter a brilliant battlefield tactician in general...we don't _need_ the warlord for this play experience.  The rogue can realistically offer the fighter good tactical advice on sneaking.  The current tropes have it covered.  Ideally, warlord should killed and it's stuff taken, but there were probably game balance and marketing reasons why that didn't happen.



The warlord's powers are significantly different from those examples.  You seem to be suggesting that ALL of the warlord's powers should be given to the fighter, since they are all battlefield tactician type abilities.

In which case, what negatives do you give the fighter in order to balance his new suite of rather powerful battlefield control and tactic abilities?  After all, he is currently the heavily armored one with lots of hitpoints and the ability to do significant damage in melee.

Plus, there's the issue of how to do play a fighter with all the fighter abilities AND all the warlord abilities?  I mean you EITHER play him in a leader type role, giving out bonuses and maneuvering your allies into good position OR you play him as a defender, attacking enemies in melee and preventing them from getting to the wizard in the back.

If there are two entirely different gameplay ways of using a class, shouldn't it be 2 classes instead?  One for one role and one for the other.  The main reason that wizards and clerics are overpowered in 3.5e is BECAUSE their class fits into too many roles at once.


			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Like wanting to have another "leader" class in the matrix.  Bad reason for justifying a core class's existence.



Not if it's fun to play.  I don't care if the reason for putting it into the game was the new endorsement deal WOTC signed with Warlords Shoe Company Inc. as long as when I sit down to play the game the group is able to defeat the monsters that they encounter and it is an enjoyable experience fighting them.  Which it is.


			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Heck, even the warlock is just the wizard through a different lens.  There's a false dichotomy at work here - you pay attention to both priorities at once (the "does it fit" and the "is the gameplay fun"), and don't compromise one in favour of the other, as is clearly the case with the so-called "warlord".



You can pay attention to both at the same time.  However, you will always reach a point where one has to be sacrificed in favor of the other.  Sacrificing neither creates a bland, in between game.

For instance, wouldn't it be cool to have a class that was a true illusionist?  You could put up illusionary walls and people wouldn't walk through them.  You convince the enemies that their allies are their enemies and cause them to attack them.  You create illusionary monsters that attack and do damage to people.

However, under the "does it fit" method of game design you have a bunch of problems with this.  Illusions aren't real so they can't actually DO damage.  Anyone who touched an illusionary wall would go right through it and realize it was an illusion immediately, so it wouldn't hinder anyone.  No enemy is going to suddenly believe their ally who was standing next to them suddenly turned into an enemy.  All these things just don't "fit".

It does sound, to me at least, to be a cool class to play.  Without a way to do damage like everyone else in the group, though, it would be way too weak and lose all the fun it had.

So, in this case, you either bow to "does it fit" and never design the class at all or you try to mix the two concepts and you end up with an illusion using class that still can't deal damage and whose powers are defeated simply by touching them or you bow to the "gameplay" method of game design and simply say "Illusions can do damage and can't be defeated by touch."

The last option creates the most fun class to play, since the results are exactly what you wanted.  However, it does raise a bunch of "WHY does it work that way?" questions.  There are still answers, so it's not like "does it make sense" is forgotten entirely.  Perhaps the mind convinces itself that it's real so it is.  Perhaps illusions are partially a charm effect as well that causes the subjects not to want to touch it and doing psionic damage to someone when they get hit.  Perhaps illusions are summoned from the Feywild where the matter there can be shaped into semi-real constructs.

It's just that the balance has been tipped in the favor of gameplay over "does it fit".


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I see the problem with designing the game that people want to play rather than designing a world that might be no fun to play at all.
> 
> Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time:
> 
> ...




First of all, what's "fun" for me isn't necessarily "fun" for you and vice versa. A lot of people seem to defend these design choices by claiming that the game is "more fun for everyone", while that's not actually true. What I've seen of 4E so far isn't more fun for my group than 3E, even though you'd think so. 

It's pretty easy to perceive this from a metagaming perspective and claim that now everyone has a lot of cool tactical options, but to me that just encourages and emphasizes the role of metagaming. While D&D is, indeed, a game, so is Chess. And playing Chess can be just as fun, as a game, but that's not the same kind of entertainment I'm looking for when I want to  play D&D.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> First of all, what's "fun" for me isn't necessarily "fun" for you and vice versa. A lot of people seem to defend these design choices by claiming that the game is "more fun for everyone", while that's not actually true. What I've seen of 4E so far isn't more fun for my group than 3E, even though you'd think so.



Tell me for whom it is not fun to say "I can help us in this combat so that we can all move into better tactical position". "I can give you a further bonus if you choose to attack target X". These aren't unfun abilities. For no one. They give you an option, you get an in-game benefit. That _is_ fun. At least for anyone who is even interested at all in running a combat encounter. The "fun" of a mechanic is judged by the fun of using it. Not the fun of analyzing it.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Good point.
> 
> If there was a rule that say "the warlord had to see the target in action at least for 1 round before to use this power" which it isn't.



Or not.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a *tactical genius* being able to seize the initiative (different initiative, of course!) and establish a clear advantage right at the outset of combat. Commanders throughout history have accomplished this with cunning stratagems in battles both large and small. 

In the context in which the warlord uses the power right off the bat, it's narrated as a snap decision; he wades in and in a flash realizes *just what he needs to do to throw the dragon off balance.* Melee is a complicated and simultaneous process, after all, which is what all the folks going after the Iron Dragon Charge ability seem to be conveniently forgetting.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> It's pretty easy to perceive this from a metagaming perspective and claim that now everyone has a lot of cool tactical options, but to me that just encourages and emphasizes the role of metagaming. While D&D is, indeed, a game, so is Chess. And playing Chess can be just as fun, as a game, but that's not the same kind of entertainment I'm looking for when I want to  play D&D.



I look for different sort of entertainment from different areas of D&D.  If I'm talking with NPCs, I'm looking for entertaining dialog and a chance to test my wit against theirs.  If I'm trying to fight a battle, I expect a fun, interesting, dynamic battle game.

D&D pretty much always has been a storyline that is interrupted periodically in order to play a board game in order to determine the results of a combat.  During combat, I don't consider anything to be metagaming.  It is purely a set of rules used to determine the outcome of an unknown situation.

Besides, I'm rather missing the point where anything about this is metagaming.  As I said in another thread, 95% of all metagaming COULD have been roleplaying.  It's all in how you phrase it:

"Quickly, when I hit it, circle around behind it.  It can't hit us both if we're on opposite sides."
vs
"I activate my power, I hit for 15 damage.  I can shift you one square.  I'll move you towards the flank.  On your turn, you can shift into flanking before attacking."

Just cause the rules let you do something that is described in a game mechanical way doesn't mean it is metagaming to use them.  In fact, it's often clearer to describe something in terms of game mechanics instead of in role playing speech.  Which is why those who showed up at DDXP might have noticed all DMs telling the players "The creature is now bloodied" instead of "It looks hurt" and "It is stunned" vs "It took a hard blow to the head".  It doesn't do the players a service to give the players incomplete or ambiguous information when they might have abilities that can only be used on stunned or bloodied creatures.

The game mechanics are supposed to wrap all the complexities of the couple hundred different movements, feints, shifts, facial expressions, near missed, and the like of combat into simple, easy to understand packages for us humans to understand and play a fun game with in less than 2 days.  It is easier for them to do their job if they are described as "Shift an ally 2 squares" than it is if it said "One creature, designated by you can move an extra 10 feet of movement during its next turn.  This movement doesn't provoke AOO, however, any move after the 10 feet does."  Plus, moving a creature on its turn is a whole lot less tactically useful than being able to react in the middle of battle to changing tactics.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> THe warlord can enter in combat, win initiative, hit the moster before it even move and gain the bonus.
> 
> "hey guys, this monster that I never seen before have a obvious weakness of which I have no reason to know about, just exploit it and it is better make it worth it because if the monster escape and we had to combat it another time before tomorrow we would not be able to use this weakness again."




The next day, the five of them travel down the road to the next town, where a dealer in previously-owned dragon treasure had promised to make them a good deal on gold statues and jewel-encrusted goblets.  It is just past midmorning, when a shriek comes from the sky.  Something large dives out of the sun at them, a mass of feathers and talons, but with the head of a serpent and the tail of a jackrabbit.  It is like nothing they have ever seen.

Before anyone can react, Drogo the Warlord steps forward and raises his spear.  "Allagash White, Yarick!  Across and down!" he yells, and jabs his spear at the wing of the beast.

Yarick nods--they had discussed this just the other day--and rushes the creature's flank.  Sure enough, there are the blood feathers Yarick promised, and with the thing rearing back from Drogo it's a simple matter to bring the axe around with a satisfying crack.

The beast is soon finished off, hobbled by the adventurers.  "How did you know?" Yarick asks Drogo, "I barely saw the shadow before it was on us."  Drogo chuckles, "I caught a glimpse of its silhouette.  I only know a couple kinds of wings, and if it was flying in this season it probably started moulting a couple weeks ago.  Beyond that?"

Drogo grins broadly.  "I guessed."


----------



## Kishin (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Or you could just shake your head and hope for better design than that come 5E, and fold the abilities into existing classes where they thematically already belong, as opposed to some contrived nothing-class D&Dism which dilutes D&D's relevance to fantasy in general.





D&D hasn't had relevance to mainstream fantasy (at least, the kind you see appearing in novels) for a very long time. Its practically its own genre.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Tell me for whom it is not fun to say "I can help us in this combat so that we can all move into better tactical position". "I can give you a further bonus if you choose to attack target X". These aren't unfun abilities. For no one. They give you an option, you get an in-game benefit. That _is_ fun. At least for anyone who is even interested at all in running a combat encounter. The "fun" of a mechanic is judged by the fun of using it. Not the fun of analyzing it.




Come on Mustrum...you read the 4E forum as much as I do, and you must have noticed the fact that what you just posted is also only true for you (and everybody who thinks like you, of course), while there is PLENTY of posters here who have noted that any fun coming from using some mechanic (so far as revealed) in 4E will be more than eaten up by the headaches/problems they have when thinking about the mechanic.

And if D&D has created ONE thing consistently, it's players who THINK about, around and beyond its mechanics. Even 4E will do so, especially since a lot of the so far revealed mechanics will require the players thinking about it in order to fix it into the narrative of their ongoing game.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 16, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> With all due respect, I have the exact opposite impression. To me, it seems 4th edition is a glorified tactical boardgame with stricter, more contrived rules. There's nothing more narrative about 4th edition combat than 3rd edition, that I can see. It seems to me that it's just the opposite. 4th edition has more emphasis on the board and the strict rules that make the boardgame simulation work, and much less concern for the narrative of the battle.



I don't see that at all. 4E has diagonal movement costing the same as non-diagonal, which means distances and movement are more abstract, not more strict, than in 3E. Action points gives players more narrative control. Giving classes powers that force opponents to move (without magic) are more abstract, since you'll have to describe them in-game without reliance on "it's magic". Just the fact that all non-spellcasting classes have so many more options in combat should lead to more variety in battle, more fun in battle, more ability to do impressive things in battle, which should lead to better narratives than "I charged the bad guy and attacked him with my sword until he was dead."

You could argue that 4E won't have a great degree of narrative control in battle. But it will still be more than the essentially zero narrative control that players had in 3E.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Come on Mustrum...you read the 4E forum as much as I do, and you must have noticed the fact that what you just posted is also only true for you (and everybody who thinks like you, of course), while there is PLENTY of posters here who have noted that any fun coming from using some mechanic (so far as revealed) in 4E will be more than eaten up by the headaches/problems they have when thinking about the mechanic.
> 
> And if D&D has created ONE thing consistently, it's players who THINK about, around and beyond its mechanics. Even 4E will do so, especially since a lot of the so far revealed mechanics will require the players thinking about it in order to fix it into the narrative of their ongoing game.



What I am saying is that people, when actually sitting down and playing the game, they will find these mechanics fun. What they feel when discussing on message boards or after the game is a different matter, and frankly, that's far outside the scope of what game mechanics are supposed to do. 

When I started playing D&D, I found the notion of hit points one of the worst idea ever (alongside with vancian magic, which was totally not like the magic of Shadowrun). Playing the game since 2000, I am still not a fan of Vancian Magic, but I come to like hit points a lot. And I am now quite willing to subscribe to the idea of "hit points are an abstraction, don't represent only meatiness, but also luck, stamina, fatigue, sixth sense, the gods favor and whatever else...".


----------



## Derren (Mar 16, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> The next day, the five of them travel down the road to the next town, where a dealer in previously-owned dragon treasure had promised to make them a good deal on gold statues and jewel-encrusted goblets.  It is just past midmorning, when a shriek comes from the sky.  Something large dives out of the sun at them, a mass of feathers and talons, but with the head of a serpent and the tail of a jackrabbit.  It is like nothing they have ever seen.
> 
> Before anyone can react, Drogo the Warlord steps forward and raises his spear.  "Allagash White, Yarick!  Across and down!" he yells, and jabs his spear at the wing of the beast.
> 
> ...




But the party cheered to early, another one of those creatures dove out of the sky and landed on both sides of the,
"Drogo, distract it again, like with the last beast" shouts Yarick.
"I can't the law of the universe only allows me to distract an opponent once per day. I suggest you stun it with your shield bash and we make a run for it"
"That doesn't work., I know that I have to meditate for five minutes before I can move my shield arm again. We just have to hope that we regenerate faster than the wounds the beast inflict"


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 16, 2008)

That is pretty simple narrative to solve:

"Drogo stabbed at the beast with his spear, it slid along the bone of the wing, unable to dig deep like before.

The creature hardly noticing the attack, swiped as the fighter tried to pass under the wing pushing him back.

The creature now wary of these companions, rests its wings close to the body, blocking them from another strike."

Just because a person was able to pull of a tactic one time, doesn't mean the next time will work out.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that people, when actually sitting down and playing the game, they will find these mechanics fun. What they feel when discussing on message boards or after the game is a different matter, and frankly, that's far outside the scope of what game mechanics are supposed to do.
> 
> When I started playing D&D, I found the notion of hit points one of the worst idea ever (alongside with vancian magic, which was totally not like the magic of Shadowrun). Playing the game since 2000, I am still not a fan of Vancian Magic, but I come to like hit points a lot. And I am now quite willing to subscribe to the idea of "hit points are an abstraction, don't represent only meatiness, but also luck, stamina, fatigue, sixth sense, the gods favor and whatever else...".




Here you already mentioned something that didn't just annoy people when they discussed it outside of the actual game, but while playing, and for quite a while...the Vancian Magic system of older editions. There's enough players that will curse, complain, and discuss the so-called "fire and forget" of 3E and earlier with gusto while somebody else ticks down the spells for his daily memorization. That is not something that only happened outside of games. Or only in the past. For some reason, Vancian Magic is still the biggest thorn in many players' sides. The same goes, in my experience, for Attacks of Opportunity, a mechanic that caused a lot of discussions to pop up around my table, and mostly because we don't use minis or battlemaps. It took suspending them completely for us to have a smooth game again.

Some people will simply play, and others will see a rules mechanic and immediately start thinking about it, how it applies to the game, the consequences of it, and how it can be exploited. And a lot will immediately voice their dislike if they think the rule is "lame" or "broken". Which will simply cloud, or blot out, any fun the rule might create if applied without thinking too much about it.

As an aside, coming to Shadowrun from D&D, I had a hell of a lot of fun with their magic system, and still love the game as a whole, even if I had to houserule some sense into 1E before it worked for me.  I'm pretty much open about different games and their rules workings. I guess it's the fact that this is D&D 4E we're talking about that lets me take a much closer look at it to see if it has the right feeling for me to be D&D. As its own game, I'd not take a second look at it...wouldn't play it either, though, due to having enough stuff I want to play still, and too little time already.


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I look for different sort of entertainment from different areas of D&D.  If I'm talking with NPCs, I'm looking for entertaining dialog and a chance to test my wit against theirs.  If I'm trying to fight a battle, I expect a fun, interesting, dynamic battle game.
> 
> D&D pretty much always has been a storyline that is interrupted periodically in order to play a board game in order to determine the results of a combat.  During combat, I don't consider anything to be metagaming.  It is purely a set of rules used to determine the outcome of an unknown situation.




Oh, metagaming definitely exists in and out of combat in D&D. Pretty much any time you use knowledge your character doesn't possess to affect any PC's actions you're metagaming. Most often in happens in combat, and I don't see how the increased focus on combat effectiveness in 4E would reduce it. And even out-of-combat actions are covered by the rules to "determine the outcome of an unknown situation" in D&D. Any task you try to perform is an unknown situation with an uncertain outcome.

I find it a bit distracting that the 'story' is interrupted by an 'action sequence' that is played like it's a boardgame. Most systems have a consistent rules set that work the same way in and out of combat.   



> Besides, I'm rather missing the point where anything about this is metagaming.  As I said in another thread, 95% of all metagaming COULD have been roleplaying.  It's all in how you phrase it:
> 
> "Quickly, when I hit it, circle around behind it.  It can't hit us both if we're on opposite sides."
> vs
> ...


----------



## satori01 (Mar 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Allow to position?
> 
> Your rational fails. This power occurs until the end of the encounter (as long as any two allies are adjacent). Why? Because the rules says so. Your rational does not describe why that long duration of this "superior postioning" would exist. Nor does your rational describe a 2 square wide corridor scenario where the opponent is merely backing away.
> 
> ...




I agree with your concerns regarding the power, but I disagree that history, myth, and even Martial Arts in the real world are not full of Superhuman activities.  Martial Artist with extensive training are able to break bricks, using forearms and even their heads that for must of us would result in broken limbs or possibly death in terms of using your head to break concrete.  Thai Kick boxing trains your reflexes to the point where practitioners reaction speed are scientifically faster than most, etc.  Conan has strength, agility, and stamina that is better than any human alive,  Finn the ancient Irish hero was always more clever than his opponent, and usually better at their schtict than they were.

Martial Characters should be able to perform superhuman activities, and frankly need to if you are going to remove magic item dependence,  again realistically breaking concrete blocks is superhuman.  Warlords are the battle tested sergeants barking out orders, that allows other characters to forgoe heistation in battle, and slide and shift with out delay....pretty simple explanation.

I think your contention is more personal dislike at a style, than anything else.  I am not trying to be mean, or dismissive, but as reasonable as I have always found your rules analysis....the desire for no superhuman abilities in warrior classes is I think a minority opinion.


----------



## Demigonis (Mar 16, 2008)

satori01 said:
			
		

> I think your contention is more personal dislike at a style, than anything else.  I am not trying to be mean, or dismissive, but as reasonable as I have always found your rules analysis....the desire for no superhuman abilities in warrior classes is I think a minority opinion.




Agreed.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Pretty much any time you use knowledge your character doesn't possess to affect any PC's actions you're metagaming.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> this increased focus on group tactics and powers that affect your allies -- in addition to some powers seemingly existing only to provide "cool" and cinematic combat abilities which inexperienced players especially may find hard to explain in-character --  will probably increase metagaming and reduce the amount of role-playing in combat.



What does "role-playing" mean here, such that it is at odds with metagaming? If the aim of the players and GM is to create a story, for example, than metagaming is crucial, in order to make sure that the characters take actions that generate that story.



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> 4E tries to encourage more dynamic group tactics, which will probably result with a lot of metagaming and out-of-character tactical discussion during combat ("No! Don't do that, because I'm going to slide you two squares on my turn!" or "Is it okay if I move your guy with my 'White Raven Apocalyptic Assault'? Now you'll get into flanking position and since this 5th level Orc Hammerbasher is 'bloodied' and 'marked' it'll die in one round."). Anyway, I doubt that the tactical, boardgame-y nature of 4E combat will increase role-playing or in-character tactical advice -- quite the opposite, in fact.



But what you are describing is the players cooperating in order to generate a satisfying story of martial adventure. And they are doing that via their PCs as the vehicles for the playing out of that story. How is this not the essence of roleplaying?



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Personally, I especially find these OAs and 'reactions' during other characters' or monsters' turns (granted by, for example, 'Feather me yon beast!' and 'White Raven Onslaught') probably the hardest powers to explain.



Why is it hard to explain that warriors who are spurred on by an effective leader are better able to press the assault? As many others have already noted upthread, these mechanics would be problematic only for those who assume (somewhat bizarrely, it seems to me) that the turn-by-turn combat resolution mechanics actually model the gameworld, rather than constitute a mechanical abstraction from it.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 16, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> But the party cheered to early, another one of those creatures dove out of the sky and landed on both sides of the,
> "Drogo, distract it again, like with the last beast" shouts Yarick.
> "I can't the law of the universe only allows me to distract an opponent once per day. I suggest you stun it with your shield bash and we make a run for it"
> "That doesn't work., I know that I have to meditate for five minutes before I can move my shield arm again. We just have to hope that we regenerate faster than the wounds the beast inflict"




Replace "distract" with any of the following terms:

Rage/Frenzy
Smite Evil
Stunning Fist
Hexblade Curse
_Magic Missile_
Inspire Courage
Wild Shape
Defensive Roll (rogue)
Kai Smite (samurai)
Turn Undead
Ghost Step (ninja)
Knight's Challenge (knight)
Sudden [Metamagic]
Lucky (swashbuckler)

and replace rest 5 minutes with "rest 8 hours to get my powers back for the day" and you pretty much have what we have here right now. 

As I said before, house rule it that you can use your encounters/dailies whenever you want, at your own peril. However, you also have to realize that the cost of giving "martial" PCs something to do every round other than "I attack with my sword. 19 AC? 5 damage" is a slight break in verisimilitudes. Personally, Its never bothered me. When wizards are throwing fireballs out of magic staves off the backs of gryphons at death knights with katanas riding white dragons, I could care less about the verisimilitude of a warlords tactics not working two fights in a row...


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> What does "role-playing" mean here, such that it is at odds with metagaming? If the aim of the players and GM is to create a story, for example, than metagaming is crucial, in order to make sure that the characters take actions that generate that story.
> 
> But what you are describing is the players cooperating in order to generate a satisfying story of martial adventure. And they are doing that via their PCs as the vehicles for the playing out of that story. How is this not the essence of roleplaying?




Character immersion. IMO D&D combat system distracts from it heavily, apparently even more so in 4E. Not only that, but a lot of these 4E mechanics actually make it harder to create that story. For example, the abilities and certain other mechanics (e.g. the natural 20  on your "recovery" roll) which are pretty hard to describe in a logical fashion. Metagaming, in the sense that you'd employ out-of-character information to benefit the PCs in battle, does not have anything to do with that in D&D, since it's usually discouraged by virtually every DM.



> Why is it hard to explain that warriors who are spurred on by an effective leader are better able to press the assault? As many others have already noted upthread, these mechanics would be problematic only for those who assume (somewhat bizarrely, it seems to me) that the turn-by-turn combat resolution mechanics actually model the gameworld, rather than constitute a mechanical abstraction from it.




Maybe the fact that D&D has always strived to model both high fantasy and low fantasy in its "pseudo-sim" way, and somehow I just can't see how you'd treat combat just as a mechanical abstraction from it. Although 4E may be stepping away from sim, IMO D&D has to some extent (and not succeeded very well, I admit) tried to mechanically model the gameworld in its fashion. I think 4E would have succeeded better as a trait-based system if the design goal was to constitute resolution mechanics that are not even meant to simulate the gameworld (and IMO it would have worked better as a "mechanical abstraction" as well).  

I have no problem believing in warriors spurred on by effective leaders, but the trouble is that I feel the end result in 4E is really boardgame-y and I don't see it encouraging neither storytelling or character immersion. IMO Agon models heroic fantasy in a better way while encouraging storytelling (and metagaming, too, but in Agon it happens almost on a subconscious level and actually has an impact on the story).


----------



## Kishin (Mar 16, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> But the party cheered to early, another one of those creatures dove out of the sky and landed on both sides of the,
> "Drogo, distract it again, like with the last beast" shouts Yarick.
> "I can't the law of the universe only allows me to distract an opponent once per day. I suggest you stun it with your shield bash and we make a run for it"
> "That doesn't work., I know that I have to meditate for five minutes before I can move my shield arm again. We just have to hope that we regenerate faster than the wounds the beast inflict"




Recharge methods are not what are being discussed here. The Warlord is. Please continue your 4E threadcrapping elsewhere.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Character immersion. IMO D&D combat system distracts from it heavily, apparently even more so in 4E. Not only that, but a lot of these 4E mechanics actually make it harder to create that story. For example, the abilities and certain other mechanics (e.g. the natural 20  on your "recovery" roll) which are pretty hard to describe in a logical fashion. Metagaming, in the sense that you'd employ out-of-character information to benefit the PCs in battle, does not have anything to do with that in D&D, since it's usually discouraged by virtually every DM.




See, I don't see an internal conflict between abstract rules and narrative flow. Take for example Attack of the Clones. Anakin is shot with Force Lighting and flunk a good distance. He is staggered, stunned, and leaves Obi-Wan to fight Dooku. When Obi-Wan is defeated and nearly coup-de-gras'd, Anakin recovers, jumps up, and blocks Dooku's blow. Dramatic Storytelling. 

Now, how would that be handled in game mechanics? Well, Anakin's reflex defense is hit by the force lightning, and it deals enough damage to drop him. Obi-Wan, unable to heal Anakin due to Dooku's onslaught, fights for 3-4 rounds where Dooku widdles away Obi-Wan's remaining hp. On the four round, Anakin rolls the 20 on his recovery roll, just and Obi-Wan takes enough damage to drop. Anakin uses an action point to spring up, charge Dooku, and block Dooku's blow with some awesome Jedi per encounter ability. 

Now, at no time watching that duel do you know Anakin is below 1/2 hp and used his second wind already, or that Obi-Wan's player couldn't roll above a 8 to save his life, or that Dooku rolled a crit to drop Obi-wan into negatives. All the abstract mechanics serve to do is give stage directions. Could the fight have played out differently? Sure it could off (see: the rematch in Revenge of the Sith). However, if the round played out like it did, I'd have not problem visualizing something akin to what happened in the movie.


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Character immersion. IMO D&D combat system distracts from it heavily, apparently even more so in 4E. Not only that, but a lot of these 4E mechanics actually make it harder to create that story. For example, the abilities and certain other mechanics (e.g. the natural 20  on your "recovery" roll) which are pretty hard to describe in a logical fashion. Metagaming, in the sense that you'd employ out-of-character information to benefit the PCs in battle, does not have anything to do with that in D&D, since it's usually discouraged by virtually every DM.




It is?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 17, 2008)

I just automatically assume that statistic based information is also in character information.  That is, the statistics are there to tell us, the out of character players, what the in game characters know.


----------



## Primal (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It is?




Yup. Let's not get started on this thread, too. Stay on topic, Hong -- you can do it.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> For example, the abilities and certain other mechanics (e.g. the natural 20  on your "recovery" roll) which are pretty hard to describe in a *logical fashion.*



I think 4E is more like Prêt-à-Porter.


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yup.




Nope. Certainly not in my experience.



> Let's not get started on this thread, too. Stay on topic, Hong -- you can do it.




Okay!


----------



## Scrollreader (Mar 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I just automatically assume that statistic based information is also in character information.  That is, the statistics are there to tell us, the out of character players, what the in game characters know.




Totally agreed.  The fighter doesn't know that one of his powers does 2W, and another does 3w+6, but he does know one hits harder than the other.  A rogue doesn't know 'that other rogue has an extra 2d6 SA' he knows 'that rogue is better than I am at taking advantage of opponent's screwups'.  The barbarian doesn't know that the wizard has only a +4 fortitude save, but he does know that he's alot more resistant to magical effects that attack the body and poison.  In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it.  As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices.  Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming.

Edit: Horrendous spelling errors fixed.  I despise laptop keyboards.  >.<


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> [snip].  In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it.  As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices.  Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming.




This man is wise. It would behoove you all to listen to his words.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 17, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> Totally agreed.  The fighter doesn't know that one of his powers does 2W, and another does 3w+6, but he does know one hits harder than the other.  A rogue doesn't know 'that other rogue has an extra 2d6 SA' he knows 'that rogue is better than I am at taking advantage of opponent's screwups'.  The barbarian doesn't know that the wizard has only a +4 fortitude save, but he does know that he's alot more resistant to magical effects that attack the body and poison.  In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it.  As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices.  Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming



This. I was going to post exactly about this POV, so I'll just add a though to it.

The same way the fighter does not know his power does 2W, he also may not even define that specific action as a "Power". Martial powers are called exploits and not maneuvers, and I think, being a concidence or not, it helps this way of rationalizing.

The martial character does not realize that he can perform a special attack each day that deals much more damage to his enemy, he just try to deal lots damage in each attack, and from his POV, from the immersion POV, one of those really was more brutal than the other attacks he made. 
He doesn't do it consciously like "Ok, now I'm going to use my special attack. Bruuutaalll Striiiiike!!"

The same with the warlord. He is always trying to give his allies the best course of action, he is always coordinating the attacks, shouting and doing his tactical stuff. But the character, again from the immersive POV, doesn't know that he has a special shout that allows one of his allies to immediately charge an enemy. He is always shouting, always telling other the best way to act, but maybe they just don't obey, or don't hear him in the middle of the fight or they don't understand it. But sometimes they do. That's when the metagamish component takes place and the Power is activated.

That's not intended to be a house rule or solution to everyone, that's how I'll probably "rationalize" most of the martial powers.
I thinks it's much better than the "enemies don't fall for the same trick twice".


----------



## Kishin (Mar 17, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> Totally agreed.  The fighter doesn't know that one of his powers does 2W, and another does 3w+6, but he does know one hits harder than the other.  A rogue doesn't know 'that other rogue has an extra 2d6 SA' he knows 'that rogue is better than I am at taking advantage of opponent's screwups'.  The barbarian doesn't know that the wizard has only a +4 fortitude save, but he does know that he's alot more resistant to magical effects that attack the body and poison.  In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it.  As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices.  Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming.
> 
> Edit: Horrendous spelling errors fixed.  I despise laptop keyboards.  >.<




Total agreement.

On both points. I also hate laptop keyboards.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 17, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> This. I was going to post exactly about this POV, so I'll just add a though to it.
> 
> The same way the fighter does not know his power does 2W, he also may not even define that specific action as a "Power". Martial powers are called exploits and not maneuvers, and I think, being a concidence or not, it helps this way of rationalizing.
> 
> ...




You mean, we should apply the narrative AFTER the action not before?  Shock and horror.  That can't be right.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You mean, we should apply the narrative AFTER the action not before?  Shock and horror.  That can't be right.



Do you apply the narrative in-character or out-of-character?
YOU, the player, know the character will deal 3W in his next attack, and you will describe that super attack the best way you see fit, when you are activating it.
The problem discussed here is not how to narrate powers, but how we rationalize them in-character and how the characters view and understand them.


----------



## rounser (Mar 17, 2008)

> Sure, you could. But then you are just creating even broader roles for all of the classes.



Not in terms of themes.  The rogue is still a sneak, the fighter still a whacker, and the wizard still a magician.  They just happen to know exactly how to do their job better tactically than anyone else in the party, as they gain levels.  That would _make sense_.  But no.

Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc. etc.  It strains belief.  The class is so anathema to a D&D party that there's not even a name that fits.  That's a big clue right there that it should not be core, and should be hidden away in a supplement where it can be ignored...or even better, annihilate it and divide up it's tactical abilities amongst the classes that exist, where they belong.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Pretty much.
> 
> The whole sports analogy is necessary because there's nothing there natively, it doesn't fit the genre.
> 
> ...




OK - we can agree to disagree about rules and their implementation, but I am baffled as to how one can claim that the martial leader type class does not fit into heroic fantasy. 
Just a very few examples that come to mind:

Faramir - certainly not a *great* warrior, but a leader beloved by his men whose very presence increased their effectiveness

Rob Stark and Tuwin Lanister (from "Ice and Fire") 

Ibn Khairan - multiclass Rogue/Warlord (from "Lions of Al-Rassan")

Count Brass (from Moorcock's "History of Runestaff")

Benedict of Amber

and many many more. 
I would claim that it is probably the third most common fantasy stereotype (after Warrior and Rogue), certainly more common then the adventuring priest, or a bard/musician or even I would claim an arcane spellcaster.


----------



## rounser (Mar 17, 2008)

> I am baffled as to how one can claim that the martial leader type class does not fit into heroic fantasy.



It would fit if he had an entourage of soldiers ready to jump to it, like in the novels.  He doesn't.  He's only got the other PCs, who are heroes in their own right, and not subordinates to be bossed around or corrected.  The military hierarchy exists for a reason, and it doesn't exist in a D&D party by default.  That's one of many things wrong with the "warlord".


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc.



Really? 
Show me a Warlord power that tells the rogue how to sneak better or the fighter to swing his weapon better.
All we've seen so far are powers that create different tactics for the whole party, and all of them are about moving, positioning and opportunity tactics.
What we a have is a class the helps his allies to fight better as a group.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Hawkmoon is not a flunky to Count Brass in "Runestaff" but a title-hero of the book. He still benefits from the old man's tactical acumen. 

Ditto for Belmonte/Ibn Khairan relationship in the first 2/3 of the "Lions of Al-Rassan". 

Similar for Benedict and his brothers (who are arguably as great heroes as him - just not as great tacticians) 

Sure, Faramir did not run around adventuring much - but I claim anyone who had read LotR can imagine the ways he would have been helping fellowship if he went instead of his Fighter brother. 

Military leaders can exist in the company of equals and often do in heroic fantasy. 

However, if your idea of heroic fantasy is "only things that can be simulated with ADnD 1st ed. rules" then sure - anything that is not Cleric/Magic-User/Thief/Fighter is going to rub you the wrong way.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 17, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> OK - we can agree to disagree about rules and their implementation, but I am baffled as to how one can claim that the martial leader type class does not fit into heroic fantasy.
> Just a very few examples that come to mind:
> 
> ...
> ...



Absolutely. Heroic leader figures are extremely common in myth and fantasy.

I mean, compare Lancelot to King Arthur. I think it would be impossible to list either one as being higher level than the other in D&D terms, but Lancelot is perceived as the better fighter, but King Arthur is the leader.

From Lord of the Rings, there are many people who are seen more as leaders than fighters, like King Theoden, or possibly even Aragorn himself (since he leads and inspires, but can't hold a candle to Gimli or Legolas in battle).

Certainly, there are plenty of real historical figures who can serve as Warlord models. Julius Ceasar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, or the many other legendary generals of history who lead from the front lines, would all be Warlords in D&D terms.

Not to mention the countless characters in videogames who fit the Warlord archetype perfectly...

Why, even basic concepts like "A Ship Captain" is an ideal warlord. It is not an obscure concept by any reasonable stretch.

I can't agree _at all_ that the Warlord is some kind of D&Dism that doesn't fit genre tropes, when my first reaction to its announcement was that D&D finally had a core class to emulate a major character archetype.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Not in terms of themes.  The rogue is still a sneak, the fighter still a whacker, and the wizard still a magician.  They just happen to know exactly how to do their job better tactically than anyone else in the party, as they gain levels.  That would _make sense_.  But no.
> 
> Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc. etc.  It strains belief.  The class is so anathema to a D&D party that there's not even a name that fits.  That's a big clue right there that it should not be core, and should be hidden away in a supplement where it can be ignored...or even better, annihilate it and divide up it's tactical abilities amongst the classes that exist, where they belong.




So don't play one. Take a sharpie, cross it out of your PHB, ban the class for your players, and never speak of it again. 

Meanwhile, there are some of us who wouldn't mind a valid tactical guy that doesn't use the Blessing of Pelor or the Battle Hymm of the Republic to motivate and inspire his allies.

To each his own.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> It would fit if he had an entourage of soldiers ready to jump to it, like in the novels.  He doesn't.  He's only got the other PCs, who are heroes in their own right, and not subordinates to be bossed around or corrected.  The military hierarchy exists for a reason, and it doesn't exist in a D&D party by default.  That's one of many things wrong with the "warlord".



Well, the basic idea of an inspiring leader and skilled tactician, who helps his allies with his intelligence and ingenuity, is not limited to military characters. He is the guy who comes up with The Plan(TM), and this has nothing to do with a military position.

Heck, I can make a great argument that Westly from The Princess Bride is a Warlord. He is a man who is skilled at fighting, but his greatest skill comes from his wits and planning. When push comes to shove, he and his allies only succeed because he devises good plans that they carry out.


----------



## Scrollreader (Mar 17, 2008)

The Dread Pirate Wesley is obviously a Rogue/Warlord multiclass.  Or was it the other way around?


----------



## Mephistopheles (Mar 17, 2008)

My main concern with this preview of the Warlord is how the abilities would play out at the table.

On the one hand you have pushy Warlord players.

Admittedly this is a problem with the player more than the rules. However, I don't like that these abilities empower a pushy player to make other PCs do things when previously the pushiness could be politely (or not) tolerated and not acted on. We have no idea what else Warlord abilities might do aside from shifting. It could become quite annoying.

I think a better wording for these kinds of abilities would be uniform language that gives the players of the PCs the option of taking a bonus action/ability the Warlord is granting them rather than specifying that the player of the Warlord does it.

This would not be a problem in my own games and probably the same goes for many others. But when it comes to pick up games, conventions, tournaments, or just the occasional obnoxious players we come across in our travels, I think there is potential for these kinds of abilities worded in this way to cause problems.

On the other hand you'd have the opposite type of Warlord player who tries to involve the other players so that he is moving them (or whatever else Warlords can do) to where they want to go.

The downside with this approach to playing the Warlord - and this would include a game where a blanket house rule was applied that the individual players can apply the effects of the Warlord's abilities as they prefer - is that I think it could encourage excessive metagame table talk and planning that probably would not be possible in many combats.

This kind of OOC game related table talk always occurs to some extent so I'm not trying to say 4E will be introducing that. Previously it's been fairly easy to set the level of it that individual groups are comfortable with and go from there. Judging by the Warlord abilities in this preview, though, I think the Warlord player may often need to check whether anyone wants or needs to make use of a benefit he can offer with an ability (no point using them if nobody wants or needs to take advantage of them at this point of the battle), and so on, which could become a bit of a gameflow gobstopper.


----------



## Mort (Mar 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Not in terms of themes.  The rogue is still a sneak, the fighter still a whacker, and the wizard still a magician.  They just happen to know exactly how to do their job better tactically than anyone else in the party, as they gain levels.  That would _make sense_.  But no.
> 
> Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc. etc.  It strains belief.  The class is so anathema to a D&D party that there's not even a name that fits.  That's a big clue right there that it should not be core, and should be hidden away in a supplement where it can be ignored...or even better, annihilate it and divide up it's tactical abilities amongst the classes that exist, where they belong.




The class doesn't seem that way to me at all; it's a tactical nonmagical support class - something that D&D could have used a long time ago.

As many people have already stated heroic fantasy has many examples of the martial leader, arguing the concept is somehow new just doesn't hold.

When I saw this class, I actually thought of Hannibal. Not the Carthaginian general (though warlord would certainly fit) but Hannibal of the A-Team. He's the guy with "the plan" and the guy who coordinates everyone else into being as effective in their roles as they can be.

Frankly a class that encourages team work by providing bonuses for working together is a definite plus for me and a welcome addition.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm definitely seeing the use of this class in my own game, and I can see a lot of players I know finding something to like about it. The distinction between "sword-swinging loner" and "leader of men" is one that gets made all the time. It's just that 3E PCs don't really have the option of taking any special leadership shticks until 6th level. There's almost nothing you can do to make your swordsman any group-handier to have along in a fight than any other swordsman, barring such fabulously useful choices as taking a few levels of Bard.

As for the new focus on group-affecting tactics and maneuvers, I can't see them doing the slightest injury to narrative and roleplaying in my own games. When I want to have a setpiece battle, I can use them, and when I don't, I just use a Skill Challenge that the whole group can get involved in.

I've already run a half-dozen scenes with my existing PCs all revolving around Skill Challenge situations. I was able to run a "Horatio at the bridge" gate defense situation for a solo PC that never actually involved a single to-hit roll- he was using his Balance skill to shove attackers down the slope, Hide to get clear of thrown volleys, Intimidate to buy some space... all manner of skills based on the particular roleplaying choices he made. His combat abilities were used to get bonii on the rolls based on his actions, and what would've been a brutally dreary twenty-attack-rolls-a-round death-by-statistics scene in 3E was made into a flavorful high-risk heroism scene that left the PC bloodied but victorious. This is what I want from a new edition, and from my experiences thus far, this is what I'm getting.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I just automatically assume that statistic based information is also in character information.  That is, the statistics are there to tell us, the out of character players, what the in game characters know.



I don't think this works for 4e (nor for many other narrativistically-inclined systems).

For example: I, the player, may know that my PC has only one use of a daily power left. On the best interpretation of martial daily powers (as put forward by other posters upthread) my PC does not know this - because the "per day" is a metagame constraint on player narrative control, not an attempt to model ingame causal processes.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You mean, we should apply the narrative AFTER the action not before?  Shock and horror.  That can't be right.



Didn't someone already paste the Forge's definition of FitM?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2008)

Mort said:
			
		

> The class doesn't seem that way to me at all; it's a tactical nonmagical support class - something that D&D could have used a long time ago.
> 
> As many people have already stated heroic fantasy has many examples of the martial leader, arguing the concept is somehow new just doesn't hold.
> 
> ...



Hey! I thought of the A-Team and Hannibal, too.


----------



## Imp (Mar 17, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Heck, I can make a great argument that Westly from The Princess Bride is a Warlord. He is a man who is skilled at fighting, but his greatest skill comes from his wits and planning. When push comes to shove, he and his allies only succeed because he devises good plans that they carry out.



Ehn. Fighter/rogue. (In 3e anyway.) Westley doesn't ever really lead people in combat, and the-guy-who-comes-up-with-the-plans-involving-two-or-three-others is waaay too broad a concept to be something only a warlord could do.

But most fantasy heroes who show talent leading troops into battle are a nod to the archetype.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I find it a bit distracting that the 'story' is interrupted by an 'action sequence' that is played like it's a boardgame. Most systems have a consistent rules set that work the same way in and out of combat.



Where do you get this statistic. From the informal review that I've done, it seems that the vast majority of RPGs have special rules for combat.

I may have to do a more scientific look at the field this summer.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> Ehn. Fighter/rogue. (In 3e anyway.)



That's a good start. But you forgot the Dread Pirate prestige class.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> On the best interpretation of martial daily powers (as put forward by other posters upthread) my PC does not know this




See now I just have issue accepting that a person who adventures for a living wouldn't be able to at least "ball park" their own limitations.

I ,in rl, know that I can jog X number of miles before I am going to need to place my hands on my knees, or sit down, and take a few moments to regain my composure, take some deep breaths and go again (healing surge)

I , in rl, as a player of tennis at my current ability accept that in a MATCH  the circumstances that will allow me to place the ball just over the net so my opponent can't do anything with it, and my ability to respond to said, are certainly not "at will" and my big powerful serve that isn't returnable can really only be used once a match so thats an encounter ability.

Sadly (and I hope this doesn't break the grand ma rule) given my age and stamina marital relations are a once a day (or at least once per 6 hour rest) ability.

Their life is no less real to them why can't they know their limitations ?


----------



## beverson (Mar 17, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So don't play one. Take a sharpie, cross it out of your PHB, ban the class for your players, and never speak of it again.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are some of us who wouldn't mind a valid tactical guy that doesn't use the Blessing of Pelor or the Battle Hymm of the Republic to motivate and inspire his allies.
> 
> To each his own.




This.


----------



## Derren (Mar 17, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So don't play one. Take a sharpie, cross it out of your PHB, ban the class for your players, and never speak of it again.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are some of us who wouldn't mind a valid tactical guy that doesn't use the Blessing of Pelor or the Battle Hymm of the Republic to motivate and inspire his allies.
> 
> To each his own.




The problem is that while the cleric simply gives out bonuses which are useful in nearly all situations the warlord shifts around other players and the effectiveness of those moves depends on the abilities of the warlord player. Now what happens when the player of the warlord is a little "tactically challenged"?

Thats the whole problematic with warlords shifting players around. In game it might make sense that the adventuring party agrees to follow the orders of the best tactician of the party, but in 4E this choice is not made because of tactical skill but because of class choice.
So it can lead either to a warlord who never uses his abilities because the player doesn't know how to do it effectively, a warlord which uses its abilities to make bad choices or a warlord player who is constantly being told what to do. More than any other class the effectiveness of the warlord depends on the skill of the player which can lead to some awkward moments in the group.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem is that while the cleric simply gives out bonuses which are useful in nearly all situations the warlord shifts around other players and the effectiveness of those moves depends on the abilities of the warlord player. Now what happens when the player of the warlord is a little "tactically challenged"?
> 
> Thats the whole problematic with warlords shifting players around. In game it might make sense that the adventuring party agrees to follow the orders of the best tactician of the party, but in 4E this choice is not made because of tactical skill but because of class choice.
> So it can lead either to a warlord who never uses his abilities because the player doesn't know how to do it effectively, a warlord which uses its abilities to make bad choices or a warlord player who is constantly being told what to do. More than any other class the effectiveness of the warlord depends on the skill of the player which can lead to some awkward moments in the group.




I've been reading this discussion and I'm honestly curious and not picking on you personally but aren't all the problems that the warlord raises the exact same problems that the wizard has?

In all editions of D&D, it is pretty hard to screw up playing a fighter but the wizard and his spell selection/casting always made or break your party.

Have a good tactically focused player and the guy would know what spells to cast, where to cast, when and who to cast it on. I mean, surely I'm not the only one that has had to deal with a player that plays a wizard poorly  

I would imagine the solutions for the warlord are the same solutions people use for the wizard...


----------



## Derren (Mar 17, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I've been reading this discussion and I'm honestly curious and not picking on you personally but aren't all the problems that the warlord raises the exact same problems that the wizard has?
> 
> In all editions of D&D, it is pretty hard to screw up playing a fighter but the wizard and his spell selection/casting always made or break your party.
> 
> ...




While every character is more effective when played by a competent player warlords are the only class which actively screw the other PCs when they use their abilities in a bad way. A wizard played by a bad player might not contribute much to the party but the other players will not be affected negatively by it much. A badly played warlord on the other hand can screw the other PCs quite hard when he shifts them in suboptimal positions.
To compare the warlord with the cleric, when the cleric casts a buff spell you are either better of than before or it doesn't affect you. When a warlord uses one of his abilities it is possible that you will be in a worse position than before if the player of the warlord has some problems with tactics.
You can of course disallow certain players from playing warlords (or they recognize for themselves that they are not good at playing one but then the warlord would be the most restricting class in D&D even after 3E paladins).

In 3E the PC can say "I follow this guys orders because he is smart". In 4E it is "I follow this guys orders because he is a warlord, no matter if he is smart or not".


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> While every character is more effective when played by a competent player warlords are the only class which actively screw the other PCs when they use their abilities in a bad way. A wizard played by a bad player might not contribute much to the party but the other players will not be affected negatively by it much. A badly played warlord on the other hand can screw the other PCs quite hard when he shifts them in suboptimal positions.



I don't think it takes a tactical genius to figure out which direction to move someone 1 square.  I also don't think it's possible to really screw over another player by moving them 1 square.  Not badly at least.

Plus, as was pointed out earlier, almost no DM is going to interpret the rules so literally that players won't have a say in where their character moves.  I certainly can't see a DM telling someone "I don't care what you want, the Warlord is allowed to do whatever he wants."  If he does, he really shouldn't be DMing.

Besides, I can play a Wizard who screws over the other players all the time.  Watch me put walls of fire between the cleric and the fighter so he can't be healed.  Watch me drop fireballs so they hit my party.  Watch me put down a fog cloud in a position so the archer can't see the enemies to fire at them.

I can easily play a Cleric who screws over the other players simply by refusing to heal them when they need it.


----------



## Revinor (Mar 17, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I also don't think it's possible to really screw over another player by moving them 1 square.  Not badly at least.




- move him on trap square (can happen accidentally even, still warlord will be blamed)
- move him out of edge the bridge (if push-to-death rules are in)
- shift him next to the monster which has defender AoO against shifts
- shift him from the chair in the restaurant when he is sitting next to the nice girl and take his place quickly

Obviously, last trick requires bag of rats to initiate combat for a moment, so it can be avoided by strip-searching warlord before admitting them to restaurants.


I think it makes most sense for the warlord to point the player which can move and for that player to make actual move. It is not breaking anything and he will not leave greasy fingerprints on my miniature.


----------



## Derren (Mar 17, 2008)

How do you know that the movement rate stays at 1 square? Also there are other ways to "screw" the other party members. For example what if the warlord uses his charge power to charge an enemy and invites the fighter to do so too who also charges to not waste this ability but then the enemies are free to attack the strikers or can surround them for lots of hurt?And even 1 square can screw a player. What if warlords shifts a rogue so that he can flank with him (good intend) but overlooks that the rogue can now be surrounded by 4 kobolds?

The warlord seems to be build around the idea to affect the actions of the other PCs but that means that the warlord has a much higher responsibility as the other classes. When such a class is now played by someone with little tactical knowledge (and remember, tactics seems to be empathized in 4E) it will hurt not only him but the whole party.

Sure, you can use a wizard or cleric to screw over the other PCs but that requires imo a very bad player or malicious intend (like in your examples).
Also its much easier for a bad player to play a wizard or cleric in a way which does not affect the other PCs in a negative way because those classes can also do things which have no influence on allies or the battlefield (single targeted spells for example). The warlord on the other hand is build with the sole purpose to affect the other PCs so a bad tactician will have a hard time not to screw the other PCs in some way when he plays a warlord.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The warlord seems to be build around the idea to affect the actions of the other PCs but that means that the warlord has a much higher responsibility as the other classes. When such a class is now played by someone with little tactical knowledge (and remember, tactics seems to be empathized in 4E) it will hurt not only him but the whole party.




Yeah, don't let the coked out obsessive/compulsive play a warlord!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 17, 2008)

Ok, i already died by a wizard throwing fireballs at me. The same player used an iceball to kill the foe which we needed to bring alive...

... i really can understand Revinor: you should never push an allied miniature around the battlemap. you should tell the player he can do so now. And i can understand rounser: the warlord really could be divided between paladin and fighter.

But here the principle: every class has its own tricks comes into play. If you want to divide him between other classes, multiclass to get those abilities. As if you think everybody should be able to do magic: multiclass as wizard.

So the warlord class i a tool to make combats more fluid and fun without making it comlicated for everybody. A little bit more careful wording (or reference to definitions) would help shutting down those pointless discussions.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem is that while the cleric simply gives out bonuses which are useful in nearly all situations the warlord shifts around other players and the effectiveness of those moves depends on the abilities of the warlord player. Now what happens when the player of the warlord is a little "tactically challenged"?
> 
> Thats the whole problematic with warlords shifting players around. In game it might make sense that the adventuring party agrees to follow the orders of the best tactician of the party, but in 4E this choice is not made because of tactical skill but because of class choice.
> So it can lead either to a warlord who never uses his abilities because the player doesn't know how to do it effectively, a warlord which uses its abilities to make bad choices or a warlord player who is constantly being told what to do. More than any other class the effectiveness of the warlord depends on the skill of the player which can lead to some awkward moments in the group.




I totally agree with you. Player who is bad tactician can muck up Warlord royally. It makes me want that class in that much more. It will be fun *challenging* class to play. It is DMs job to make sure that his players can work with their classes. As a DM I would never let a DnD novice roll a Warlord, any more then I would let them roll a 3ed (or any other ed.) Cleric. I would also not let the power-trip fellow roll Warlord any more then I would let the self-indulgent backstabber roll a Rogue (Why I would game with the later two is separate issue but I could certainly restrict them to the roles where they will do least damage).

Only exception is RPGA in those situations where we game with strangers, but not putting in a challenging class just so that we may not run into badly played characters in event-play seems a vast overkill. Particularly given that I do not expect that the new/tactically challenged people will tend to gravitate towards Warlord in any case.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 17, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Or not.
> 
> I see absolutely nothing wrong with a *tactical genius* being able to seize the initiative (different initiative, of course!) and establish a clear advantage right at the outset of combat. Commanders throughout history have accomplished this with cunning stratagems in battles both large and small.
> 
> In the context in which the warlord uses the power right off the bat, it's narrated as a snap decision; he wades in and in a flash realizes *just what he needs to do to throw the dragon off balance.* Melee is a complicated and simultaneous process, after all, which is what all the folks going after the Iron Dragon Charge ability seem to be conveniently forgetting.



My first Warlord character is going to be named Admiral Thrawn.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem is that while the cleric simply gives out bonuses which are useful in nearly all situations the warlord shifts around other players and the effectiveness of those moves depends on the abilities of the warlord player. Now what happens when the player of the warlord is a little "tactically challenged"?




The same thing that happens if any player is tactically challenged.

Face it. Combats turn out bad because of one player making bad decisions. If that happens, it doesn't matter too much if it is the player of the Warlord, or some other class. One could argue that it matters more for the Warlord, but that argument is probably fairly unsound.

If the Fighter's player decides to move to the wrong square, the Wizard might be more exposed.

If the Cleric's player decides to not heal at the right time, the injured PC might die.

I think it would be an exaggeration to state that this happening by the Warlord's player makes it more egregious.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Face it. Combats turn out bad because of one player making bad decisions. If that happens, it doesn't matter too much if it is the player of the Warlord, or some other class. One could argue that it matters more for the Warlord, but that argument is probably fairly unsound.




Heh. Last night, we were playing a module (which involved an Expedition Under a Mountain) where we fought two baneguards. The rogue, realizing he couldn't harm them, fiddled with the secret door while the cleric and I (duskblade) tried to fight the baneguards. Things were going well, till the secret door opened and the flameskull appeared and fireballed the party. Rather than role up a whole new group, we restarted outside the room with the knowledge NOT to go in there again...


----------



## pemerton (Mar 17, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> See now I just have issue accepting that a person who adventures for a living wouldn't be able to at least "ball park" their own limitations.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Their life is no less real to them why can't they know their limitations ?



Because, on the narrative interpretation of per-day martial abilities (as elaborated by others upthread) the per-day limit is _not_ a limit on the character, but rather is a metagame limit on the _player's_ narrative control.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 17, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Because, on the narrative interpretation of per-day martial abilities (as elaborated by others upthread) the per-day limit is _not_ a limit on the character, but rather is a metagame limit on the _player's_ narrative control.



That's certainly one explanation.  It could be that there is a sort of energy called Martial that certain individuals learn to tap into with the right focus in order to pull off extravagant maneuvers but only so often.

Or it could simply be that no one falls for the same trick twice and once they've seen it done they won't give you the chance to do it again.  Or maybe it requires a moment of perfect clarity that tends to happen sometime during a battle, but you never know quite when.

Daily abilities might be ALMOST magical in nature in that you reach deep down inside you to somewhere you keep those extra reserves of energy and you clear your mind of all distractions and you act with perfect precision.  But it's taxing and hard to do.  You need a good night's rest to do it again.

No matter what excuse you give for it, you should still be able to ballpark it.  Even if it's just "I figure that most enemies give me about ONE opening to use that move when I fight them.  If I don't take the opening right when I see it, I won't get the move off.  Once I've used it, I rarely get another chance."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> My first Warlord character is going to be named Admiral Thrawn.



*sigh* Thrawn... my favorite Expanded Universe character...


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Because, on the narrative interpretation of per-day martial abilities (as elaborated by others upthread) the per-day limit is _not_ a limit on the character, but rather is a metagame limit on the _player's_ narrative control.




Wahoooo my character is not limited, oh wait he is limited but only narratively.

The life he/she lives is in the narrative, if ,as some people want, (not me mind you I am perfectly find hand waving it but some people have been protesting saying that there is no IN CHARACTER explanation for x y or z) there needs to be an in character rationalization why you can only use an ability once, twice, or four times then my explanation , and query is no less appropriate than any other. He can use healing surges to regain stamina and he knows he can do it roughly X times cause every other day of his life he has, he can get back up once per encounter from being left a broken bloody heap because he's done it on occasion, even once or twice he was "going toward the light" and turned around got up and laid waste to those that laid him low.

I know I can do certain things in the real world, and how often i can do them, roughly. The characters that exist in the fantasy world should be no less cognizant of their abilities, in fact since life usually hangs in the balance for them they should be more aware.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Or it could simply be that no one falls for the same trick twice and once they've seen it done they won't give you the chance to do it again.



That works for encounter powers, but not daily powers.  Presumably you're fighting different foes over the course of the day, so foes from the first encounter don't have the chance to fall for the same trick twice, as they are already dead.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Or maybe it requires a moment of perfect clarity that tends to happen sometime during a battle, but you never know quite when.



Well, you'd know it won't be happening after it occured in any previous battles that day.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even if it's just "I figure that most enemies give me about ONE opening to use that move when I fight them.  If I don't take the opening right when I see it, I won't get the move off.  Once I've used it, I rarely get another chance."



That works for encounter powers, but not for daily powers...  If most enemies give you an opening to use "that" move, you should be able to use it once per encounter, instead of once per day, no?

Really the only way the daily powers "make sense" is if you assume Martial powers are at least sorta-magic (always a useful handwave for fantasy games), or go with the narrative explinations outlined upthread (which seem to fit in with 4e's view of skill use, as well).  There's nothing wrong with either tack.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

Or simply as people have stated before, Martial Daily Powers are sooo difficult to set up, and follow through with that the probability of being able to do so is only once per-day. 

It is simply that the player is given more narrative-control of that day's combat in that he decides when this probability has turned into a reality and everything follows through.

Edit: Woops, sorry didn't see the little bit of text at the bottom talking about the narrative-explanation, sorry.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Or simply as people have stated before, Martial Daily Powers are sooo difficult to set up, and follow through with that the probability of being able to do so is only once per-day.
> 
> It is simply that the player is given more narrative-control of that day's combat in that he decides when this probability has turned into a reality and everything follows through.
> 
> Edit: Woops, sorry didn't see the little bit of text at the bottom talking about the narrative-explanation, sorry.



Except, the 'probability' is either 100%, or 0%.  It is also entirely under the player's purview of when it occurs, meaning the character has a certain control over the opponent's actions (from a narrativist view; the creature doesn't expose its weakness until the player says it does).

The first time they use it that day, the odds of finding the weakness are 100% (the odds of successfully exploiting it may be less).  After that, the odds are 0% every successive time they attempt it.

In other words, the player may know they can only do it once a day, but it would take a pretty obtuse character to explain a complete inability to notice they either can't hit the same place to make an opponent bleed, or no matter how many times they hit successive opponents there, they don't bleed like the first one did that day (Crimson Edge).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

That can be summed up in a variety of ways, different opponents act differently meaning that it becomes much more difficult to strike through, they wear armour there, they try but the blade is shoved aside causing only a normal wound, etc.

They are always trying to pull it off, but the chances of them pulling it off is so rare it only occurs once-a-day (if it occurs, seeing how the characters/players won't always use the same daily powers each day or any at all).

Your also right that the player has some control over the opponent in that the player decides when this advantage (daily-power) comes into play. But that is sorta the idea of this kind of narrative-gameplay in which the players can also influence the world around them/the events going on in them slightly (though of course from the character perspective it is simply them gaining a advantage).

You are right that the probability of having that advantage goes from 100% to 0% (it is isn't reliable) from the players perspective. But the character wouldn't view it as the advantage entirely disappearing, but simply that completing that advantage or having the full advantage simply doesn't materialize.


----------



## Derren (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> They are always trying to pull it off, but the chances of them pulling it off is so rare it only occurs once-a-day (if it occurs, seeing how the characters/players won't always use the same daily powers each day or any at all).




That doesn't really explain what happens because the daily power is no automatic hit.
If they really try to do it all the time and only succeed once a day then they would constantly get the "miss" result of the power except once.
No, they only try it once per day and otherwise use different combat powers.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

They may be trying to set up the advantage/circumstance to set up the daily all the time, but that doesn't mean every time they try and set it up it gets to the point where they try to fulfil the set-up and go for the attack where they could still miss and then the miss-effect comes into play.

Essentially the daily is a combination of setting up the event (something that be going on throughout combat-session, through setting it up getting the advantage you need to fulfil, then finally going for it and either managing to succeed or failing) doing a daily-power is supposed to be extremely tough and this shows why.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 18, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Or simply as people have stated before, Martial Daily Powers are sooo difficult to set up, and follow through with that the probability of being able to do so is only once per-day.




I have to admit that I find these types of power rationals (or explanations) somewhat amusing.  

It's nearly impossible to rationalize game mechanic derived from other game mechanics. A daily is a game mechanic solely introduced as a big gun ability balanced by a limited frequency, nothing more. It's pure game mechanics. Trying to make sense of it (for the entire gaming population) is difficult or impossible because it is not a model of the fantasy world. It is a model of the game mechanics.

When one models from the vision of the fantasy world, then it's easier to rationalize or explain the rules derived thereof and more people will typically buy into it.

When one models from the game mechanics (like with daily or per encounter powers), then it's often difficult to rationalize and one person's rationalization will not satisfy another person (and by difficult, I mean difficult to come up with an explanation which just makes sense for most everyone).

People have been putting up all kinds of rationals, some better, some worse, for some of the (specifically Warlord daily) martial powers. But, having ammunition of martial abilities just does not make real sense and never will.

Ammunition is for guns, not for 6 to 60 seconds abilities that people can do, but only once per day (or once per 10 minutes). That's because dailies are a game mechanic for balance reasons, not for common sense modeling of the fantasy world reasons. There is no fantasy rational for them that makes real sense for their frequency and even some of the more reasonable rationals will not satisfy everyone because by the very fact that they are couple of seconds or minutes once per day, they are artificial.

Granted, divine powers can make some sense as dailies because the Gods only permit one per day (in a "the deities control resources" fantasy model), but this is a bit forced as well.

Arcane makes even less sense (but one could still extrapolate an arcane exhaution of capability model), but martial makes no sense. And yes, I realize someone will throw out a rational like your probability concept, but these types of rationals are still totally artificial and lacking. They are an "after the game mechanic is designed" attempt at rationalization, not a "the game mechanic including frequency is modeled from the original reason for the power". Anytime it is done in this backwards order, there are going to be people who have an issue with the explanation.

Game mechanics like these are awkward because they reinforce the fact that someone is playing a game (i.e. they disrupt suspension of disbelief for some people).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 18, 2008)

Oh I agree some-people will not agree with it. I am more trying to get across how I view it, which works for my level of believability/gameplay. Now that won't work for everyone, but *shrugs shoulders* works for me.

I am more just trying to get across, why it works for me.

Just like how others try to get across, why it doesn't work for them.

I think going away from all the believability/non-believability, it does work in real-life/it doesn't, etc.

One big bonus for me with this model is it gives a real sense beyond simply critical for martial characters that when they do manage to pull of something incredible, or manages to succeed in some sort of exploit that there is a noticeable difference in how it affects the monster/outcome of the battle.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 18, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Oh I agree some-people will not agree with it. I am more trying to get across how I view it, which works for my level of believability/gameplay. Now that won't work for everyone, but *shrugs shoulders* works for me.
> 
> I am more just trying to get across, why it works for me.
> 
> Just like how others try to get across, why it doesn't work for them.




Fair enough. You do tend to use words like "is" and "are" when describing your explanations instead of "could be", so you sometimes come off a bit as if your explanation is precisely what WotC was thinking and everyone else should think that way as well. This is not snark against you, it's just my perception of how you explain.

And of course, if we need explanations for how and why powers work in the first place by fellow community members, then by definition something is wrong with the power explanations in the rules (obviously, YMMV). Powers should be pretty self evident and comfortable fluff-wise right out of the box, just like they are crunch-wise.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 18, 2008)

Sorry for that, I guess since in how I am going to play/how I see it, in my eyes/feel of the game it already "is" and things already "are" like that, if you get what I mean.

As for second part, I think there could perhaps (especially given the outcry on the forums) perhaps a section in the combat chapter or in each class-power chapter describing how to use the powers descriptively/placed within the world.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 18, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> As for second part, I think there could perhaps (especially given the outcry on the forums) perhaps a section in the combat chapter or in each class-power chapter describing how to use the powers descriptively/placed within the world.




Agreed.

However, I do think that some of the outcry is knee jerk reaction to change, and some of the fanboy is knee jerk reaction to cool new stuff. Once we have all of the rules, the outcry and fanboy stuff should at least be derived (rightfully so or not) on more factual and complete elements of the game system.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 18, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Sorry for that, I guess since in how I am going to play/how I see it, in my eyes/feel of the game it already "is" and things already "are" like that, if you get what I mean.
> 
> As for second part, I think there could perhaps (especially given the outcry on the forums) perhaps a section in the combat chapter or in each class-power chapter describing how to use the powers descriptively/placed within the world.




I'm trying to think of a way to not sound overly harsh in saying this, but isn't that the DM's job?
It strikes me as overdoing it and verging into handholding on WoTC's part. I'm sure most DMs can sit and think about it, and come up with a way to describe each power's function, or simply fire it off as part of an evolving battle narrative.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 18, 2008)

Actually just got me thinking, it be interesting if the DMG had a section devoted to. Narrative and Description.

Since not every DM is a scholar of english some would have trouble with narrative and descriptive format so having a section devoted to how one can quickly use descriptive text in-game could be quite helpful. 

But all I can write for now, since Rome is about to begin! (damn not having HBO and having to wait for it to come onto History).

Edit: I didn't notice your post (was typing this) but I think what I wrote here could relate to that as well.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That doesn't really explain what happens because the daily power is no automatic hit.
> If they really try to do it all the time and only succeed once a day then they would constantly get the "miss" result of the power except once.
> No, they only try it once per day and otherwise use different combat powers.



No, the idea they it several times per day and get different outcomes is perfectly acceptable. It's like a crit, except the player decides when to do/try it instead of the the dice deciding when it happens. 

The difference between giving Fighters cool crit abilities and 4e style encounter/daily abilities is exactly the same as the difference between Stormbringer style low hp, low chance of hitting and D&D's high hp, high chance of hitting (which implies that most hits up untill the last aren't really hits).

If you're not okay with that, if that breaks your WSoD, that's fine, but don't tell people it *can't* work that way, that they're invloved in badwrongfun, when one of the most basic tropes of D&D works exactly the same way.


----------



## Marshall (Mar 18, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> My first Warlord character is going to be named Admiral Thrawn.



 Oohh....Thats perfect. Thrawn is a _classic_ epic level Warlord.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I have to admit that I find these types of power rationals (or explanations) somewhat amusing.
> 
> It's nearly impossible to rationalize game mechanic derived from other game mechanics. A daily is a game mechanic solely introduced as a big gun ability balanced by a limited frequency, nothing more. It's pure game mechanics. Trying to make sense of it (for the entire gaming population) is difficult or impossible because it is not a model of the fantasy world. It is a model of the game mechanics.
> 
> <snip>



Of course, everything you said here applies equally well to all editions of D&D.  If it's impossible to rationalize daily allotments of divine, arcane, and "human" power, then when has D&D ever made sense?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 18, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> That can be summed up in a variety of ways, different opponents act differently meaning that it becomes much more difficult to strike through, they wear armour there, they try but the blade is shoved aside causing only a normal wound, etc.
> 
> They are always trying to pull it off, but the chances of them pulling it off is so rare it only occurs once-a-day (if it occurs, seeing how the characters/players won't always use the same daily powers each day or any at all).
> 
> ...



And from what I am reading, that is where most people have the disconnect.

It's as though the first group of Orcs that day is able to transmit some kind of quantum entangled message to any other Orcs you run into the rest of the day not to drop their guard after a parry (for example), but the following day, everyone forgets that, until your Warlord uses their daily Super Saiyan Teamwork 9000 talent again.  After which, of course, everyone remembers to keep their guard up after a parry, again.

The ability should be throttled back quite a bit and made per encounter.  Daily martial powers should be spectacular and cost hit points or experience points to activate or something similar.  These are supposed to be the 'massive come back attacks' everyone points to in the movies after the good guy has been beaten down by the minions, and almost killed by the Level Boss.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 18, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Of course, everything you said here applies equally well to all editions of D&D.  If it's impossible to rationalize daily allotments of divine, arcane, and "human" power, then when has D&D ever made sense?



Except that allotments of divine and arcane power have always been rationalized.  The explanations have not always held up to scrutiny, but they were there.  No previous edition has ever tried to explain how the fighter can only make 'five attacks per two rounds' once a day, because that would have been silly.  Fighter abilities have always been 'at will', which is why they were relatively weaker than divine or arcane powers.  Sure, the MU may have fireball memorized three times, but the fighter can swing a sword all day long.  Because that matches with people's perceptions.  Granted, four or five combats a day would have even the most well-trained fighter exhausted, but there is already a mechanic for that without limiting whatever tricks they can pull off.

What doesn't match perceptions is teamwork that only works on a diurnal cycle.  What doesn't match perceptions is a bleeding ability that not only works against hit points that don't represent physical damage, but also only works once a day.  Especially after shutting down the console having played X-Men Legends or Ulitmate Alliance, where Wolverine or several other characters get bleed damage on _every attack_.  What doesn't match perceptions are mundane (non-magical) abilities that have a magic-like limit on their uses.

For example, the martial characters we have seen show 'melee attack' as an at-will.  Can I swap that with a per-encounter?  Does everyone get 'melee attack' on the at-will list, but martial characters get it free?  Does the Wizard not get a 'melee attack' if they don't take it as one of their at-will powers?  Or is it a per-encounter for the Wizard?

I believe Martial Powers is going to remain a large stumbling block for some time to come.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 18, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Except that allotments of divine and arcane power have always been rationalized.  The explanations have not always held up to scrutiny, but they were there.  No previous edition has ever tried to explain how the fighter can only make 'five attacks per two rounds' once a day, because that would have been silly.  Fighter abilities have always been 'at will', which is why they were relatively weaker than divine or arcane powers.  Sure, the MU may have fireball memorized three times, but the fighter can swing a sword all day long.  Because that matches with people's perceptions.  Granted, four or five combats a day would have even the most well-trained fighter exhausted, but there is already a mechanic for that without limiting whatever tricks they can pull off.
> 
> What doesn't match perceptions is teamwork that only works on a diurnal cycle.  What doesn't match perceptions is a bleeding ability that not only works against hit points that don't represent physical damage, but also only works once a day.  Especially after shutting down the console having played X-Men Legends or Ulitmate Alliance, where Wolverine or several other characters get bleed damage on _every attack_.  What doesn't match perceptions are mundane (non-magical) abilities that have a magic-like limit on their uses.
> 
> ...




Would it perhaps calm some of the teapotted tempest if there was a "deity" of martial ability that granted these boons .. I'm sure someone could stat him up if it would help believability.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 18, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Except that allotments of divine and arcane power have always been rationalized.



I was responding to KarinsDad's statements, in case that was not clear.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Granted, divine powers can make some sense as dailies because the Gods only permit one per day (in a "the deities control resources" fantasy model), but this is a bit forced as well.
> 
> Arcane makes even less sense (but one could still extrapolate an arcane exhaution of capability model)






			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> No previous edition has ever tried to explain how the fighter can only make 'five attacks per two rounds' once a day, because that would have been silly.



Of course, fighters are not the only "martial" class, even in previous editions.  Monks, barbarians, and possibly cavaliers (I no longer have UA to check) have all had "martial" powers usable only on a daily (or weekly in the case of _quivering palm_) basis.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2008)

> Arcane makes even less sense (but one could still extrapolate an arcane exhaution of capability model)



I think it would be possible to model the martial per encounter / per day mechanic via a "exhaustion" system (maybe combined with a random element for per day) - or something like the Token system from Iron Heroes. But any such system is usually a lot more fiddly and I believe it's also a lot easier to abuse.


----------

