# Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??



## Emirikol (Mar 16, 2008)

I get the impression from the description that the warlord player's job is to tell other players what to do??  I always thought this was on the top 10 list of gamer no-no's.  Isn't the cleric a "tell other players what to do" class too?  

Thoughts?

"The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around. Taken to extremes, that style of gameplay is still annoying. But if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive, the warlord provides roleplaying hooks and flexible powers to support your play style in a way that will endear you to your allies." 



jh


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2008)

The warlord creates tactical options.

A player who says, "Flank that orc over there!  Not this one, that one!  Its the better move, I tell you!" is annoying.

A player who says, "Flank that orc over there!  I set it up so you get +5 on all your damage rolls if you flank him!" is useful.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A player who says, "Flank that orc over there!  I set it up so you get +5 on all your damage rolls if you flank him!" is useful.




And what do you call the player who ignores such a bonus after the warlord has gone out of his way to use one of his precious powers in order to set up such a situation?

I have a pretty good idea what the player of the warlord would call him....


----------



## Three_Haligonians (Mar 16, 2008)

I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:

Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
Warlord Player: "Cool, let me give you a bonus with -Insert Ability-"
Other Player: "Great, thanks.. since it will be such a great bonus to hit, maybe I'll use an encounter power instead of an at will one."

Or some such thing..

Am I wrong in thinking this is a good way to do things?

J from Three Haligonians


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The warlord creates tactical options.
> 
> A player who says, "Flank that orc over there!  Not this one, that one!  Its the better move, I tell you!" is annoying.
> 
> A player who says, "Flank that orc over there!  I set it up so you get +5 on all your damage rolls if you flank him!" is useful.



Yet at least the first can be said *in character*, with the other player able to in-character tell the first to get lost, or comply, as the situation and personalities suit.

The second is pure metagaming and more annoying than you can possibly imagine. (characters have no idea what hit points are, or what "+5" means!)

Lanefan


----------



## Voss (Mar 16, 2008)

Unfortunately, from the preview of daily powers, the warlord does both.  Sometimes he's just giving you opportunities to act or benefit from, but in another case, he's moving other party members.  And allowing other party members to move yet other party members.  

Unfortunate, and a simple rewording would have nipped the whole problem in the bud.  Instead of 'the attacker slides an adjacent ally', they could have said, 'an ally adjacent to the attacker may slide', leaving it both optional and the character under the appropriate player's control.

Hopefully most of the powers won't cross this line and WotC will have the sense to fix the ones that do before the send the final version to the printers.


----------



## outsider (Mar 16, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> And what do you call the player who ignores such a bonus after the warlord has gone out of his way to use one of his precious powers in order to set up such a situation?
> 
> I have a pretty good idea what the player of the warlord would call him....




I would probably call him a jerk.  Deliberately choosing suboptimal actions just to spite another player is just as bad as ordering another player around.  If the player had a good reason(eg despite the bonus it's still a poor tactical choice, or some rp reason), that's different, but D&D is a cooperative team game.  The belligerent "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" attitude is not something to be encouraged.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 16, 2008)

Or one can use common sense, and simply go okay, realistically there is no way a Warlord could "force" the character to move, so it is a choose right there.

As for for "metagaming" do you consider it metagaming when in a fight, a person throws sand in the dust of the person their attacking so their companion can sucker punch them.

Or, a soldier charging into a line of troops, dispersing them allowing their companions to charge and break the line more.

That is what the Warlord does, and it is hardly metagaming to see that the characters would see the advantages (+5) in-game.


----------



## Exen Trik (Mar 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yet at least the first can be said *in character*, with the other player able to in-character tell the first to get lost, or comply, as the situation and personalities suit.
> 
> The second is pure metagaming and more annoying than you can possibly imagine. (characters have no idea what hit points are, or what "+5" means!)
> 
> Lanefan



To be fair, this is an out of character conversation, but with a bit of roleplay and creativity it can fit well enough in character. 

Warlord Character: "Hold a moment! What do you mean to do, simply charge in like a fool?
Other Character: "That beast there, he seems the hungriest, I shall feed him a foot of steel!"
Warlord Character: "There is an ounce of sense in you after all! I'll distract the brute, and allow you room to serve your blade."
Other Character: "Thank ye, I shall this make chance count well! YEEAAAHHHHH!!!"


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 16, 2008)

Alternatively, you can ASK players "Hey, you wanna charge the hell out of this guy?"


----------



## Ten (Mar 16, 2008)

I don't know about you guys, but thoughts of the warlord forcing anyone's character to do anything that their player didn't want him to do is absurd;  There is a natural defense against player abuse, and it's called throwing an object of variable weight at the player until he decides that action isn't prudent.

Being serious for a moment, I have never played with someone who would seriously go against my will and force me to do something I didn't want to do.  I play with my friends, and if a warlord wants to move me, he would ask me outside the game exactly what I wanted to do, and if I wanted to be moved.  If, for some reason, I didn't, he wouldn't shift me.  Simple as that.  As such, it really is a non-issue to me.

The reason I suspect it is worded as it is, is so there is no chance that you will be attacked as per a move or have special abilities trigger, as per a shift when next to someone like a fighter.  It's a conflict free move.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 16, 2008)

Ten said:
			
		

> I don't know about you guys, but thoughts of the warlord forcing anyone's character to do anything that their player didn't want him to do is absurd;  There is a natural defense against player abuse, and it's called throwing an object of variable weight at the player until he decides that action isn't prudent.



Agreed! 

Yeah, it's basically table-conduct - if the players are trying to incite conflicts, that just another way of doing it. Just like fireballing the own party, doing AoO on your party members and so on.

And ruleswise: It only affects allies, hence it's not forced movement, otherwise it'd affect enemies as well, right? Hence it's voluntary.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Voss (Mar 16, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> And ruleswise: It only affects allies, hence it's not forced movement, otherwise it'd affect enemies as well, right? Hence it's voluntary.




Um... no.  These aren't linked concepts.  If you can move your allies characters (and the power [white raven onslaught] explicitly says you can), it is forced movement.  You (or the attacker) pick up someone else's character and move it.  You don't need their consent, permission, or anything else.  Technically, they don't even need to be capable of movement- the warlord/attacker slides them at the warlord/attacker's whim as part of a successful attack.


----------



## Burr (Mar 16, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Um... no.  These aren't linked concepts.  If you can move your allies characters (and the power [white raven onslaught] explicitly says you can), it is forced movement.  You (or the attacker) pick up someone else's character and move it.  You don't need their consent, permission, or anything else.  Technically, they don't even need to be capable of movement- the warlord/attacker slides them at the warlord/attacker's whim as part of a successful attack.




But they are only your allies if they are allied with your moving them.  If they are in conflict with your decision, that makes them enemies within the scope of that conflict/decision.  Thus, they cannot be forcibly moved.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 16, 2008)

Burr said:
			
		

> But they are only your allies if they are allied with your moving them.  If they are in conflict with your decision, that makes them enemies within the scope of that conflict/decision.  Thus, they cannot be forcibly moved.



This makes absolutely no sense.  Either they are allies or not, unless they start attacking you they aren't suddenly going to switch into 'not-allies' just because they decide to take a different action than the warlord chooses.  In fact there's no hint of this in any of the previews so far or the wording of the abilities we have.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yet at least the first can be said *in character*, with the other player able to in-character tell the first to get lost, or comply, as the situation and personalities suit.
> 
> The second is pure metagaming and more annoying than you can possibly imagine. (characters have no idea what hit points are, or what "+5" means!)



This is one of those things about metagaming.  Metagaming is when you think of the game AS a game and use that information to base your characters decisions on.

The problem is that often game rules have a direct correlation to the in character world so the only difference between metagaming and roleplaying is the choice of words you use to describe it.

If a player says "There's a trap here.  Whoever made it must have made a way to turn it off so they could get past when they needed to.  Let's search for it." then it is roleplaying.

If a player says "The DM wouldn't put a trap that was completely impossible to get past without giving us a way to disable it.  He wants us to get to the other side.  Let's search." then its metagaming.

However, the result is the same.  It's advisable to use roleplaying thinking whenever possible.  However, metagaming isn't such a bad thing 95% of the time.

I, personally don't care if someone says "I only have 15 hitpoints left out of 200" or "I'm extremely hurt and tired and I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out against these foes!"  The only difference is one takes less time to say and is more precise and doesn't end with bad feelings when the cleric casts cure critical wounds instead of heal and causes the death of the character involved.  The other one might be slightly more flavorful, but ends up bogging down the game so that battles take forever when a game is filled with them.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Um... no.  These aren't linked concepts.  If you can move your allies characters (and the power [white raven onslaught] explicitly says you can), it is forced movement.  You (or the attacker) pick up someone else's character and move it.  You don't need their consent, permission, or anything else.  Technically, they don't even need to be capable of movement- the warlord/attacker slides them at the warlord/attacker's whim as part of a successful attack.



You only need their permission out of character.  There is still a DM running the game and no DM is going to say "It doesn't matter what you want, Steve...Mark is playing the Warlord and he can do whatever he wants with your character."

The point is completely moot in 99.9% of all cases as most groups are going to discuss the use of their powers out of character and say "Is it alright if I move you over here, that way we can get the flank in?"


----------



## Orius (Mar 16, 2008)

A good group of players would work together to coordinate their characters' actions so that there would be no warlord-based conflicts arising at the game table.

Bad players would use it as an excuse to pick a fight at the table, but I can't really follow my initial feeling and say it's a bad move on WotC's part.  Without a warlord, the players would probably find something else to bicker about.


----------



## Valdrax (Mar 16, 2008)

Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:
> 
> Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
> Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
> ...



This is exactly how we do it in my group.  I play a tactician wizard -- a brilliant former general who makes quick plans and then casts spells and gives orders to bring the party to victory.  IC, he yells out plan code names and directs allies towards appropriate targets.

OOC, we all decide on a course of action that sounds cool, and I make sure to get buy-in from other players instead of bossing them around.  Once we collectively pool our brains into figuring out the kind of battle plan that an experienced general would come up with, my character leads the others to execute it.

Out of battles, we generally follow the lead of the party's most charismatic character or whoever has the most amusing / ballsy idea, so in RP-heavy sessions, I don't end up bossing around other players there either, generally only chiming in with guidance on matters of tactical or arcane import and going with the flow (to avoid going nuts) the rest of the time and soliciting the advice of the other PCs in their areas of expertise whenever possible.

That's really the way to do it.  A Warlord will bark orders on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean he gets to bark orders all the time nor that the *player* gets to bark orders either.  A little metagame conversation, and you can convincingly keep the illusion that the Warlord knows how best to put his men to use without running roughshod over them or provoking a mutiny.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 16, 2008)

The Warlord concept is awesome!

But the warlord rules are just disgusting!

Some time ago it was discused here if the warlord was often going to be role-played a la barking, on-your-feet-scumbag seargent... but the actual mechanics made him even worse! He jus moves peaople arround...
Even if you can decide wether or not to do as he says, it's like "marking" your own allies: "You can do something else, but you lose this benefit for us all".

It makes me sick...

There's GOT to be some other way to work this concept without being this potencial madness and weirdness in the table. Simply horrible.

I'm cool with the other classes.... but this one sucks. No wonder why the warlord did't make it to the DDXP. The chaos would have been to obvious.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Um... no.  These aren't linked concepts.  If you can move your allies characters (and the power [white raven onslaught] explicitly says you can), it is forced movement.  You (or the attacker) pick up someone else's character and move it.  You don't need their consent, permission, or anything else.




Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.


----------



## The_Fan (Mar 16, 2008)

Quick question: How many jerks do you game with?

From the sounds of things, people must game entirely with a bunch of purile, abusive jerkasses who like to fireball their own party members. If that's the case, I'd say get a new group before railing against the Warlord for opening up new tactical options.


----------



## Harr (Mar 16, 2008)

This is ridiculous.. _of course_ players are going to talk beforehand as a team and be in agreement of whatever their characters are going to do. _Of course._

Then again, that point is of course too obviously common sense and logical and doesn't make for good whining, so everybody's gonna just ignore it and continue arguing as though it hadn't been pointed out in frickin post #4... Come on...


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Mar 16, 2008)

If two players are going to be jerks and fight about a warlord's abilities, they would be fighting no matter what class one of them used.


----------



## dystmesis (Mar 16, 2008)

Fireballing your own party members is often an effective tactic with high saves and/or evasion...


----------



## Derren (Mar 16, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Or one can use common sense, and simply go okay, realistically there is no way a Warlord could "force" the character to move, so it is a choose right there.




When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 16, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> Quick question: How many jerks do you game with?
> 
> From the sounds of things, people must game entirely with a bunch of purile, abusive jerkasses who like to fireball their own party members. If that's the case, I'd say get a new group before railing against the Warlord for opening up new tactical options.



That's why I stopped playing AD&D2E 17 years ago, because the Assassin team member was backstabbing the other team members in their sleep for XP , gold, and magic items. And that is one of the reason I'm coming back with 4E, because it's promoting group work.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 16, 2008)

dystmesis said:
			
		

> Fireballing your own party members is often an effective tactic with high saves and/or evasion...



But you're usually asking them beforehand, don't you? 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 16, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.



"Using common sense" and "Thinking too hard about Fantasy" aren't Synonyms Derren.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 16, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, from the preview of daily powers, the warlord does both.  Sometimes he's just giving you opportunities to act or benefit from, but in another case, he's moving other party members.  And allowing other party members to move yet other party members.
> 
> Unfortunate, and a simple rewording would have nipped the whole problem in the bud.  Instead of 'the attacker slides an adjacent ally', they could have said, 'an ally adjacent to the attacker may slide', leaving it both optional and the character under the appropriate player's control.
> 
> Hopefully most of the powers won't cross this line and WotC will have the sense to fix the ones that do before the send the final version to the printers.




Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. There's simply no good reason for the power to allow someone to move another person's character. It could have the same strategic effect without any of the controversy.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.




It is one thing to say that players can fight and that they don't need permission to stab each other in the back, it's quite another to say that in order for the party to coordinate and use tactics, that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> It is one thing to say that players can fight and that they don't need permission to stab each other in the back, it's quite another to say that in order for the party to coordinate and use tactics, that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character.




Indeed it is. However, nobody said that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character _without that player's assent_.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Indeed it is. However, nobody said that one player needs to have the ability to control another player's character _without that player's assent_.




But yet the RAW give the Warlord the power to do just that, assent or not. Even if your group is mature enough to handle this, as I suspect most are, it is simply in bad taste and totally unnecessary. The rules work just as well without this controversial ability. And really, it goes against the entire spirit of what a Warlord is. Warlords lead, not compel. This type of power more resembles mind control than leadership. Warlords should be there to provide options, strategy and encouragement, not moving his minions, err I mean fellow party members, around like puppets. And that is, unfortunately, how alot of people are going to see their warlord friends, as puppetmasters. It doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> But yet the RAW give the Warlord the power to do just that, assent or not. Even if your group is mature enough to handle this, as I suspect most are, it is simply in bad taste and totally unnecessary.




Stop right there. This entire storm in a teacup is over the omission of the word "may" in the power description. If a group is really unable to get over that omission, then either 1) they have more problems than the RAW can address, or 2) such hyper-literalism in rules interpretation is something to be stamped out, not pandered to.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 16, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Reductio ad absurdum.



For the record, you realise Reductio ad absurdum is an example of a *good* logical argument, right?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 16, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> For the record, you realise Reductio ad absurdum is an example of a *good* logical argument, right?




Clearly I shouldn't post when I have insomnia.


----------



## Hathorym (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Stop right there. This entire storm in a teacup is over the omission of the word "may" in the power description. If a group is really unable to get over that omission, then either 1) they have more problems than the RAW can address, or 2) such hyper-literalism in rules interpretation is something to be stamped out, not pandered to.



I am quoting this for truth.  The way I read it, and the way I will interpret it is that the Warlord simply gives the OPTION for one of his allies to make these movements - and that is it.  The ally does not have to take this option and if he wishes to waste the option, then that is on the ally.  It appears to me that the leader type is set up to provide additional OPTIONS to the allies around him, not to control those allies.  I would be thrilled to provide more tactical options and advantages to my party members.  If they choose not to use them, that isn't my problem, and getting upset over someone wasting an opportunity is puerile.

Also, it should be noted that in the White Raven Power, there is nothing there that says that the ally is REQUIRED to move, only that they can.  I chalk the whole may/can issue up to the continued de-grammarization of the American English language.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 16, 2008)

outsider said:
			
		

> I would probably call him a jerk.  Deliberately choosing suboptimal actions just to spite another player is just as bad as ordering another player around.  If the player had a good reason(eg despite the bonus it's still a poor tactical choice, or some rp reason), that's different, but D&D is a cooperative team game.  The belligerent "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" attitude is not something to be encouraged.



Actually the "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" is exactly what I usually see at RPGA games and ususally no-one feels slighted because of that.

Simply because the first party building is always an awkward moment anyway, because mostly the characters have absolutely no in-game reason to team up and go on this adventure together. They're there because out-of-game these players wanted to play an RPGA game and happened to end up at the same table. Most groups don't even try anymore to spend much effort comming up with an in-game explanaton, it's just taken as given that these characters strike out together for no real reason at all.

As soon as it comes to combat this almost inevitably makes the party fight as 4-6 solo combatants instead of a coordinated team.

And here I see the most problems with classes that enable other players to force characters of other players to act against the will of their player. I would not take this from my friend at my private table (and tell him in advance that I would not take it if he used such a power against me (yes, against me I would feel attacked) and I will certainly not take this from some foreign guy I never met before).

So if the cleric wants to run across half of the battlefield (and taking 3 unnecessary AoOs) just to heal her friend's character instead of holding the front line for the rest of the party (all seen in RPGA games and I love them for that unpredictability) then I am fine with it and would never call the other player a jerk (however I would call them a jerk if the force my character to move against my will even if it creates an tactical advantage. Giving me the option if fine, but forcing me to take the option when I don't want to take it can end a game for me pretty quickly)


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 16, 2008)

If the Warlord's tactical powers seem like they would cause interparty friction in the group, I would think that the Warlord probably isn't a good choice for the table.  Since the Warlord's power appear to cause problems in cases where there is mistrust between players (and/or characters), I would think that they will indeed lead to arguments in convention play, where players often haven't had the chance to build relationships.  I imagine a good DM could help this with guidance and table rules, but it will likely still be a challenge.  I think that the classes without this baggage would be preferred.

I should note that the presence of a free action Veto rule to allow characters to not take actions granted by an ally would take care of many of these concerns.  I'd imagine that table rules would still be useful to prevent drawn out arguments over what the Warlord's best tactics are.  Not unique to this class, but I would imagine more common than most.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Actually the "I'll do whatever I want no matter what the rest of the party thinks!" is exactly what I usually see at RPGA games and ususally no-one feels slighted because of that.




RPGA games, like WotC CharOp, are a funny place. Let's not go there.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> RPGA games, like WotC CharOp, are a funny place. Let's not go there.



During the last few months I was playing RPGA more regulary than homegames. And if the schedules of my pals don't become less crowed I don't see a change in this trend for the near future. So I am greatly concerned how the rules will cause trouble with RPGA games

So things like more importance to strategy and tactics make me pretty nervous, because I don't expect that from 6 strangers and my character isn't an exception to this. I fear quite a few more TPK (at least in the early time of 4e RPGA games) because the chars don't fight as a tactical teams but as a bunch of loner (and after that I hope that RPGA encounters will be written with the assumption that the players won't use optimal tactics, because I would find a less fun to be forced to fight as a tactical team even in RPGA games where I enjoyed the "everyone up for himself'" component during the encounters very much)


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> During the last few months I was playing RPGA more regulary than homegames. And if the schedules of my pals don't become less crowed I don't see a change in this trend for the near future. So I am greatly concerned how the rules will cause trouble with RPGA games



 You may be greatly concerned about RPGA games, but that doesn't mean anyone else is. Further, you may be better served fine-tuning your sensibilities to RPGA practices than complaining about non-issues on webforae.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> than complaining about non-issues on webforae.



The point that quite a few people have an issue with that means that it's not a non-issue


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> The point that quite a few people have an issue with that means that it's not a non-issue



 No, it just means that quite a few people also like complaining about non-issues.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> But yet the RAW give the Warlord the power to do just that, assent or not. Even if your group is mature enough to handle this, as I suspect most are, it is simply in bad taste and totally unnecessary. The rules work just as well without this controversial ability. And really, it goes against the entire spirit of what a Warlord is. Warlords lead, not compel. This type of power more resembles mind control than leadership. Warlords should be there to provide options, strategy and encouragement, not moving his minions, err I mean fellow party members, around like puppets. And that is, unfortunately, how alot of people are going to see their warlord friends, as puppetmasters. It doesn't have to be that way.




The RAW also allow my character to stab your character while it is asleep, or to slip a poison into your flagon of mead, or to side with the BBEG  when we get to him, or , or , or.

It isn't the RAW that makes a cohesive gaming table it's the people at the table deciding they want to do this activity together for fun and entertainment.


----------



## tomtill (Mar 16, 2008)

*warlord military hierarchy*

Virtually all military powers in the world recognize the superiority of a clear chain of command in a battle situation. There is always a designated leader. The soldiers must always follow the commands of their leader. This gives that squad tactical advantage over a undisciplined gang of guys with guns.

A party with a warlord has a tactical leader (not necessarily the party leader). Your character recognizes his tactical skill, and agrees by choice to follow the commands of the warlord during battle. There is no time for democracy in the heat of battle.

In the abstraction of D&D battle, the tactical superiority is represented by the warlord granting bonuses to allies under tactically favorable circumstances, even though he is not necessarily adjacent. His status as tactical leader is represented by his ability to slide his allies. In the game world, he is issuing orders with gestures, words, example, much like you see in any war movie. Your characters are moving as he says because he is the tactical leader, and you recognize his skills, so you follow his commands.

If there is an in-game reason for your character to not follow a particular command, your DM may allow an exceptions based ruling. However, it makes sense for the default to be to follow the command. The current wording is consistent with this. A slide is a forced movement.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> A party with a warlord has a tactical leader (not necessarily the party leader). Your character recognizes his tactical skill, and agrees by choice to follow the commands of the warlord during battle. There is no time for democracy in the heat of battle.



But a group of heroes is not a military unit!  Not every party is the Black Company!  Some are, but they're the exception which proves the rule.

WOTC's new class has implied that every adventuring party with a warlord in it is some kind of military outfit, because it functions like one.  For this reason alone it should have been reconsidered and junked, IMO - it changes the fundamental nature of D&D's chief conceit, the band of fantasy heroes which could formerly have contained independent types, and turns them into a military squad with orders (authoritative tactical advice can't realistically be delivered swiftly any other way) and implied hierarchy.  Bad, bad, bad.


----------



## Derren (Mar 16, 2008)

Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants. Also while normally leaders in adventuring groups get chosen because all members agree that someone is a good tactican the Warlord, or rather the player of the Warlord could have no tactical knowledge at all but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants.



Just as shooting your own side is "friendly fire" and someone who's short is "vertically challenged"?  I detect weasel words here - you're just putting attempting to put a politically correct spin on what is essentially a case of an order is an order is an order.  

Even if it is optional whether you heed it or not, it's (a) still an order, and (b) suboptimal in terms of gameplay to ignore it, so you are effectively punished for being independent.  By the rules.


> but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.



I think you just contradicted yourself?


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants. Also while normally leaders in adventuring groups get chosen because all members agree that someone is a good tactican the Warlord, or rather the player of the Warlord could have no tactical knowledge at all but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.




And if he does things to or with your character you don't like you have the same options you do with the player that stabs you in the back, poisons you, leaves you for dead, or turns on you when you get to the BBEG. Or heck the same choices you have with any group that has a member you don't like the play style of

1) work it out so the group can continue.
2) suck it up and deal so you can get to do something you mostly enjoy with people you mostly enjoy doing it with.
3) If the majority agree with you get the other player to leave.
4) If you are in the minority and can't do 1 and/or 2 you leave.

The RAW and the designers can't make a cohesive table, nor can they say "you must play well with others to play" the people AT THE TABLE do that.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> WOTC's new class has implied that every adventuring party with a warlord in it is some kind of military outfit, because it functions like one.  For this reason alone it should have been reconsidered and junked, IMO - it changes the fundamental nature of D&D's chief conceit, the band of fantasy heroes which could formerly have contained independent types, and turns them into a military squad with orders and implied hierarchy.




What?


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> What?



Adventuring party != Military squad, hong.

Or at least, not necessarily.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Adventuring party != Military squad, hong.




Warlord != military officer, baby.



> Or at least, not necessarily.




Indeed.


----------



## Ingolf (Mar 16, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.




Yeah, but if you use common sense about 90% of the game's other rules don't work at all, either. Across all editions.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What?




Yeah that confused me too. but then I always defer to the most charismatic in social settings, or if the most tactical (or the group as a whole) has a sound battle strategy that I can buy in to I'll defer to that in combat. If not I'll do whatever seems best to me. I KNOW if we have a warlord I still won't be getting moved around against my will. My group must be odd in that we are friendly, respectful, and what not.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Even if it is optional whether you heed it or not, it's (a) still an order, and (b) suboptimal in terms of gameplay to ignore it, so you are effectively punished for being independent.  By the rules.



Yes.  As it should be.  D&D is a team based game of working together to defeat problems.  Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules.  I don't think D&D needs to apologize for focusing on this either.

But it's always been this way.  Don't want to move around for the flank when the rogue asks you to?  No problem, but you don't get the +2 to hit and the party loses out on the rogue's sneak attack dice.  If that makes the difference between the enemy dying one round or the next and during that time the monster kills you, it was a choice you made.  A suboptimal one that you were punished for taking.  If your death is enough to tip the balance of power over and the rest of your group dies...oh well, you were being independent.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Yes. As it should be. D&D is a team based game of working together to defeat problems. Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules. I don't think D&D needs to apologize for focusing on this either.



"Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules".  So too bad if you're roleplaying someone who isn't Captain Cooperation, it's now hardcoded into the D&D ruleset that you're playing wrong.

So much for simulating fantasy, where independent heroes are a dime a dozen.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Hey rounser, if you didn't notice, they also nerfed skill points.

HAW HAW!


----------



## tomtill (Mar 16, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants. Also while normally leaders in adventuring groups get chosen because all members agree that someone is a good tactican the Warlord, or rather the player of the Warlord could have no tactical knowledge at all but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.





The warlord's powers exist to partially mitigate the requirement that the warlord's player actually be a military tactical genius. Just as the rogue's player does not have to be an expert on disarming traps, the charismatic character not have to have a charismatic player, etc.

You get the pluses, the extra movement, etc even if your warlord player isn't that great. Not all military leaders are either. At the gaming table, at least the players can offer each other advice.

Note that a really bad player is bad no matter what class. The fighter who goes after the easy kills, the wizard with friendly fire issues, the rogue who doesn't bother to check for traps, the 3.5 cleric who didn't want to waste his spells on healing, or worse, used it to control other players. All bad bad bad. It's a team effort. Always has been.

Just as some groups strongly discourage anyone playing a bard, druid, etc, I imagine some groups will find issue with anyone playing a warlord. I think that's a shame. People should get to play what they enjoy. The warlord's players will screw up sometimes, save your bacon sometimes, just like any other class. Maybe some people just have difficulty with the concept of abstraction...


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Hey rounser, if you didn't notice, they also nerfed skill points.
> 
> HAW HAW!



Couldn't care less.  What's your point?  That I'm so stupid that I'm afraid of everything new and like everything old?

There's a lot I like about 4E, buster.  How do you like them apples?


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Couldn't care less.  What's your point?  That I'm so stupid that I'm afraid of everything new and like everything old?
> 
> There's a lot I like about 4E, buster.  How do you like them apples?



 The point is that the possibility of inadvertently nerfing yourself by not having skills in a particular area has been removed, and the consequential side-effect is to remove opportunities to purposefully nerf yourself as well. Here too can be seen a tradeoff away from independence towards group functionality. Isn't it great?


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> The point is that the possibility of inadvertently nerfing yourself by not having skills in a particular area has been removed, and the consequential side-effect is to remove opportunities to purposefully nerf yourself as well. Here too can be seen a tradeoff away from independence towards group functionality. Isn't it great?



Given how little skills seemed to matter on the battlefield (with the odd exception like bluff or tumble), I still could care less.  I'm more concerned about how thematically-void stuff like this is sneaking in as a core class than the whole independence issue anyway.

Here, have an apple.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Given how little skills seemed to matter on the battlefield (with the odd exception like bluff or tumble), I still could care less.




What, so people's abilities on the battlefield are all that matters now?

How... videogamey. 



> I'm more concerned about how thematically-void stuff like this is sneaking in as a core class than the whole independence issue anyway.




D00d, you just pointed out elsewhere that the theme for warlord is "military officer". Now you may not like that theme, but it is perfectly valid, and in fact highly evocative when one considers how many military-ish heroes there are in fiction, history, myth and even videogames. Make up your mind. Does it have a theme, or not?



> Here, have an apple.




Indeed.


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> What, so people's abilities on the battlefield are all that matters now?
> 
> How... videogamey.



Meh.  I don't really care about this issue either way, even if you do (combat-rules-to-the exclusion-of-all-else-and-DM-fiat-the-rest D&D and combat-and-everything-else-codified-in-the-rules D&D both work fine, as past editions and D&D derivative games seem to have proven).  

Feel free to drag the conversation there if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> "Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules".  So too bad if you're roleplaying someone who isn't Captain Cooperation, it's now hardcoded into the D&D ruleset that you're playing wrong.
> 
> So much for simulating fantasy, where independent heroes are a dime a dozen.




1) how is it "hardcoded" into the rules ? And I think equally as important to frank and open intelligent discussion what does "hardcoded" mean to you. To me it means unable to avoid at all ever, I just don't see that as the case.

2) How do you have to be "Captain Cooperation" to want your team to win as quickly and effectively as possible ? I fail to see what is keeping your characters from being as surly in game as you might like them to be

3) This is a cooperative team game. If you are playing with others then yes take them into account. If you are just playing with yourself it won't matter if anyone else in the verse makes plays and enjoys a warlord.

4) Do you really play the guy in the party that is all broody and a loner, not contributing except to scout off ahead and get caught so he needs rescued, or starting a bar brawl over an imagined slight ?


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Make up your mind. Does it have a theme, or not?



It has a theme of sorts if you excuse the inappropriate name and give it a proper military title, but one that belongs in a war or military engagement, and that doesn't fit by default in an adventuring party, because not every adventuring party is a military squad.

D&D parties are not armies, hong.  This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Full Metal Scabbard.  D&D was about taking the fantasy heroes _off_ of the battlefield and sending them into a dungeon _without_ the soldiers, just like in the novels.  Duh.

(And yes, I know there are military-themed fantasy hero groups in novels, even Tolkien features them...but they're not the default.)


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> It has a theme of sorts if you excuse the inappropriate name and give it a proper military title, but one that belongs in a war or military engagement, and that doesn't fit by default in an adventuring party, because not every adventuring party is a military squad.
> 
> D&D parties are not armies, hong.  This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Full Metal Scabbard.




Show me how the inclusion of a warlord turns my adventuring party into a military squad anymore than a class from BO9S or heck even a fighter or anyone that needs flanking does.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 16, 2008)

It's not about having nice buddies or jerks in the table.
It's about a weird class that can move his teamates around (without ANY magical power) as he sees fit... I know it's a "cool and fun" mechanic, very useful, etc. But it should not happen, a player moves his mini... and is not messing arround with the rest of the board...
Some of you are comparing it with backstabbing or poisoning your teammates.... at least here's an attack roll/defense involved... Not just arbitrarily moving other dudes arround... It feels more like a board game... Again... this "Narrative" stuff.... the other players tell the story too... and they may diceide what goes on with my character too. (I want my imersion atmosphere back!)


----------



## arscott (Mar 16, 2008)

Crazy Apologist Theory Number One:

Hmm.  Maybe the Warlord is the one doing the sliding because the rules explicitly state that you may never slide your own character.  (And I've seen enough of the Dreaded CharOp board to know that there would be good reasons for such a rule).


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 16, 2008)

Edit: Mirror Imaged post


----------



## rounser (Mar 16, 2008)

> Show me how the inclusion of a warlord turns my adventuring party into a military squad anymore than a class from BO9S or heck even a fighter or anyone that needs flanking does.



Given that the warlord borrows from Bo9S, I don't see your point.

Flanking is just a fact of combat - if you can't guard your flank you're at a disadvantage.  Again, fail to see your point.


----------



## tenken (Mar 16, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> It's not about having nice buddies or jerks in the table.
> It's about a weird class that can move his teamates around (without ANY magical power) as he sees fit... I know it's a "cool and fun" mechanic, very useful, etc. But it should not happen, a player moves his mini... and is not messing arround with the rest of the board...
> Some of you are comparing it with backstabbing or poisoning your teammates.... at least here's an attack roll/defense involved... Not just arbitrarily moving other dudes arround... It feels more like a board game... Again... this "Narrative" stuff.... the other players tell the story too... and they may diceide what goes on with my character too. (I want my imersion atmosphere back!)



There's no roll if I stab a fellow party member in the throat in the middle of the night while I'm on watch.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> It has a theme of sorts if you excuse the inappropriate name and give it a proper military title, but one that belongs in a war or military engagement, and that doesn't fit by default in an adventuring party, because not every adventuring party is a military squad.



You don't need to be an army or a military unit to work together and have tactics.

I could just see it now:
Warlord: "I've been in a lot of battles.  Creatures like this can be easily distracted by movement.  If you move over there, Bob should be able to hit it while it is distracted."
Fighter: "Sorry, I don't belong to any ARMY.  I'm not part of your MILITARY UNIT.  Distracting monsters is not part of my job description.  Don't you understand that battles don't involve strategy when there are only 4-6 people involved in them?  Why don't you go back to your King and Country where your help is useful instead of helping us work better as a team?"


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> It has a theme of sorts if you excuse the inappropriate name and give it a proper military title, but one that belongs in a war or military engagement, and that doesn't fit by default in an adventuring party, because not every adventuring party is a military squad.




Exactly. Not every well-organised adventuring party is a military squad.



> D&D parties are not armies, hong.




Nobody has said they are, except you.



> This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Full Metal Scabbard.  D&D was about taking the fantasy heroes _off_ of the battlefield and sending them into a dungeon _without_ the soldiers, just like in the novels.  Duh.




Nobody has said anything about soldiers, except you.



> (And yes, I know there are military-themed fantasy hero groups in novels, even Tolkien features them...but they're not the default.)




And they're still not the default. Whatever the heck "default" even means.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> Crazy Apologist Theory Number One:
> 
> Hmm.  Maybe the Warlord is the one doing the sliding because the rules explicitly state that you may never slide your own character.  (And I've seen enough of the Dreaded CharOp board to know that there would be good reasons for such a rule).



 AFAIK, "slide", "push" and "pull" are forced movements only in the sense that they take place out of your turn. Therefore, unless you have some funky ability that lets you move out of your turn, they must be due to some other factor moving you, hence "forced".

This has nothing to do with being involuntary in the sense of players being sidelined.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> It's not about having nice buddies or jerks in the table.
> It's about a weird class that can move his teamates around (without ANY magical power) as he sees fit... I know it's a "cool and fun" mechanic, very useful, etc. But it should not happen, a player moves his mini... and is not messing arround with the rest of the board...
> Some of you are comparing it with backstabbing or poisoning your teammates.... at least here's an attack roll/defense involved... Not just arbitrarily moving other dudes arround... It feels more like a board game... Again... this "Narrative" stuff.... the other players tell the story too... and they may diceide what goes on with my character too. (I want my imersion atmosphere back!)



Crossposting: 


			
				me said:
			
		

> For D&D 3 to D&D 4, we're going from
> - Player decides what his characters wants to do given the circumstances as described, and then rolls the dice to see if it succeeds. The decision the player makes is usually also a decision made by the player.
> - Player decides that the circumstances allow the character (party/enemy) to do something, and then rolls the dice to see if he succeeds. In the game world, the character sure didn't decide the circumstances, he just decided to try it, and it was the players influence to change the circumstances so that the character could try what he tried.
> 
> ...



Link
I could also write something like "adapt or perish"!, but that would imply that the 4E approach should generally to be considered superior - Which I don't believe, it's a matter of taste - but in this case, it seems to fit my taste. (Once I understood the differences. I started out as a "no daily powers for non-spellcasters", and was a bit at odds with the Bo9S idea of not-exactly-magical power granting extra movement and stuff. But it didn't fit so well in what 3E had already established. After some time with the 4E previews and discussions, I understood the difference, and liked it...) 
So, the battle call should probably be "Adapt to 4E or don't!"


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 16, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> that can move his teamates around (without ANY magical power)



What part of his power scheme denotes the need for magical abilities?  For all the dumbing down WOTC did for those of us who like the game (thanks again WOTC!), you'd figure that people would have an easier time understanding things like a slide not meaning mystically grabbing unfortunate party members by unseen forces and dragging them bodily about random dungeons against their will for your own diabolical schemes.


----------



## Valdrax (Mar 16, 2008)

I think a lot of people here have the conceptual problem that another player moving your piece around the board represents their character having direct control over your character.

This isn't necessarily true.  Remember that D&D's very polite turn-based combat is an abstraction of a real fight.  For example, the reason people only attack once every six seconds is not because that's as fast as they can move but only as often as a good opening comes up.

What the Warlord does is create opportunities for teamwork by rallying his allies.  White Raven Charge doesn't mean that he's (or any other ally) is forcing your character forward so much as opening up the opportunities for characters to move into more advantageous positions without drawing opportunity attacks.

Oh, and note that the power also let you move his character around the board when you get to make your attack.  It's not one sided at all.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.




It would be interesting to playtest the 4th Ed rules to see where you could break them though if you follow the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit.

I would totally slide my ally into the lava for a laugh. "Oh sorry didn't see that there, is it hot?"


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to playtest the 4th Ed to see where you could break them though if you follow the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit.




Why would it be that interesting? The WotC CharOp board has been doing that for 8 years.


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> This is one of those things about metagaming.  Metagaming is when you think of the game AS a game and use that information to base your characters decisions on.
> 
> The problem is that often game rules have a direct correlation to the in character world so the only difference between metagaming and roleplaying is the choice of words you use to describe it.
> 
> ...




I think metagaming has always been part of D&D mindset, and always will. I try to encourage my players to always talk in character when advising others. Anyway, I think that metagaming will increase in 4E with the increased focus on group tactics in combat (in 3E, most Feats affected only your own abilities). 

You know, speaking of traps, since they're part of encounter design now, it's pretty easy actually for players to determine if there is a trap in room with a suspiciously easy combat encounter ("Hey, those Gnolls are only about 6th level monsters and since there was no terrain hazard at all, there must be a 3rd level trap somewhere in this room!").


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> D00d, you just pointed out elsewhere that the theme for warlord is "military officer". Now you may not like that theme, but it is perfectly valid, and in fact highly evocative when one considers how many military-ish heroes there are in fiction, history, myth and even videogames. Make up your mind. Does it have a theme, or not?




I'm a bit baffled about the whole Warlord class, because the name is actually a bit misguiding. IMHO it would work better as a Prestig... I mean, Paragon Path or Epic Destiny, because to me a warlord means someone who leads and commands a vast army. It feels just silly that it's meant to be a core class. 

Does this mean that Warlords train in secret military academies? Or can any farm boy train on his own to become a Warlord -- and recruit his three sheep and old grandfather into his army?


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> You know, speaking of traps, since they're part of encounter design now, it's pretty easy actually for players to determine if there is a trap in room with a suspiciously easy combat encounter ("Hey, those Gnolls are only about 6th level monsters and since there was no terrain hazard at all, there must be a 3rd level trap somewhere in this room!").



Cue Gnollish Gninja Paratrooper.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I'm a bit baffled about the whole Warlord class, because the name is actually a bit misguiding. IMHO it would work better as a Prestig... I mean, Paragon Path or Epic Destiny, because to me a warlord means someone who leads and commands a vast army. It feels just silly that it's meant to be a core class.
> 
> Does this mean that Warlords train in secret military academies? Or can any farm boy train on his own to become a Warlord -- and recruit his three sheep and old grandfather into his army?




The answer, padawan, is to be found in Hong's Second Law.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> Cue Gnollish Gninja Paratrooper.



 Actually, cue "I have a bad feeling about this...".


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Full Metal Scabbard.



Full Metal Arrowhead is probably a more apt rendering.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I'm a bit baffled about the whole Warlord class, because the name is actually a bit misguiding. IMHO it would work better as a Prestig... I mean, Paragon Path or Epic Destiny, because to me a warlord means someone who leads and commands a vast army. It feels just silly that it's meant to be a core class.
> 
> Does this mean that Warlords train in secret military academies? Or can any farm boy train on his own to become a Warlord -- and recruit his three sheep and old grandfather into his army?



Maybe not a farm boy. But maybe an aristocrat? I mean, even Fighters are bit... over-equipped to be normal farm boys with all their weapon & armor proficiencies (plus bonus feat).
Wizards are also hardly farm boys. 

I assume that Warlords train in military academies along side fighters. Sometimes, they might come from a less civilized background, and might be the member of a very... "martial" tribe, and have shown a knack (or trained to do so) to lead their tribe members during raids. 

Unless you want to tell me that the power level of D&D characters is a little bit or even very much above that of an average farmboy. That's certainly true.


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The answer, padawan, is to be found in Hong's Second Law.




Which is?


----------



## Gundark (Mar 16, 2008)

Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:
> 
> Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
> Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
> ...




This is how my group will do it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I could also write something like "adapt or perish"!, but that would imply that the 4E approach should generally to be considered superior - Which I don't believe, it's a matter of taste
> ...
> 
> So, the battle call should probably be "Adapt to 4E or don't!"



Exactly so.

Many people dropped D&D during 2E (myself among them).  We didn't "perish" by any stretch.  There were plenty of other viable options around.
And there are vastly more options out there now then there were then.
I'd guess the whole OGL product base out there is enough to keep anyone going for the rest of their life.  That is probably bigger than all of non-D&D gaming was back in the 2e days.  And the non-D&D segment (which was good then) is also much bigger and better now. (with the assumed exceptions, of course...)

So the options for "don't" are very much alive and well and 4e has no choice but to contend with that.

And (IMO, of course) I think WotC ended up making a game that one fraction of their fan base is going to consider awesome, but many other fractions are not going to find worth choosing over some other available option.  I'm not saying they all will think 4e is bad, just that many think something else is better.  Being perfect to a smaller group of people isn't as good as being very good to a larger group of people.


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2008)

Nah. For most people on this here mailing list, even the ones who are complaining, it'll be "adapt to 4E now, or later!"


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Nah. For most people on this here mailing list, even the ones who are complaining, it'll be "adapt to 4E now, or later!"



Just say that three times.

The magic is real.  (mirrors and candle might help)


----------



## Wiman (Mar 16, 2008)

I want this to be seen in both a positive and a negative light.

Who switches over to 4th edition.....I don't think anyone at WOTC is gonna lose any sleep over it. Money will be made and they will continue working with their "fill the bucket" market model for years to come, they are aware of the competition but they are still the "king" of Pen and Paper, something that name recognition alone will keep them running just fine. Losing fanbase will happen whenever someone finds suitable replacements, will 4e lose some fanbase ...yes, will it attract fanbase from other sources...yes. The bucket empties, the bucket fills and so do the days of our lives.....

(please don't refer to the mid/late 80's drop in popularity - I'm well aware of the implications that could exist...it didn't kill the game then it won't now.)


----------



## grimslade (Mar 16, 2008)

I was all set to get my geek rage up to Hulk proportions until I read the power description, but we are talking about one Daily power, right? Once per day a Warlord can lay the smack down on an opponent and move one adjacent ally 5' (sorry 1 square). Color me underwhelmed. (It's a lot like beige). 
A warlord is not moving PCs around the battleground like chess pieces. He is hitting the target for all he is worth, the fury of his onslaught rallies one ally to move 5' to a better position or retreat if the ally is hurt. The best part is everyone gets in on the action every time they hit. It is a stick and move principle with multiple people. 

You don't need to be a military squad leader to fight well with one other person. Heck, a tag team wrestler fits the bill. Once per day the warlord inspires his allies to fight together. Not as a complex 5 man team but a two man team. I hit, you move. A defender can charge a striker that hit the back line and get the Wizard out of harms way. The warlord/rogue combo was already mentioned in the main thread will be deadly.
It looks like CHarOp in 4E will go the way of the dodo, PartyOp is teh new hotness.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Color me underwhelmed. (It's a lot like beige).



 



> It looks like CHarOp in 4E will go the way of the dodo, PartyOp is teh new hotness.



Nice. I hope it's true. (I mean, without PrC, how else can we create insane power-gaming combinations of character classes & races? 

"For this 5000 points of damage per round party build, you need a Litorian Warlord, a Giant Rogue, a Warforged Mage-Hater, and a Neanderthal Wizard...."


----------



## Derren (Mar 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Nice. I hope it's true. (I mean, without PrC, how else can we create insane power-gaming combinations of character classes & races?




With paragon paths and the most likely soon to be released additional class abilities.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 16, 2008)

I'm with Hong in thinking the lion's share of the complaints here are derived from the lack of the word 'may' in the power descriptions. 

Also, its beginning to amaze me how many people's parties don't seem (by indication of these posts) to want to work together.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Given that the warlord borrows from Bo9S, I don't see your point.
> 
> Flanking is just a fact of combat - if you can't guard your flank you're at a disadvantage.  Again, fail to see your point.





My point is that your side of this discussion has been saying "the warlord's powers are broken because they turn my hero into "captain co-operation" and the party into a quasi military unit. I don't see how these are logical assertions based on what I have read and seen and my tables playstyle.

My table currently has a BO9S character in it, he is not the party leader, we sometimes disagree on tactics, we are not a military unit nor do we feel like one. 

please help me make the spot check to notice this sword of damocles +5  hovering by a strand of spider silk over my game table that will slay us all and make our game badwrongunfun


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> But a group of heroes is not a military unit!  Not every party is the Black Company!  Some are, but they're the exception which proves the rule.
> 
> WOTC's new class has implied that every adventuring party with a warlord in it is some kind of military outfit, because it functions like one.  For this reason alone it should have been reconsidered and junked, IMO - it changes the fundamental nature of D&D's chief conceit, the band of fantasy heroes which could formerly have contained independent types, and turns them into a military squad with orders (authoritative tactical advice can't realistically be delivered swiftly any other way) and implied hierarchy.  Bad, bad, bad.




To play devil's advocate, should we eliminate bonuses from 3.x bless spells if a character does not have the same religion as the cleric casting the spell? Should 3.x bards not be able to inspire a character with song unless they have similar cultural background? Where does suspension of disbelief become a problem? Why is this particular issue more problematic?


----------



## Zimri (Mar 16, 2008)

Rounser do you/have you watched the series firefly ? or the movie Serenity ?


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> "Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules".  So too bad if you're roleplaying someone who isn't Captain Cooperation, it's now hardcoded into the D&D ruleset that you're playing wrong.
> 
> So much for simulating fantasy, where independent heroes are a dime a dozen.




D&D encourages independent heroes?

Since OD&D, the rules have seemed to be hardcoded for just the opposite, if only based on the class system. I'm not following here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 16, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> To play devil's advocate, should we eliminate bonuses from 3.x bless spells if a character does not have the same religion as the cleric casting the spell?




Amusingly, one of my first 3E characters was the second cleric in the party, who insisted on a Will save every time the other cleric cast Bless.  The other cleric worshipped the wrong deity, and I wasn't letting any of that icky Blessing on me!

-Hyp.


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, cue "I have a bad feeling about this...".




Which would be metagaming, in fact.


----------



## erisred (Mar 16, 2008)

Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:
> 
> Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
> Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
> ...



It's fine if that's your *style* of play, but it is a lot more "metagamy" than is the style my groups use. 

We try to stay in character and "in the game" as much as possible.  All this out of game chatter about what everyone is going to do next turn, bonuses and powers is directly opposite to how we've always done things.

In one of our games it really would be the Warlord PC pointing and shouting out, "Flank *that* orc!" or "Somebody, target *that* damn priest, now!"  It would be up to the other players (their PC's actually) to pick up on those exclaminations as "clues" that Mr. Warlord is doing something.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why would it be that interesting? The WotC CharOp board has been doing that for 8 years.




Not so much interesting as fun. Just to slide you into the lava.


----------



## erisred (Mar 16, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> This is ridiculous.. _of course_ players are going to talk beforehand as a team and be in agreement of whatever their characters are going to do. _Of course._



Maybe, you'd think and maybe they should, but my players just *don't*. They don't talk beforehand as a team. They don't plan out what all the characters are going to do. They will have to make a major change in how they play if they need to coordinate before each round OOC, before they take their actions.


----------



## erisred (Mar 16, 2008)

dystmesis said:
			
		

> Fireballing your own party members is often an effective tactic with high saves and/or evasion...



Yeah, the Wizard in one of the games I'm running did that a while back, and it worked very well...In Game...but In Character the PC's have never forgiven her. Ever since, the PC's have groused and kidded her about it, and IC, they are serious about not turning their backs on her for fear she'll fireball them again.  In Character and Out Of Character are two entirely different states.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why would it be that interesting? The WotC CharOp board has been doing that for 8 years.




Hold on the 4th Edition rules were available 8 years ago? Before 3rd Ed was published.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 16, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> But a group of heroes is not a military unit!  Not every party is the Black Company!  Some are, but they're the exception which proves the rule.




Then what the hell IS an adventuring party?

Seriously. Your going to ride out 2-3 days away from the last bastion of civilization (or point of light in 4e), crawl down a hole into a dark, dank, subterranean catacomb full of monsters, traps, puzzles, riddles, weird phenomenon, mazes, more monsters, hazards and obstacles, and still more monsters. And you want to do it with 3-4 other people who you barely know and don't act like a team? You want the mage to cast fireball regardless of if your in the way and the fighter to prefer to solo-kill rather than get into flank with the rogue? Or the cleric who would rather cast bull's strength on himself rather than cure moderate wounds on your -4 hp (thanks to the mage's fireball) PC? 

In essence, if your going to put body, mind and soul on the line in a dungeon for gold or glory, would you rather have a cohesive team that works together or an unorganized group of individuals acting and reaction with no regard to his fellow adventurer. I'll choose the former, thank you. I'll live longer.

EDIT: I can't tell the difference between former and latter. Thanks!


----------



## Primal (Mar 16, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Then what the hell IS an adventuring party?
> 
> Seriously. Your going to ride out 2-3 days away from the last bastion of civilization (or point of light in 4e), crawl down a hole into a dark, dank, subterranean catacomb full of monsters, traps, puzzles, riddles, weird phenomenon, mazes, more monsters, hazards and obstacles, and still more monsters. And you want to do it with 3-4 other people who you barely know and don't act like a team? You want the mage to cast fireball regardless of if your in the way and the fighter to prefer to solo-kill rather than get into flank with the rogue? Or the cleric who would rather cast bull's strength on himself rather than cure moderate wounds on your -4 hp (thanks to the mage's fireball) PC?
> 
> In essence, if your going to put body, mind and soul on the line in a dungeon for gold or glory, would you rather have a cohesive team that works together or an unorganized group of individuals acting and reaction with no regard to his fellow adventurer. I'll choose the latter, thank you. I'll live longer.




I think he means that a group operating as a team is not equal to operating as a military squad.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 16, 2008)

Edited.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 16, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> In essence, if your going to put body, mind and soul on the line in a dungeon for gold or glory, would you rather have a cohesive team that works together or an unorganized group of individuals acting and reaction with no regard to his fellow adventurer. I'll choose the *former*, thank you. I'll live longer.




Fixed that for ya


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 16, 2008)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Fixed that for ya



I Truly agree, yes


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 16, 2008)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Fixed that for ya




D'oh!

Fixed.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I think he means that a group operating as a team is not equal to operating as a military squad.



I think he means that too, but it doesn't make it any less silly.

A five-man fighting force that wants to accomplish _anything_ in battle and/or survive combat is going to use small-unit tactics. By definition, that makes them effectively analogous to a "military squad." The idea that one member of said squad is largely responsible for coordinating movement and attacks, looking for openings, and shouting advice or instructions isn't really outlandish.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I think he means that a group operating as a team is not equal to operating as a military squad.




[Sports Analogy Coming]

A Quarterback calls a play in a huddle before the next play so his receivers are in position for a relay. That doesn't make a football team a military squad.

A point guard constantly watches for his other teammates to get close to the basket so he can pass it to them and allow them a shot. That doesn't make a basketball team a military squad.

A catcher silently gives signs to a pitcher based on the position of the outfielders, runners, and ball count. That doesn't make a baseball team a military squad.

A band major is responsible for keeping rhythm for a band as it marches and making sure that doesn't move out of formation. That doesn't make a marching band a military squad. 

[end analogy]

There are plenty of things in life that are group activities among equals (none of those people mentioned were coachs, conductors, or otherwise "in charge") where one person is responsible for keeping the others working as a cohesive unit. None of those things are remotely military in nature.


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Which would be metagaming, in fact.



 You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Just say that three times.
> 
> The magic is real.  (mirrors and candle might help)




D00d, by posting here, you admit that you are WotC's bitch. Some of us are just more up-front about it than others.


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Hold on the 4th Edition rules were available 8 years ago? Before 3rd Ed was published.




I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 17, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> So much for simulating fantasy, where independent heroes are a dime a dozen.



Probably the major difference between D&D and fantasy fiction is that in fiction there is almost always a single hero. In rpgs the default mode of play is overwhelming a group of PCs, working as a team. This is particularly true of D&D because of the class system. A single class can't do everything. Apart from the 3e druid, which was a mistake. Even the mighty wizard needs the cleric to heal. Several classes are particularly team oriented such as the rogue (hard to sneak attack if you can't flank) and the bard. And the marshal which, together with Bo9S's White Raven discipline, formed the basis for the warlord.

Independent heroes, aka lone wolves, are not appropriate for team games such as D&D. In fact they are pretty commonly reviled on gaming boards. The warlord, and any class in the leader role, is the antithesis of the lone wolf. That's a good thing. D&D should be encouraging team play and it looks like 4e will do that more than any previous edition.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Stop right there. This entire storm in a teacup is over the omission of the word "may" in the power description. If a group is really unable to get over that omission, then either 1) they have more problems than the RAW can address, or 2) such hyper-literalism in rules interpretation is something to be stamped out, not pandered to.




I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.

After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2008)

It's simple, really: the designers realized that having a class that people argue about is important, so to counter the removal of the Paladin they've given us Warlord in its place. 

More seriously: if (and I say if, because we don't know everything yet) the Warlord has a class ability that can arbitrarily and without saving throw force (an)other PC(s) into doing something it(they) would not otherwise have chosen to do, that is Very Bad Design.

As for functioning as a unit etc.: it's not always about making the optimal choices, people!  Yes, a smoothly-running military-legion machine of a party will probably be more successful over time...and can be fun for a while, until you've perfected the whole tactical thing and realize nobody's laughing anymore...it's become rote, and thus dull.

It comes right back to the good old Law-vs.-Chaos argument; and for sheer entertainment and amusement (the reasons I play the damn game in the first place) give me Chaotic parties every time! 

Lanefan


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> Quick question: How many jerks do you game with?
> 
> From the sounds of things, people must game entirely with a bunch of purile, abusive jerkasses who like to fireball their own party members. If that's the case, I'd say get a new group before railing against the Warlord for opening up new tactical options.



There isn't a binary jerk/not-jerk flag on most players.  I mean, some people are really just jerks but they tend to be in the minority because others shun them.  However, there are plenty of different expectations and playstyles, and sometimes those do not mesh well.  But groups put up with the differences because they're friends, or because they don't have many options on who to game with, or whatever.  There's lots of reasons.

As a sort-of example, my best friend in high school was a terrible winner (he loved to gloat) _and_ loser (he pouted).  But he wasn't a jerk.  And who else was I going to play dorky games with as a teenager?

But getting back to the Warlord, some people are bossy.  They're not jerks; they feel they know the best possible moves everyone can make and aren't meek about it.  Some people resent being bossed around.  The design article takes note of this and says the warlord allows bossy players to channel their energies in a positive manner.  Presumably the class does this by providing incentives to follow the player's orders - "attack this guy because you get a bonus," vs "attack this guy because it's the superior move" - but in the end the player is still telling others what to do.  And looking at the daily powers, I see even more opportunities for bossiness in the warlord, in that the rest of the group will need to be in position to make use of the warlord's powers (like with iron dragon charge).  Which creates an added incentive for an overbearing warlord to tell other players where to move to, or to move them there himself.

Now if you have a perfectly harmonious group that's all on the same page and at the same level of tactical mastery, that's great!  That's certainly not true of everyone, though.  And because of that, I think the marshall and bard were better examples of how to build such classes, in that they provided passive bonuses and gave unrestricted extra actions to the group, and those abilities only depended on range and not on precise positioning.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.
> 
> After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.




Well considering how they state that this article wasn't final. It could very well be, like the Paladin Charge, where it has been changed. Hell perhaps after viewing this confusion over the Power they add, "may".


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> D00d, by posting here, you admit that you are WotC's bitch. Some of us are just more up-front about it than others.



I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here...

Lanefan


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

What's fascinating is that, despite this focus on teamwork, lone wolves are probably better off in 4E than in any previous edition of D&D. You no longer have to worry about 3/4 of the skill list being off-limits to you, or any one of your saves being in the toilet. You won't have squishy hit points, nor will you be ineffective with attacks. Great for Diablo.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Hathorym said:
			
		

> Also, it should be noted that in the White Raven Power, there is nothing there that says that the ally is REQUIRED to move, only that they can.  I chalk the whole may/can issue up to the continued de-grammarization of the American English language.




Not quite. The actual grammar is:



> 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.




Grammatically, this only means one thing. Required if possible (no different than "if ... then" in computer language).

Not only does the ally have no choice in the matter, neither does the Warlord.

The controversy here would really not exist if the language was imprecise.

I really do suspect that WotC does not mean required, but it would be nice if they wrote what they meant.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 17, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> More seriously: if (and I say if, because we don't know everything yet) the Warlord has a class ability that can arbitrarily and without saving throw force (an)other PC(s) into doing something it(they) would not otherwise have chosen to do, that is Very Bad Design.



 Only bad because it does not go far enough. I don't just want a class that lets me tell other PCs what to do. I want a class that allows me to dictate the actions of the other *players*.

Powers could include:
- *Shut the hell up, Mike* (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
- *Look that up for me* (minor, per encounter) - Player within LOS must look up the rule and cite relevant parts before the end of the round.
- *Grab me up a six pack* (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Mar 17, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> More seriously: if (and I say if, because we don't know everything yet) the Warlord has a class ability that can arbitrarily and without saving throw force (an)other PC(s) into doing something it(they) would not otherwise have chosen to do, that is Very Bad Design.



 Only bad because it does not go far enough. I don't just want a class that lets me tell other PCs what to do. I want a class that allows me to dictate the actions of the other *players*.

Powers could include:
- *Shut the hell up, Mike* (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
- *Look that up for me* (minor, per encounter) - Player within LOS must look up the rule and cite relevant parts before the end of the round.
- *Grab a six pack for me* (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.




Hyper-literalism on the part of a section of the market, you mean.



> After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.




After the previous 2 decades, they will also know that adding precision into language clearly did nothing to stop argumentative people from having arguments. And D&D geeks are the most argumentative geeks in all of geekdom.


----------



## hong (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not only does the ally have no choice in the matter, neither does the Warlord.
> 
> The controversy here would really not exist if the language was imprecise.
> 
> I really do suspect that WotC does not mean required, but it would be nice if they wrote what they meant.




It would be nice if people acted like people equipped with the facility to exercise discretion, as opposed to bots programmatically unable to do so.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Only bad because it does not go far enough. I don't just want a class that lets me tell other PCs what to do. I want a class that allows me to dictate the actions of the other *players*.
> 
> Powers could include:
> - *Shut the hell up, Mike* (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
> ...



Now THAT is a game I would play!!!!!


----------



## Nifft (Mar 17, 2008)

Pesky double-posts.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.
> 
> After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.



Back when MtG first came out (the "beta" release with the black borders) me & my gaming buddies picked up a bunch of decks & boosters and started playing, and had a lot of fun.  One day a friend of a friend came over with his cards to join in, and some card (I forget which) ground everything to a halt with a big arguement.  The text of the card, the reading of which I & my friends all thought was perfectly obvious, meant something else to the new guy and he didn't agree with our interpretation.

When the "unlimited" white-border MtG cards were released soon thereafter, the rules & card text were much more precise and left no room for creative interpretations.  So someone at WotC saw the problem and took moves to fix it.

That, plus playing Games Workshop games (where even games between friends frequently broke down into rule interpretation arguments) has taught me that precise language in game rules is to everyone's advantage.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 17, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I get the impression from the description that the warlord player's job is to tell other players what to do??  I always thought this was on the top 10 list of gamer no-no's.  Isn't the cleric a "tell other players what to do" class too?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ...




So even though the description says that 'The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around' you assume it does?      You're logic confuses me to no end.


----------



## Rel (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It would be nice if people acted like people equipped with the facility to exercise discretion, as opposed to bots programmatically unable to do so.




Ok, hong, you've bothered these people enough.  Go find a different thread to make trouble in.


----------



## Wiman (Mar 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> - *Grab me up a six pack* (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.




With your permission Nifft, I'm going to make this a general feat in my game and make sure it is strictly adhered to. Pure genius, ah the possibilities of daily (nightly) powers. Anyone who plays a bard in year two will get this as a *free* feat.

Cheers,

Wiman


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> That, plus playing Games Workshop games (where even games between friends frequently broke down into rule interpretation arguments) has taught me that precise language in game rules is to everyone's advantage.




Depends on the specifics, when rules become to specific and too controlling of the setting we get bogged down in such specific writing that things become mundane and there is no creative/descriptive flair to the game when it comes to the rules.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 17, 2008)

Isn't it funny how it comes full circle.  People constantly complained that 3e sucked the soul out of D&D because it tried to cover every base within the rules.  Now that DM's have to exercise some power at the table to interpret rules, we're sucking the soul out of D&D.

This bill is folded ENTIRELY the wrong way!


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> But getting back to the Warlord, some people are bossy.  They're not jerks; they feel they know the best possible moves everyone can make and aren't meek about it.  Some people resent being bossed around.  The design article takes note of this and says the warlord allows bossy players to channel their energies in a positive manner.  Presumably the class does this by providing incentives to follow the player's orders - "attack this guy because you get a bonus," vs "attack this guy because it's the superior move" - but in the end the player is still telling others what to do.  And looking at the daily powers, I see even more opportunities for bossiness in the warlord, in that the rest of the group will need to be in position to make use of the warlord's powers (like with iron dragon charge).  Which creates an added incentive for an overbearing warlord to tell other players where to move to, or to move them there himself.




I guess it comes down to the people at the table, and the control the DM (or someone else) has over what happens within the group dynamic. I suppose one could make the argument that I am the "most bossy" at the table when it comes to poor feat and gear choices among newer players. My advice has been known to come in the "*sigh*  what were you thinking you aren't gonna hurt anyone with that weapon". I have been quickly reprimanded, reminded it is their character and told to let it go if they want advice they'll ask. 

That said even I wouldn't use this to take control from someone else but rather to with their consent/permission move them closer to where they want to be or if they want me to use my judgement I will.

If anyone's table has an issue over overly bossy players, or overly sensitve ones THAT issue needs addressed with or without the warlord class.

"The power of RAW allows me to compel Joe's character to move where I want it to despite what Joe, the DM, or the rest of you tactical newbs have to say about it!" should quickly be followed by "The power of DM and RAW 0 allows me to roll all these dice in damage from a bolt of blue lightning landing on your head if you ever do that again and you will be invited to leave now and not return"


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Depends on the specifics, when rules become to specific and too controlling of the setting we get bogged down in such specific writing that things become mundane and there is no creative/descriptive flair to the game when it comes to the rules.




I think he is referring to situations (like this one) where the language is not correct, the intent should be one thing, the rules are not complex, and the author was just not being due diligent enough.

It's not a matter of adding a boatload of rules to make imprecise sentences clear. It's a matter of the designers being aware that a given sentence is open to multiple interpretations (or like in this case, the literal interpretation is unpalatable and if it is designer intent, they will be flooded with WTs???).


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.




I was saying it would be nice to test the 4E rules, to see how they might break, like sliding allies into lava, and you said they have been doing that for 8 years. Which would mean before 3rd came out. I am questioning your claim that people have been testing 4E for that amount of time.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Powers could include:
> - *Shut the hell up, Mike* (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
> - *Look that up for me* (minor, per encounter) - Player within LOS must look up the rule and cite relevant parts before the end of the round.
> - *Grab me up a six pack* (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.



Sounds good.

My problem is that the players keep making their bloody saving throws every time I try to use one of these! 

Lanefan


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think he is referring to situations (like this one) where the language is not correct, the intent should be one thing, the rules are not complex, and the author was just not being due diligent enough.
> 
> It's not a matter of adding a boatload of rules to make imprecise sentences clear. It's a matter of the designers being aware that a given sentence is open to multiple interpretations (or like in this case, the literal interpretation is unpalatable and if it is designer intent, they will be flooded with WTs???).




I personally prefer having more open interpretations of rules, it allows you to flex rules more easily to the liking of the game your playing/can ocassionally mean a rule can be used in more interesting ways by said open interpretation.

I guess though, it is a personal thing.

Note though: Obviously as seen by the amount of debate going on right now these particular rules may need writing tweaks for some-people, I don't think strict literal rule-writing should always be the case.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It would be nice if people acted like people equipped with the facility to exercise discretion, as opposed to bots programmatically unable to do so.




Yeah it would be nice, but I think everyone knows at least one rules lawyer, and I know several who DM. I can see a situation where a Warlord uses that slide power, on say a narrow bridge and the DM say right you now need to slide an ally. The only free place to slide them is off the bridge.

Admittedly many people are more flexible with the rules, but many like to do things by the book to remain _fair _(as witness the rules forum and people asking for RAW answers).


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.
> 
> After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.



Or perhaps they realize that internet message board posters represent only a tiny minority of D&D players. I think (hope) they would prefer to ignore Hyper-literal rules readers and concentrate on making the rules readable for the majority of gamers, who presumably have some common sense.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I personally prefer having more open interpretations of rules, it allows you to flex rules more easily to the liking of the game your playing/can ocassionally mean a rule can be used in more interesting ways by said open interpretation.



I agree, in general.

As to the specific issue of Warlords being able to slide people around: if the ability was optional on both sides (the Warlord could choose to invoke it or not, and the target could then choose to ignore it or not) it could be an idea interesting enough that I might even think about adopting it into my own (non-4e) game.  But if it's mandatory - and the written rule strongly suggests that it is - it's a poor bit of design that will cause many more headaches than it solves.

Lanefan


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Pesky double-posts.



Your post was so good, it deserved to be posted twice.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Disclosure: I think that the Warlord is the best thing since 10' pole and intend to play one as soon as game is out.

That aside, I really don't see what is the problem here. 
If the problem is purely mechanical then I don't see the difference between the warlock and any other class that can affect other PCs in combat (Cleric comes to mind immediately but also Mage and since Flanking pretty much every other class). 

If you think that the current PC classes are based on "independence" of the PCs then try playing a Cleric for a session or two and see how "independent" you are. I claim that any constraint on the movement of the other PCs due to Warlord abilities will be absolutely negligible compared with current constraints due to clerical healing or Mages AoE spells. 

If your issue is with militaristic flavor of the class then you have a perfect solution - play in a group without a warlock. Currently every DnD party is a sort of religious outfit (at least to the extent to which parties with a warlock would be militaristic) seeing as the very lives of the characters depend on day-to-day basis on the services of their cleric's (or Paladin's) deity. This can be played up in RP or not (everyone knows the "annoying cleric syndrome") but fact remains that in character PCs better be fairly pious folks or the god/DM fairly forgiving one.

Seeing as the adventuring priests are much more rare fantasy trope (previous editions of DnD notwithstanding) then the adventuring soldiers/mercenaries fact that the 4ed gives you a choice and option between the two is in my opinion a great step forward in terms of narativist freedom in DnD.


----------



## Chimera (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Back when MtG first came out (the "beta" release with the black borders) me & my gaming buddies picked up a bunch of decks & boosters and started playing, and had a lot of fun.  One day a friend of a friend came over with his cards to join in, and some card (I forget which) ground everything to a halt with a big arguement.  The text of the card, the reading of which I & my friends all thought was perfectly obvious, meant something else to the new guy and he didn't agree with our interpretation.




Haven't we all seen enough of this on ENWorld?

I used to play with a guy who was downright painful in his oddball interpretations of things that were patently obvious to other people.  Then rather than accept the 5-1 (everyone says A, he says B) judgement of the group, he'd post his question in the Rules forum.  When more than 95% of the people said "A is correct, where the %&%! do you get B from?", he'd just as often as not say "Well...some people agreed with me, so I'm not sure I'm wrong."

*Scene Nine:  Rum's Cabin*

_Blackadder finally lifts his head from his hands._

*Blackadder*
Look, there's no need to panic.  Someone in the crew will know how to steer thig thing.

*Rum*
The crew, milord?

*Blackadder*
Yes, the crew.

*Rum*
What crew?

*Blackadder*
I was under the impression that it was standard maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.

*Rum*
Opinion is divided on the subject.

*Blackadder*
Really?

*Rum*
Yes.  All the other captains say it is, and I say it isn't.

*Blackadder*
Oh, God.  Mad as a brush.


----------



## nick012000 (Mar 17, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I agree, in general.
> 
> As to the specific issue of Warlords being able to slide people around: if the ability was optional on both sides (the Warlord could choose to invoke it or not, and the target could then choose to ignore it or not) it could be an idea interesting enough that I might even think about adopting it into my own (non-4e) game.  But if it's mandatory - and the written rule strongly suggests that it is - it's a poor bit of design that will cause many more headaches than it solves.
> 
> Lanefan




I'll point out that while it is mandatory, the Warlord need not actually move anyone. You can choose to slide characters less distance than the power states; he can simply choose to slide them 0 squares.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 17, 2008)

Nevermind.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 17, 2008)

I keep seeing "The Warlord can move other characters!"

But as I read it, once the Warlord's used his Daily, _every_ character can move other characters.

So once everyone can move other players' minis around, it's less about "The Warlord is bad!" and more about getting used to a new facet of battlemat play.

-Hyp.


----------



## grimslade (Mar 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I keep seeing "The Warlord can move other characters!"
> 
> But as I read it, once the Warlord's used his Daily, _every_ character can move other characters.
> 
> ...




Exactly. This one daily power opens up options for the whole party. Now, as Bagpuss observed, being lowest in the initiative count could mean who is last man out of the lava. ;P


----------



## SmCaudata (Mar 17, 2008)

I don't get the big deal.  If you don't like it as written, then house rule it.  I don't know anyone who would be upset that they cannot forcibly move a teammate anyway.  The warlord's abilities aren't "magical".  He is probably saying "Come follow my charge at this orc and hold the line with me to keep him from going after the wizard."  And if you have 3 "martial" type folks all 3 can move and hold the line or surround the bad guy.  Pretty cool IMO.  

Any player who would say... "nah... I'm gonna wait back here, the orc will come to me, you go charge" is being just as bad as the bossy guy at the table.

I'm really looking forward to the more tactical aspects of combat with 4e.  The truly tactical stuff in previous edition was with trip, grapple, pin, etc... but the rules involved made it slow and cumbersome.  Now my group can be tactical without holding up the combat.  This means, more tactical combat in a shorter period of time, leaving more time for non-combat RP.  Wins all around.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 17, 2008)

Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> I just assumed there would be some kind of dialogue. Like this:
> 
> Warlord Player: "What were you planning on doing this round?"
> Other Player: "Was thinking of moving, then attacking that -Insert Monster- over there."
> ...




No.  If you are happy with it, then its a good way to do things.

However, I don't like and generally disallow this sort of out of character discussion at the table.  Players can ask another player what they are going to do, but only by having thier character ask another character what they are going to do and then waiting in character for the responce.  Likewise, they can signal what they want another player to do by having thier character use thier 'conversation action' to say what they want the other character to do.  Extended discussions back and forth would be frowned on.  

This rule came about largely because it annoyed me so much as a player when another player would dither, discuss, plan, change thier mind, look up rules, and so forth on thier turn and thus force me to do nothing but twiddle my thumbs while I was waiting.  I feel that sense I started enforcing that the game be played this way, that combat has become more exciting, more interesting, and less of a drag on the game as a whole.  I suspect thier are players out there which would resent being forced to play the game quickly, but on the whole it seems to work.  Your milage of course might vary.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I keep seeing "The Warlord can move other characters!"
> 
> But as I read it, once the Warlord's used his Daily, _every_ character can move other characters.
> 
> So once everyone can move other players' minis around, it's less about "The Warlord is bad!" and more about getting used to a new facet of battlemat play.




No thanks. I try to keep metagaming to a minimum, and here's a class that seems to be encouraging it.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

SmCaudata said:
			
		

> If you don't like it as written, then house rule it.




That never has been and never will be a valid argument in favor of a rule.


----------



## SmCaudata (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> That never has been and never will be a valid argument in favor of a rule.




I wasn't clear on what I meant.  The way I read the rule is that you can move an ally.  In 3e there are "beneficial" spells that when you cast on an ally, there is no save, but if the player choses they can save to avoid the spell.  Same with this, but without the save.  The target of ally, to me, states that they are willing participants to the action.  If they don't want to, they are not considered an "ally" for that action and are allowed to not follow the warlord's call.

Yes, perhaps the word "willing" should be inserted somewhere in there, but I just feel it is implied already.  Some people are reading it strickly as is without any context.  So, what I meant to say was that if you're the type to isolate the rule as written with strict interpretation based on the grammar/rhetoric used, then house rule it if you don't like it by adding one simple word.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> No thanks. I try to keep metagaming to a minimum, and here's a class that seems to be encouraging it.




Not to sound like an idiot, but don't all uses of rules involve metagaming? Any use of a power, spell, skill, etc. involves the invocation and application of rules in an abstracted sense. The only way to avoid metagaming at the table seems to involve describing actions and having the DM adjudicate without the players discussing rules. This can be a valid way to play, but I don't remember the last game I ran or played without metagaming necessarily coming into play.

When is invocation of the game mechanics too much?


----------



## Henry (Mar 17, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> However, I don't like and generally disallow this sort of out of character discussion at the table.  Players can ask another player what they are going to do, but only by having thier character ask another character what they are going to do and then waiting in character for the responce.  Likewise, they can signal what they want another player to do by having thier character use thier 'conversation action' to say what they want the other character to do.  Extended discussions back and forth would be frowned on.




In combat, this doesn't bother our group, and we allow out of character strategizing all the time. Why? Because in real life, the players are weekend warriors who only devote maybe five to ten hours a week max concentrating on D&D. In "game reality", the characters are seasoned veterans who live and die by their tactics, so they've talked, planned, and plotted in their off time on the best tactics working together in a situation, and various codes and signal phrases on how to communicate that info quickly. Same as how I wouldn't make a player roleplay out every nuance of his bluff check to seduce a barmaid, I assume that the time spent in downtime around the campfire, etc. would be spent dicussing the day's events, tactics, etc.and that is representted by the table talk during battle.

When I use my White raven tactics to give another player an extra turn in combat, I relate it as "spurring them on with my words, urging them to strike at the right spot, while the advantage is pressed, etc." what he does with that turn is up to him.


----------



## SmCaudata (Mar 17, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> Not to sound like an idiot, but don't all uses of rules involve metagaming? Any use of a power, spell, skill, etc. involves the invocation and application of rules in an abstracted sense. The only way to avoid metagaming at the table seems to involve describing actions and having the DM adjudicate without the players discussing rules. This can be a valid way to play, but I don't remember the last game I ran or played without metagaming necessarily coming into play.
> 
> When is invocation of the game mechanics too much?




Except, you don't have to go that far to avoid metagaming.  As was pointed out earlier, discussing actual game mechanics for the purpose of moving isn't meta gaming.  Saying, well, I know that the poison from this moster isnt' really that deadly, so we shouldn't have issue is meta gaming.  Basically, metagaming as I know it is using your own outside knowledge of the game mechanics and projecting that onto your PCs.  Using abstracted out of character terms to describe things your character WOULD know or do, is not.  Metagaming IS NOT the same as out of character.  If people ONLY do things according to what their character would know... they are never metagaming even if they are never in character.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 17, 2008)

SmCaudata said:
			
		

> Except, you don't have to go that far to avoid metagaming.  As was pointed out earlier, discussing actual game mechanics for the purpose of moving isn't meta gaming.  Saying, well, I know that the poison from this moster isnt' really that deadly, so we shouldn't have issue is meta gaming.  Basically, metagaming as I know it is using your own outside knowledge of the game mechanics and projecting that onto your PCs.  Using abstracted out of character terms to describe things your character WOULD know or do, is not.  Metagaming IS NOT the same as out of character.  If people ONLY do things according to what their character would know... they are never metagaming even if they are never in character.




But what I keep reading in people's complaints about 4e -- including in some comments on this thread -- is that one of the problems about 4e powers is that they encourage metagaming. 

I don't think everyone is discussing metagaming in the same sense you are. There seems to be a concern that intrusion of game rules into decision making is problematic.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Depends on the specifics, when rules become to specific and too controlling of the setting we get bogged down in such specific writing that things become mundane and there is no creative/descriptive flair to the game when it comes to the rules.



It's pretty easy to seperate "fluff" from mechanics so that people don't mistake creative flair for anything other the window dressing it is.  Look at, for example, all the 4e powers we've seen to date, or 3.5e spell descriptions.  Little bit of fluff at the top, cold hard rules telling you how it works in the game.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> I don't think everyone is discussing metagaming in the same sense you are. There seems to be a concern that intrusion of game rules into decision making is problematic.




And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what *SmCaudata* wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.

Someone saying "I'm hurt bad--get up here and use your best healing spell on me" is the same as a player saying "I'm down 50 HP. Cast cure critical on me next round." That's not metagaming.

Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.

The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> It's pretty easy to seperate "fluff" from mechanics so that people don't mistake creative flair for anything other the window dressing it is.  Look at, for example, all the 4e powers we've seen to date, or 3.5e spell descriptions.  Little bit of fluff at the top, cold hard rules telling you how it works in the game.




Oh that isn't what I mean, well if I am allowed I shall do a horrible over-exaggeration.

"Can I throw my dagger and cut the rope?"

"Sorry, you can't the dagger can only be thrown when you have a northerly-wind at your back."

Obviously no rule like that would be created, but that is the kind of situation that can arise when rules become too-specific.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what *SmCaudata* wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.
> 
> Someone saying "I'm hurt bad--get up here and use your best healing spell on me" is the same as a player saying "I'm down 50 HP. Cast cure critical on me next round." That's not metagaming.
> 
> ...




Ehh, I don't really see it... Now of-course this is my personal opinion but...

The moves presented are very general and very fast-paced in use. They generally revolve around giving extra-movement, allowing character to do more powerful things on and off their turn, etc.

Plus with them lasting all encounter, less debate on when is best to use them, beyond normal when to use daily-power. 

The tacticalness is sorta spread amongst all the characters, and is thus given smaller need for time to think overall.

The player once he is able to charge decides whether or not to charge and at whom.

The players can decide whether they should continue to pin the target or attack another, etc.

It is not just the Warlord being tactfully minded, he simply gives more tactical opportunities to the rest of the party (including himself).


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

nick012000 said:
			
		

> I'll point out that while it is mandatory, the Warlord need not actually move anyone. You can choose to slide characters less distance than the power states; he can simply choose to slide them 0 squares.




I find it interesting the sheer number of people who write on the Internet and just make stuff up out of whole cloth.  

The rule states that he will slide the ally 1 square. Not 0, not 2, not 47.

One.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Oh that isn't what I mean, well if I am allowed I shall do a horrible over-exaggeration.
> 
> "Can I throw my dagger and cut the rope?"
> 
> ...




That's not the same thing at all. The rules that exist should be clear and precise and not leave room for interpretation. No one is proposing that rules should exist for everything.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm not saying rules should exist for everything what I am saying is when a rule becomes so specific that it becomes impossible to use said rule in a creative manner that then becomes outside the specific parameters of said rule.

Thus my example, horribly-exagerrated but the person wanted to do something that he should be able to do, but overly-specific rules hinder that from happening.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.




Except _everyone_ gets to move other allies, once that daily is activated.  Not just the Warlord.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> In combat, this doesn't bother our group, and we allow out of character strategizing all the time. Why? Because in real life, the players are weekend warriors who only devote maybe five to ten hours a week max concentrating on D&D. In "game reality", the characters are seasoned veterans who live and die by their tactics, so they've talked, planned, and plotted in their off time on the best tactics working together in a situation, and various codes and signal phrases on how to communicate that info quickly. Same as how I wouldn't make a player roleplay out every nuance of his bluff check to seduce a barmaid, I assume that the time spent in downtime around the campfire, etc. would be spent dicussing the day's events, tactics, etc.and that is representted by the table talk during battle.
> 
> When I use my White raven tactics to give another player an extra turn in combat, I relate it as "spurring them on with my words, urging them to strike at the right spot, while the advantage is pressed, etc." what he does with that turn is up to him.




Except that it really isn't just up to him.

If the group discusses tactics out of character, it prevents the player from coming up with solutions on his own. It also pressures that player into using the "group consensus". If he deviates, it is almost sure to have other players question him.

Some people like to make decisions for their own PC and would be uncomfortable in a "group discussion" mode.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I'm not saying rules should exist for everything what I am saying is when a rule becomes so specific that it becomes impossible to use said rule in a creative manner that then becomes outside the specific parameters of said rule.
> 
> Thus my example, horribly-exagerrated but the person wanted to do something that he should be able to do, but overly-specific rules hinder that from happening.




I think you need a better, more plausible example because it appears that your point is pretty much non-sequitor to most known 3E or 4E rules. Most rules state the game mechanics it affects. Most rules are not too specific, just specific within their area of expertise.

If you had some real 3E or 4E rules that are too specific, it would support your claim here.


An example of rules that might go too far are the old Judges Guild charts. A chart for everything. But, even 2E started getting away from that and there are very few chart lookups in 3E (Turning Undead being one exception I can think of).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Except that it really isn't just up to him.
> 
> If the group discusses tactics out of character, it prevents the player from coming up with solutions on his own. It also pressures that player into using the "group consensus". If he deviates, it is almost sure to have other players question him.
> 
> Some people like to make decisions for their own PC and would be uncomfortable in a "group discussion" mode.




I hate to sound rude, but then he shouldn't play a Warlord. Given that the Warlord is based around team-play and group-dynamics.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Except _everyone_ gets to move other allies, once that daily is activated.  Not just the Warlord.




Only if the Warlord hits. If he misses, then he gets to move one ally and that one ally gets to move other allies.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> It is not just the Warlord being tactfully minded, he simply gives more tactical opportunities to the rest of the party (including himself).




That would describe the marshal, but it does not hold with what we have been shown of the warlord so far. My impression is that the player with the warlord is meant to metagame. The article supports this: "...if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive..."

Why should we have a class that encourages this?


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Except _everyone_ gets to move other allies, once that daily is activated.  Not just the Warlord.




Is that supposed to make it better? I don't want the fighter moving my character anymore than I want the warlord to.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 17, 2008)

Since people like using tactics and like supporting the rest of the party and the idea of using tactics as a team is a pretty universal idea.

The Warlord has to be tactical, but not all his powers are overly-controlling as people have suggested (or I guess to be fair to those people, as how I view it).

Also these are three powers here, we haven't even seen any Utility powers, which I imagine will add a ton of nice-tactical gameplay into the mix as well.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I'm not saying rules should exist for everything what I am saying is when a rule becomes so specific that it becomes impossible to use said rule in a creative manner that then becomes outside the specific parameters of said rule.
> 
> Thus my example, horribly-exagerrated but the person wanted to do something that he should be able to do, but overly-specific rules hinder that from happening.




Give an actual example then of a clear and precise rule hindering someone from doing something reasonable. The throwing dagger thing made no sense in the context of D&D.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I hate to sound rude, but then he shouldn't play a Warlord. Given that the Warlord is based around team-play and group-dynamics.




I wasn't talking about just a player attempting to play a Warlord. I was talking about cross table tactical discussions which result in a player being pressured to go with the group.

I have two players in my group that are not so good at tactics. I discourage cross table combat tactics talk for two reasons:

1) I want those players to learn in order to get better at it (one of them is my wife) and that doesn't happen as well if other people often make decisions for them. They learn better by learning from their own mistakes and watching what tactics the other players use.

2) I do not want to embarrass those players by having other people chime in "smarter tactics". Fred says "I move up and attack" and Barney says "No, no. You want to move around him like this to both avoid the Attack of Opportunity and gain the Flank.".


People who need to play with cross table combat tactics discussions seem to be more "win/goal" oriented than "let each player do what he wants to have fun, even if he makes a mistake" oriented. At least IME.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

I am still failing to see the problem.

If someone tries to move me against my will (or force me into anything else against my will) they are by definition no longer my ally. So if warlord tries to move someone against their will they will fail by the rules.

If you don't want players discussing strategy during combat that is fine. Guy playing Warlord will have to be more careful then otherwise with using his spells but then again so will Wizard  (with his spell positioning) and Cleric (with heals) and even Rogue with movement and flanking. 
You are clearly able to deal with those, I don't see why you should have issue with Warlord

Amount of table-talk is a function of a table. Some people enjoy it, some don't and DM has the last word on the topic. There is nothing about 4ed that either encourages or discourages table talk unless you think that the very fact that the game is more interesting tactically will make people table-talk more but that I would say is putting the cart well in front of the horse.


----------



## VannATLC (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what *SmCaudata* wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.
> 
> Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.
> 
> The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.



I'm sorry, I'm not sure why tactical discussion encourages metagaming?

An attack of opportunity is an abstraction, so is an area effect.. While I'll grant that some usage of some knowledge in such a situation (A character with no knowledge or experience with the fireball spell, knowing the range and radius) I don't think there is anything inherent in the discussion that is metagaming.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking about just a player attempting to play a Warlord. I was talking about cross table tactical discussions which result in a player being pressured to go with the group.
> 
> I have two players in my group that are not so good at tactics. I discourage cross table combat tactics talk for two reasons:
> 
> ...




Those are good reasons.

Some of my reasons for discouraging table talk:

1) Speed of the game

2) Your characters are not omniscient in regards to the battlefield

3) It tends to take players out of character

4) As DM, I don't optimize enemy tactics--they make mistakes just like the PCs do

My impression of the warlord is that it will slow things down to the point where it will negate the time saving benefits of set powers, the character will behave as though he is omniscient, a lot of things he does will be too complex to run in character, and I will need to respond to his tactics in a like way to keep the encounters balanced.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 17, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> If someone tries to move me against my will (or force me into anything else against my will) they are by definition no longer my ally. So if warlord tries to move someone against their will they will fail by the rules.




You're making an assumption - that the term 'ally' will not have a specific definition in the rules.

It may be based on the perception of the character using the ability, in which case whether you consider yourself to be his ally or not, you might be an ally for the purpose of the ability if he deems you to be.

(Actually, I really hope that 'ally' and 'enemy' _are_ defined in the 4E rules.  The 3E definitions weren't very useful.)

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> I am still failing to see the problem.
> 
> If someone tries to move me against my will (or force me into anything else against my will) they are by definition no longer my ally. So if warlord tries to move someone against their will they will fail by the rules.




Even if this were true, than the moment the Warlord is no longer your PC's ally is the moment your PC gets no other ally bonuses from him. For example, a Perception aura from an Elven Warlord (or other Warlord bonuses).


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what *SmCaudata* wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.
> 
> Someone saying "I'm hurt bad--get up here and use your best healing spell on me" is the same as a player saying "I'm down 50 HP. Cast cure critical on me next round." That's not metagaming.
> 
> ...




I don't really follow this as a direct correlation. But to play devil's advocate, wouldn't an expert tactician seem likely to see the combat more like a chessboard and try to manipulate the tactical opportunities of positioning to best advantage and guide allies to those positions as an in-character option? Where is the metagaming unless it is in he abstraction itself?

I guess I don't see it and I want to understand the sense of frustration with the warlord as  described so far.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I'm not sure why tactical discussion encourages metagaming?
> 
> An attack of opportunity is an abstraction, so is an area effect.. While I'll grant that some usage of some knowledge in such a situation (A character with no knowledge or experience with the fireball spell, knowing the range and radius) I don't think there is anything inherent in the discussion that is metagaming.




For starters, it rarely makes sense that a discussion of tactical minutia could be taking place among the characters in the middle of a battle. It does make sense that characters would establish general strategies and tactics, but not to the level where the players discuss exact positioning with five feet so that everyone is in range of a haste spell in two rounds.

Or take a character that just took a critical this round and wants to withdraw. It does not make sense for the wizard's player whose character is being pinned to map out the best avenue of retreat for the other player.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> Those are good reasons.
> 
> Some of my reasons for discouraging table talk:
> 
> ...




I see some of this, even if I don't see the items as issues in the way play has been at my table.

The issues of character "omniscience" and in-character action run into several problems, though-- including character knowledge vs. player knowledges (e.g., the character is a skilled military vet, but the player is a 14 year old nerd in a basement) and representation (e.g., what could the character actually intuit in a real situation vs. what the DM chooses to stress and the player asks about). In the end, this is a matter of table rules and culture, and concerns about this make sense in the context of individual groups. 

I see where the idea of a warlord's powers could be a concern on these grounds, but the powers I see are about small shifts rather than massive repositioning and optimization of position -- more moving people in and out in a sort of tag-team fashion or sliding nearby characters into slightly better positions and coordinating charges rather than dropping people into carefully considered combat positions.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> For starters, it rarely makes sense that a discussion of tactical minutia could be taking place among the characters in the middle of a battle. It does make sense that characters would establish general strategies and tactics, but not to the level where the players discuss exact positioning with five feet so that everyone is in range of a haste spell in two rounds.
> 
> Or take a character that just took a critical this round and wants to withdraw. It does not make sense for the wizard's player whose character is being pinned to map out the best avenue of retreat for the other player.




But does it make sense for the wizard to hit the opponent with a spell under the direction of the party tactician to create a distraction that will let a colleague to make a tactical retreat?


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> I don't really follow this as a direct correlation. But to play devil's advocate, wouldn't an expert tactician seem likely to see the combat more like a chessboard and try to manipulate the tactical opportunities of positioning to best advantage and guide allies to those positions as an in-character option? Where is the metagaming unless it is in he abstraction itself?
> 
> I guess I don't see it and I want to understand the sense of frustration with the warlord as  described so far.




I'm OK with setting up opportunities and such. I am against encouraging tactical discussion around the table, and I am led to believe by the article that that is the intent with the warlord. It may be a fine distinction.

Some discussion is going to come up, and if there's a way that it could happen in character or it is reasonable that the characters would not make obvious mistakes the players make, I am OK with it. I can see the warlord's powers though easily leading to the long debates that happen in miniatures gaming. I happen to like miniatures gaming and am very good at it, but I don't really want that mixing in with D&D to any great extent. What can the warlord come up with in six seconds and execute? Great, go with that. Don't spend ten minutes figuring out how to avoid one attack of opportunity or how everyone else should move to set up your next power.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> I'm OK with setting up opportunities and such. I am against encouraging tactical discussion around the table, and I am led to believe by the article that that is the intent with the warlord. It may be a fine distinction.
> 
> Some discussion is going to come up, and if there's a way that it could happen in character or it is reasonable that the characters would not make obvious mistakes the players make, I am OK with it. I can see the warlord's powers though easily leading to the long debates that happen in miniatures gaming. I happen to like miniatures gaming and am very good at it, but I don't really want that mixing in with D&D to any great extent. What can the warlord come up with in six seconds and execute? Great, go with that. Don't spend ten minutes figuring out how to avoid one attack of opportunity or how everyone else should move to set up your next power.




Ah. Light bulb over head. I see the train of concerns here.

Hard to see how much the movement powers of the warlord will lead to this sort of picking at minutiae at this point, but I can see this concern. Not sure that what I see so far will lead to this, but if the Warlord has five or more shifting powers, maybe this might be more of a concern. I guess it depends on the specifics, but something to think about.

Thanks for spending some time spelling out your concerns. Helps me understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> But does it make sense for the wizard to hit the opponent with a spell under the direction of the party tactician to create a distraction that will let a colleague to make a tactical retreat?




But that's in character, right? I'm referring to "No, don't step there, that guy has a 10' reach. Oh, and end your move five feet the other way. That way the wizard will have to move and provoke if he wants to hit you with burning hands."



			
				Rob Heinsoo said:
			
		

> If you often find yourself suggesting a tactical course of action to your fellow players, the warlord might be for you. Back when we designed the original version of the marshal class for the Miniatures Handbook, the marshal owed a good deal to the vision and example of Skaff Elias. Skaff is famous for having excellent suggestions for what other players should be doing with their turns. The warlord class, as a descendant of the marshal, is partly an exercise in turning that sometimes annoying habit into a positive contribution that will be appreciated by other players, rather than resented.




I don't want those out of character suggestions turned into contributions, I want them eliminated if possible.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> Ah. Light bulb over head. I see the train of concerns here.
> 
> Hard to see how much the movement powers of the warlord will lead to this sort of picking at minutiae at this point, but I can see this concern. Not sure that what I see so far will lead to this, but if the Warlord has five or more shifting powers, maybe this might be more of a concern. I guess it depends on the specifics, but something to think about.
> 
> Thanks for spending some time spelling out your concerns. Helps me understand where you are coming from.




Not a problem, thanks for discussing it.

I'll be the first to agree that I need to see all the rules and the class in that context to make a real judgment, but I just want to express that I am getting bad vibes from what Mr. Heinsoo wrote.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Even if this were true, than the moment the Warlord is no longer your PC's ally is the moment your PC gets no other ally bonuses from him. For example, a Perception aura from an Elven Warlord (or other Warlord bonuses).




Yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. I don't think it is a situation that will come up very often unless warlord is deliberately trying to be a jerk (in which case they will not last in the party very long) but yes, I would say the moment Warlord starts being anti-social they cease providing benefits to the party; sounds about right and is about as bad as cleric being a jerk and refusing to heal or buff or what have you. 

Situation seems perfectly simple from the point of view of RAW and leads to no silly situations such as warlords dumping their "friends" into lava. 
Of course, if the RAW state somewhere that PCs remain "allies" regardless of their actions and intentions then I am wrong - but I am willing to bet money that they do not.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> But that's in character, right? I'm referring to "No, don't step there, that guy has a 10' reach. Oh, and end your move five feet the other way. That way the wizard will have to move and provoke if he wants to hit you with burning hands."
> 
> I don't want those out of character suggestions turned into contributions, I want them eliminated if possible.




Why do those kind of suggestions have to be OOC ? 
It is perfectly possible - even preferable - that the player who is a tactics fiend plays a character who is also a tactics fiend. What Warlord class does is give them nice IC opportunity to do it. 

I see your beef when the back-and-forth between the PCs is longer then one could realistically shout/signalize in space of a combat round but that is cool with or without Warlord. 

"Want me to get you to giant's right ? -Don't Please, I am lining up something else !" is perfectly short IC exchange that can take place between fighter and warlord that does not necessitate any more tactical elaboration then wizard and rogue shouting: "I am casting 'ball right behind the Ogre - Please don't, I am trying to flank him". 

Sure, in both cases Warlord  and Wizard can choose to be asses and go ahead and use the ability anyway except that Warlord's ability is much easier to negate ("If he does that he is no longer my ally until he apologize and I accept it").


----------



## Vendark (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I find it interesting the sheer number of people who write on the Internet and just make stuff up out of whole cloth.
> 
> The rule states that he will slide the ally 1 square. Not 0, not 2, not 47.
> 
> One.




He's not making it up. You can always choose to push/pull/slide a smaller distance than indicated or not at all. Which probably makes most of this thread a waste of time.

Relevant rules here, under "Forced Movement:"

http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32944


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Damn those rule designers for not leaving silly loopholes for people to nitpick about...
I am sure some others will be found soon.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.




Zymry "Melbar I have noticed your ire for goblins drives your swords to strike with greater ferocity that one is wearing different armor perhaps your skills are best used there. (melbar is a ranger with favoured enemy goblin) Lexyana I have seen your dagger do wicked things when your enemy isn't focused on it mayhaps assist Melbar and eliminate what seems a bigger threat.(sets up a flank and sneak attack) I'll take that one nearby since you two have that one covered as I have seen my battle prowess spur you on when you had seemed to be waning (close enough for my crusaders +2hp to ally whenever I strike a foe in melee)

All said in character with things that the CHARACTERS would have noticed having spent more than a few combats together. Not one order among them either suggestions that unless I can cast geas they are free to ignore but still decent tactics that my crusader CHARACTER would have come up with by viewing his compatriots in combat.


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.




Ah, that takes me back to my old college gaming group, where most of the murders took place intra-party.  I'm not even sure in the few games I played with them that we even saw a monster.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either.




Damn, cool! I've got some business down at the local con...

Oh wait. Did you mean in the game?


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Technically you don't need their consent, permission or anything else to stab them in the back either. Despite this, D&D has somehow managed to survive for years without explicitly disallowing people from stabbing each other in the back. It is amazing, when you think about it.




Not to help the other camp of this discussion out too much, but couldn't the rules against stabbing party members in the back have something to do with those pesky alignments ?


----------



## FireLance (Mar 17, 2008)

Vendark said:
			
		

> He's not making it up. You can always choose to push/pull/slide a smaller distance than indicated or not at all. Which probably makes most of this thread a waste of time.



Not really - the other key contention is that enabling players to move other players' characters will not go down well with some players. I personally think it's a good idea - it helps weed out those who Will Not Play Well With Others early.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> That would describe the marshal, but it does not hold with what we have been shown of the warlord so far. My impression is that the player with the warlord is meant to metagame. The article supports this: "...if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive..."
> 
> Why should we have a class that encourages this?



Why shouldn't we have a class that encourages this? There is some percentage of players who enjoy this sort of play, at least some of the time. Why shouldn't they have a class that allows them to do so with real, mechanical, in-game effects?

This criticism begins to smell of badwrongfun. I don't think that's your intent, but arguing that the class is bad because it encourages a play style that you don't personally enjoy is not a valid complaint.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Not really - the other key contention is that enabling players to move other players' characters will not go down well with some players. I personally think it's a good idea - it helps weed out those who Will Not Play Well With Others early.




Do you have an opinion on which side will be deemed "not playing well with others" ?

Is it  "NO NO NO if I wanted to go there I would have gone there leave me alone and let me play my character my way"

or "I am moving you here and you can't stop me"

or "Hey fred can you help me get close enough to critter x to smack it"

or " Anne if you want I can move you closer to critter y so you can flank or the uninjured and unopposed critter q so bob the wizard doesn't get creamed"

As an aside why do tactics = metagaming ? the characters are people who are quite honestly in mos cases having days that are worse than jack bauer's. Why can't they after working with this same group of people know what they are capable of and how best to use what they have seen them do in the past ? There exist people in RL that can be plopped into a battle situation and KNOW who needs to be taken down first, and what the best way to do that with minimal  risk of loss is, who are very aware of surroundings and where threats could be lurking, who can guage an enemies apparent weaknesses and how to exploit them. why not in the game world ?


----------



## glass (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.



I was under the impression that we have seen 3 warlord abilities*. Even if we buy into the premise for that warlord abilities fail in the face of common sense (and I don't) for every single one that we have seen, that still hardly constitutes 'a lot'.


glass.

(* Plus vague descriptions of one or two more, IIRC).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't we have a class that encourages this? There is some percentage of players who enjoy this sort of play, at least some of the time. Why shouldn't they have a class that allows them to do so with real, mechanical, in-game effects?



This is my thought exactly.  I love planning out strategy.  Some of my favorite sessions of D&D have been the ones we just barely won only because we all managed to work together.

It was filled with comments like "Ok, if you provoke an AOO from the enemy, it won't be able to take one when the wizard stands up and backs off.  Then, the rogue can take the spot the wizard had and get flanking.  I'll cast Righteous Wrath of the Faithful this round and I'll heal the wizard when he's in range next round.  I know we're all getting low on hitpoints and it's really close, but with the flanking bonuses and sneak attack, plus the extra attack from the Wrath we just might pull this off and defeat this demon."

Everyone at the table thought it was some of the most fun we've had playing D&D because it required everyone to work together and use their abilities in the best ways they could in order to survive.  I know that if we had a DM who told us to stop metagaming and stop talking to each other and just come up with our own strategy without speaking to each other it would have ruined all our fun that session.  Plus, we all would have died.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 17, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Do you have an opinion on which side will be deemed "not playing well with others" ?
> 
> Is it  "NO NO NO if I wanted to go there I would have gone there leave me alone and let me play my character my way"
> 
> ...



The first two.

Is this a trick question?


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you use common sense a lot of the warlords abilities would not work at all.



On the other hand, when you use a little bit of imagination they work beautifully.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The first two.
> 
> Is this a trick question?




But isn't the sky falling? won't the first two be all that any table other than yours and mine get ?

Wait you mean it isn't and we won't be the only lucky ones, and if we do get abusive players we have ways of dealing with them ? WHEW  the rest of the thread had me worried there.

Is it scary that I can see and word oakheart's entire description of that round of fighting completely in character without what I consider metagaming.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> That would describe the marshal, but it does not hold with what we have been shown of the warlord so far. My impression is that the player with the warlord is meant to metagame. The article supports this: "...if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive..."
> 
> Why should we have a class that encourages this?



Because there's nothing inherently wrong with it, and many people enjoy it?


----------



## Wulfram (Mar 17, 2008)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> So even though the description says that 'The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around' you assume it does?      You're logic confuses me to no end.




'The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around' can easily be rephrased as:

"The Warlord has license to boss other players around.  Just not an unlimited one"

A Boss at work doesn't have an _unlimited_ license to boss people around, but he certainly has enough to be resented.


(Not directly in response to Holy Bovine)
I agree with those who feel that worrying about the absence of "may" in the power isn't a big issue.  

It's still clear, however that the Warlord is intended as the boss.  The article doesn't say "every warlord is more effective as a _polite suggester_ than as a lone hero".  It calls a spade a spade, and says what the Warlord is - the "Commander" of the party.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> On the other hand, when you use a little bit of imagination they work beautifully.



But who would want imagination in his D&D.

Ah, right. This would be me...


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> It's still clear, however that the Warlord is intended as the boss.  The article doesn't say "every warlord is more effective as a _polite suggester_ than as a lone hero".  It calls a spade a spade, and says what the Warlord is - the "Commander" of the party.




Where exactly does the article place the Warlord as the "commander" of the party ?



			
				Warlord preview said:
			
		

> Number Two: Play Well with Others
> 
> Fourth edition also has extremely unselfish classes, and that's where the warlord fits in. Different players at the table are likely to take a different approach to the combat encounter portion of the game. If you enjoy cooperative games like Reiner Knezia's Lord of the Rings boardgame or Shadows over Camelot, you're much more likely to enjoy playing a warlord. For example, your warlord *can* provide the entire party with an extra movement option with a power such as white raven onslaught.
> 
> ...




I could also dig out the preview books and point out where they say that the leader role does not make one the face or leader of the party.

IF you have people who abuse power or knowledge at your table now they will continue to do so. IF you do not there is no reason this class, it's powers or any rule regarding them will turn nice kind respectful friendly gamers into a mass of dissenting "do as I say cause the raw says you have to" ummm the grandma friendly word i suppose is jerks. 

Look up the sky is still there I promise you it isn't falling.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2008)

A few observations:

1) D&D has always featured classes that essentially dictated battle conditions/player choices (to an extent far beyond a mere 'forced move'). They're called 'spellcasters'.

2) Players should cooperate (if they've agreed to OOC, that is). Unfortunately, the rules can't force them to so.

3) Players might be better off spending their time and energy looking for ways to make these new rules work; by rationalizing them, figuring out how to describe/narrate them in play, instead of creating scenarios in which the new rules look broken or absurd. Frankly, a lot of D&D is broken and/or absurd unless the players agree to keep things playable.


----------



## Satori5000 (Mar 17, 2008)

This has been said several times, but i feel that i must repeat it again.  If you play in a group that are all friends and dont consist of players that like to be jerks, the warlord class is fine.  If in the PHB it still says that you force someone to move, then just handwave in that the player has the "option" to move.  Sure, it gives them a bonus, and unless the warlord is being played by someone not tactical, your doing something good for your party.  
IC Warlord:  "Hey -Tank-, you can charge x if you want"
IC Tank: "No, i need to hold the front line" or "YEAAHHHHH!!!"


----------



## Wulfram (Mar 17, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Where exactly does the article place the Warlord as the "commander" of the party ?




At the bottom of the first paragraph

"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. "

What the Warlord is commander of is not specified, but in a normal game it would clearly be the party.  Well, unless the Warlord comes with some free NPC mooks to be his subordinates, which would be interesting, but seems unlikely.



> IF you have people who abuse power or knowledge at your table now they will continue to do so. IF you do not there is no reason this class, it's powers or any rule regarding them will turn nice kind respectful friendly gamers into a mass of dissenting "do as I say cause the raw says you have to" ummm the grandma friendly word i suppose is jerks




It's not abuse to play the game as it was written.  The Warlord is written as the commander.  If I don't want a commander that means either I'm going to have to put up with it, or tell another player that he can't play one of the core classes.


----------



## beverson (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> At the bottom of the first paragraph
> 
> "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. "
> 
> What the Warlord is commander of is not specified, but in a normal game it would clearly be the party.




Except for the fact that you've pointed out _one statement_ which has already been contradicted by _many statements_ by the *game designers* saying that the Warlord is NOT intended to be the party leader, boss, commander, or otherwise.  It IS intended to provide tactical _options _that could benefit the party.  Seriously - they've come right out and told us what the class is intended for, and it clearly contradicts your interpretation.  I can't see how anyone on this thread could possibly make it more clear.


----------



## kclark (Mar 17, 2008)

I will admit that I had a slight immediate aversion to White Raven Onslaught.
I dislike the feeling that a helpful ability allows a player to move another player's piece.
It is the mixture of helpful ability and power over another player's character placement that does not sit well.
I have no problem with a power that would forcibly move an opponent's piece (as it would be driving them back against their will).

I think a slight semantic change would be all that I need to make the ability sit right with me.
Change the part where the attacker slides an ally to the attacker chooses an ally can slide.
I can see some reasoning behind the attacker being the one to make the slide. It is that person's turn and is already actively involved in moving and taking action. It is simply quicker to let the active person do the sliding.
On the other hand if the ally did not want to be slid (possibly due to the player of the ally actually having a better tactical understanding and seeing a detriment to the intended slide), then the intended speed gain ends up being more of a loss as the ally then has to speak up saying that they don't want to be slid there and would instead want to slide to another square or not at all. 
The RAW basically allow for the attacker to force the ally to move, which could potentially lead to a discussion about where the ally wants to be slid or an argument at it's worst. Simply changing it to allow for the ally to slide himself, eliminates any potential player conflict while keeping the intended game mechanics effect of the warlord granting maneuverability benefits to his allies.
The only reasoning that I can see of having the attacker make the slides is potential speed increase (which I don't see as sufficient enough to allow possible player conflict) or a game rule stating that a player cannot slide their own character. I don't see the latter being very likely and if it is then the power should be a unique case allowing for it (exception based design after all).


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

beverson said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that you've pointed out _one statement_ which has already been contradicted by _many statements_ by the *game designers* saying that the Warlord is NOT intended to be the party leader, boss, commander, or otherwise.  It IS intended to provide tactical _options _that could benefit the party.  Seriously - they've come right out and told us what the class is intended for, and it clearly contradicts your interpretation.  I can't see how anyone on this thread could possibly make it more clear.




I guess you missed the 3rd Commandment. And the fact that they are "commandments" (nudge, nudge). Mr. Heinsoo is not exactly beating around the bush on this.


----------



## Wulfram (Mar 17, 2008)

beverson said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that you've pointed out _one statement_ which has already been contradicted by _many statements_ by the *game designers* saying that the Warlord is NOT intended to be the party leader, boss, commander, or otherwise.  It IS intended to provide tactical _options _that could benefit the party.  Seriously - they've come right out and told us what the class is intended for, and it clearly contradicts your interpretation.  I can't see how anyone on this thread could possibly make it more clear.




They have come right out and told it what the class is for - to be the party leader.  Any other interpretation can be supported only by desperate semantic contortions.

They have argued that this is made more acceptable to other players because their commands are carried out using extra actions, but they haven't been so nonsensical as to suggest that the warlord is doing anything other than commanding.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> "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. "



Okay, so warlords are more effective as commanders compared to (and only compared to) lone heroes. That does not mean that warlords have to be commanders. There are more options than commander and lone hero.


----------



## Kobu (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> They have come right out and told it what the class is for - to be the party leader.  Any other interpretation can be supported only by desperate semantic contortions.




More precisely, they are the leader in combat. The roles are only related to combat. The party leader, if there is one, is up to the characters to work out.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> They have come right out and told it what the class is for - to be the party leader.  Any other interpretation can be supported only by desperate semantic contortions.



The term 'leader' as they use it in 4E does not mean what it means in everyday parlance.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> At the bottom of the first paragraph
> 
> "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. "
> 
> ...




Yes, and if I don't want a spiritual leader I have to put up with a cleric despite myself or tell players that they can not play a core class. Luckily in 4th edition both you and me can still make viable parties, not so much in previous editions.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 17, 2008)

Wow.

I am not all that sold on the Warlord class, but I am amazed at the way people think it somehow gives a player "official license" to take actions for other characters.  The Warlord my be a "leader" or a "commander" but the party is not made up of footsoldiers who are expected to follow his command because they are trained to react rather than think.

The party is made up of heroes who all have their own intelligence and free will.  Rather than being a "commander" who can push the other characters around, the Warlord is the tactical expert.  He can see weaknesses in the opponents defenses and understands how to exploit them by working as a team.  In terms of game mechanics those abilities to identify and exploit weaknesess are displayed in the ability to grant special attacks and bonuses to other players *if* they follow his lead.  These are not mind-affecting compulsions, these are tactical moves.  

If a player were to show up in a 4e game I was in and declared that, as the Warlord "Leader" of the party, the rules say they can tells us what to do and can move our characters where they see best, I can guarantee you I will be telling them what they can do; and it is something anatomically impossible.  Either they or I would not be in that group for long.  

Common sense to me.  The game is a group game in a social setting.  Courtesy and fair play trump whatever some poorly worded rules might say.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 17, 2008)

Actually I do think that classes which are designated "leader" are the ones that are most logical *IN CHARACTER* party leaders. 

If there is an adventuring priest in the party whose interaction with their God keeps the party alive on daily basis then that party is to a significant extent working for (or at least in close interests of) that God - making the Cleric their de-facto leader. 

Likewise, if the party has a commander/tactician who is keeping folks alive and providing group benefits then that person is also in position to be considered de-facto leader. 

Ofcourse this is all subject to the Roleplay and party dynamics etc - but I dont think it is unreasonable to consider the "leaders" as de-facto leaders; my players at least always had that (in character) attitude towards their party Cleric.

Now, that ofcourse, does not mean that Cleric player gets to boss other folks around - particularly Out of Character. Out of Character I don't owe my life to your God multiple times over and Out of Character you don't even worship that God. So Out of character we are all equals and play as equals. In character we give due respect to the fellow who is keeping us alive. 

Only difference in 4ed is that now we have a choice as to who that fellow is.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> They have come right out and told it what the class is for - to be the party leader.  Any other interpretation can be supported only by desperate semantic contortions.




Semantic contortions like "WOTC folks have come out and said that the class role of "leader" does not in fact signify party leadership." ?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 17, 2008)

I disagree. Although the cleric has strong reasons to be the leader, there are a lot of other factors: The leader can also be the one who organizes money. The one that does the talking, the one that is the smartest and can turn you in pig.

But there can also be different leaders for different situations:
the ranger doesn´t tell the warlord, what to do in combat, and the warlord doesn´t tell the ranger how to travel safely through the woods. Noone tells the bard how to interact with people and noone tells the cleric how to act with gods. And a comletely different person can be the true leader doing nothing but making sure the party holds together and decides which way to go/which things to try...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 17, 2008)

Vendark said:
			
		

> He's not making it up. You can always choose to push/pull/slide a smaller distance than indicated or not at all. Which probably makes most of this thread a waste of time.
> 
> Relevant rules here, under "Forced Movement:"
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32944




I apologize. I went and read that before I posted and still missed it. Doh!


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I apologize. I went and read that before I posted and still missed it. Doh!



Everyone remember this the next time someone says "wait until you have seen all the rules before ranting". It is often a valid criticism, because there are often general rules like this that do not get reprinted with every power description (for instance).


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2008)

Kobu said:
			
		

> Those are good reasons.
> 
> Some of my reasons for discouraging table talk:
> 
> ...




I won't act as if your concerns aren't valid (they are), but I have a good reason why I allow table talk.

I'm not my PC.

My PC is a warrior (or wizard, or rogue, etc) who lives and dies by the sword. He has trained against countless combatants, faced immeasurable foes, and has worked with his allies for long enough that during those long "boring times", they have discussed tactics and formed a certain camaraderie that lets him know that "Ablada Kabamla" is the opening words to fireball, the rogue uses spring attack, there is no point to flanking a vampire, and and you kill the evil priest FIRST. 

However, I am a substitute teacher in the Midwest who plays D&D every other weekend. I'm lucky if I remember my fellow PC's NAMES, much less their individual combat mannerisms. I've never used a sword in my life, and I'm fairly certain I'd hurt myself if I tried. I've never seen combat. I am also not privy to the vast assortment of sights, sounds, smells, terrain changes, and other input I would if I was actually standing there (beyond what my DM describes in an opening paragraph probably read once and 10 minutes ago). ERGO, I am wholly unqualified to make sound tactical decisions my PC would make as a matter of course and survival. 

Therefore, I use table talk to quickly convey information that others might know about my PC to give them additional information that allows them to make decisions based on the fact the PC is friends and comrades with 3 other dudes and they know each other the same way (or better) than I know the people PLAYING them.

It just makes up for the time spent NOT playing D&D...


----------



## lexoanvil (Mar 17, 2008)

Am i the only one who will be happy by having more attacks/movements/actions by having a warlord in the party?
I for one welcome our new warlord overlords


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Mar 17, 2008)

If I remember correctly, all classes have their own section with all their powers inside.

Since the warlords likely have dozens of powers that involve allowing extra movement and actions there is probably a paragraph adressing this issue at the beginning of the power write-up section.

Probably something like "A PC can always decline to use the extra action made available"  That would avoid redundant phrasing for the rest of the section.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 17, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> Probably something like "A PC can always decline to use the extra action made available"  That would avoid redundant phrasing for the rest of the section.




There's quite a difference between "An adjacent ally may shift" and "Slide an adjacent ally", though.  One is somethng the ally does, and the other is something done to the ally.

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There's quite a difference between "An adjacent ally may shift" and "Slide an adjacent ally", though.  One is somethng the ally does, and the other is something done to the ally.



Actually, I think the key mechanical distinction between a shift and a slide is that one occurs on the ally's turn (and consumes a move action) and the other happens on the warlord's turn (and does not require the ally to spend an action).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, I think the key mechanical distinction between a shift and a slide is that one occurs on the ally's turn (and consumes a move action)...




... and is determined by the ally...



> ... and the other happens on the warlord's turn (and does not require the ally to spend an action).




... and is determined by the warlord.

The person who shifts decides where he's shifting to.  The person who initiates the slide decides where the target is sliding to.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Everyone remember this the next time someone says "wait until you have seen all the rules before ranting". It is often a valid criticism, because there are often general rules like this that do not get reprinted with every power description (for instance).




Then, we should also wait for all of the rules before praising the new rules as well, correct?


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The person who shifts decides where he's shifting to.  The person who initiates the slide decides where the target is sliding to.




Are you seriously going to enforce a binary distinction like this in any game you're in?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Are you seriously going to enforce a binary distinction like this in any game you're in?




Huh?  Why on earth not?

Shifting is something you do.  Pulling, Pushing, and Sliding are things you do _to someone_.

It's like Directed Bull Rush (from Shock Trooper) in 3.5.  You get to pick where they go.  They don't.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Huh?  Why on earth not?
> 
> Shifting is something you do.  Pulling, Pushing, and Sliding are things you do _to someone_.
> 
> ...



 The point is that in this context (warlord powers affecting an ally), the person who initiates the slide is most likely to be doing so in consultation with the person who gets slid. As such, it's a consensus decision, whoever actually moves the mini on the mat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Huh?  Why on earth not?




Because it's not politically correct to move someone else's PC for them.  

Nobody wants rules that are not politically correct. We forgot to get rid of demons and devils in the game too. Darn. Guess we should errata them out. Wouldn't want to offend anyone. For that matter, let's get rid of the violence in the game and just all sit around roleplaying our knitting work. Doesn't that sound fun?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The point is that in this context (warlord powers affecting an ally), the person who initiates the slide is most likely to be doing so in consultation with the person who gets slid. As such, it's a consensus decision, whoever actually moves the mini on the mat.




I think the consensus is entirely at the discretion of the initiator.

He can say "I get to slide you one square - where do you want to go?", and the other player can give input.  But ultimately, the power says "You slide [Creature X] one square", and the person who is sliding [Creature X] is the one who points to a square on the battlemat and says "Here".

If that's where the player indicated he wanted to go, yay, consensus!  If it's not, too bad, because the person with the ability to slide [Creature X] has the casting vote.

The Rogue can say to his enemy "I get to slide you three squares - where do you want to go?" as well.  And the enemy can say "Anywhere but the briar patch".  But the enemy's input is advisory only, and the Rogue can slide him into the damned briar patch if he chooses.

So yes, I consider it a binary case.  Who picks where the shift ends up?  The person shifting.  Who picks where the slide ends up?  The person sliding, not the person being slid.  Any consensus is at the slider's discretion.

(I have no problem with the slidee's player moving his mini on the battlemat to the new position... as long as he puts it where the slider's player tells him to!)

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think the consensus is entirely at the discretion of the initiator.
> 
> He can say "I get to slide you one square - where do you want to go?", and the other player can give input.  But ultimately, the power says "You slide [Creature X] one square", and the person who is sliding [Creature X] is the one who points to a square on the battlemat and says "Here".
> 
> If that's where the player indicated he wanted to go, yay, consensus!  If it's not, too bad, because the person with the ability to slide [Creature X] has the casting vote.




And do you seriously believe that most groups will not have some sort of conversation like this (possibly abbreviated) before the action is taken? Ultimately, the point is that the person being moved has input into what happens. It's not a decision made in complete isolation by one person or another.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Are you seriously going to enforce a binary distinction like this in any game you're in?




Uh...yeah.

Slide is usually an offensive power. You slide an enemy off a cliff, or adjacent to the fighter, or away from the wizard. If you allow the target to choose, the ability is pointless.

You may houserule that 'PC's control a slide due to the actions of other PCs', but that's about it.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Uh...yeah.
> 
> Slide is usually an offensive power. You slide an enemy off a cliff, or adjacent to the fighter, or away from the wizard. If you allow the target to choose, the ability is pointless.




The entire point of the debate is that slide is, in this case, being used on an ally. As such, the hypothesis that "the target cannot choose" is a definitional characteristic of slide is what is in question.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The entire point of the debate is that slide is, in this case, being used on an ally. As such, the hypothesis that "the target cannot choose" is a definitional characteristic of slide is what is in question.




Yup.

And I'm with those who say it is. It's a power possessed by the slider, not the slide-ee. It's like saying a PC can choose not to be affected by another PC's fireball.

If I'm the warlord and I want to slide you someplace you don't want to go, tough. About the only way to break that would be for you to declare you are not my 'ally', and lose any benefits I give to 'allies'.

I predict ally/enemy will be the new alignment debate.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> And I'm with those who say it is. It's a power possessed by the slider, not the slide-ee. It's like saying a PC can choose not to be affected by another PC's fireball.




More precisely, it's like saying player A can yell at player B if B's fireball would hit A. And whether or not B can/should listen.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I predict ally/enemy will be the new alignment debate.




Except of course that WotC_Miko already said the DMG has a section clearly spelling out what counts as an ally or an enemy.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> More precisely, it's like saying player A can yell at player B if B's fireball would hit A. And whether or not B can/should listen.




Exactly.

We agree, then?

B can listen.  B, perhaps, should listen.  But B _need not_ listen.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> We agree, then?
> 
> ...



 The point perhaps is that if B habitually does not listen, then B needs to be pelted with dice.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The point perhaps is that if B habitually does not listen, then B needs to be pelted with dice.




Well, that's dependent on the group.

But a social contract that B will consult before sliding A doesn't mean that B no longer makes the final call of where A slides to.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, that's dependent on the group.
> 
> But a social contract that B will consult before sliding A doesn't mean that B no longer makes the final call of where A slides to.




Most of the people complaining about the warlord are implicitly assuming no social contract. Hence the argument is about that contract, and what significance should be attached to it.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, that's dependent on the group.
> 
> But a social contract that B will consult before sliding A doesn't mean that B no longer makes the final call of where A slides to.
> 
> -Hyp.



 I think many of those who don't have a problem with the "forced" movement of the warlord is because this problem is the same thing we've had to deal with all the time before, namely with spellcasters and their powers that affect the entire battlefield.

If you have a player that fireballs and doesn't consider his friends, you have the same problem as the warlord sliding a character involuntarily.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 18, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Except of course that WotC_Miko already said the DMG has a section clearly spelling out what counts as an ally or an enemy.




Yeah, and everyone thought alignment was clearly spelled out, too.


----------



## Henry (Mar 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) I want those players to learn in order to get better at it (one of them is my wife) and that doesn't happen as well if other people often make decisions for them. They learn better by learning from their own mistakes and watching what tactics the other players use.
> 
> 2) I do not want to embarrass those players by having other people chime in "smarter tactics". Fred says "I move up and attack" and Barney says "No, no. You want to move around him like this to both avoid the Attack of Opportunity and gain the Flank.".
> 
> ...




1) learning from your own mistakes isn't bad, and if someone says, "don't help me" then that's fine. But if someone asks for suggestions, as usually happens at our table, I'm not going to say "no" because there's more than one way to learn.

2) In my opinion, Barney is kind of pushy; if he said instead, "don't forget that moving that way may provoke an op attack" it would alert Fred to look out for that kind of stuff without telling him what to do.

3) At least at our table, our players ARE goal-oriented, that goal being to have fun, but also to keep the opposition from killing us so we can continue next session, and if all the players were totally uncoordinated, then that second goal will often fail. To me, it's better for the people in the group to have access to "group-think" if they want it. If they fail despite the group tactics, then that's the way the dice bounce.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2008)

Something missing from this conversation is the "common curtosy" rule. Even IF the warlord has complete control of the ability to "slide" an ally, its probably NOT in his best interest to slide him into lava, off a bridge, and somewhere the PC doesn't want to go. Just like its impolite to fireball high-ref/evasion PCs (while chances are they'll make it, 1's happen and its just rude without permission).

Being able to move other peoples PCs doesn't give you the right to be a jerk. If your concern is people using the warlord to reposition PCs against there will, find a better warlord player.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2008)

Isn't any class ability problematic if the player is going to be a prick about using it?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't understand why we are not supposing that "ally" will be a voluntary status.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The point perhaps is that if B habitually does not listen, then B needs to be pelted with dice.




No, well yes but pelted with dice on his way out the door.

If player b = "I control your character against your wishes cause raw says"
then DM z = "The blue hand of unmaking rips and tears at you"
then Host s = "Remove yourself from these hallowed halls thou art no more a knight at this table"
then Robin's Minstrels = "nananana hey hey hey goodbye"


----------



## Zelster (Mar 18, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Isn't any class ability problematic if the player is going to be a prick about using it?




Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

This whole discussion has a lot more to do with how people behave at the table rather than what the RAW will allow the Warlord to do in the next edition.  I mean, there were truckloads of terrible, party-harming decisions possible in 3E and most of us survived that.

Just play with common sense, be friendly, and if some warlord decides to slide your character over the edge... then I suggest you get even.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Mar 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> If you have a player that fireballs and doesn't consider his friends, you have the same problem as the warlord sliding a character involuntarily.



And the same solution: talk with him, tell him to not be an ass, and boot him out of the group if he persists in being an ass.l


----------



## Primal (Mar 18, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> In combat, this doesn't bother our group, and we allow out of character strategizing all the time. Why? Because in real life, the players are weekend warriors who only devote maybe five to ten hours a week max concentrating on D&D. In "game reality", the characters are seasoned veterans who live and die by their tactics, so they've talked, planned, and plotted in their off time on the best tactics working together in a situation, and various codes and signal phrases on how to communicate that info quickly. Same as how I wouldn't make a player roleplay out every nuance of his bluff check to seduce a barmaid, I assume that the time spent in downtime around the campfire, etc. would be spent dicussing the day's events, tactics, etc.and that is representted by the table talk during battle.
> 
> When I use my White raven tactics to give another player an extra turn in combat, I relate it as "spurring them on with my words, urging them to strike at the right spot, while the advantage is pressed, etc." what he does with that turn is up to him.




A very good point. This is also how I usually try to relate to out-of-character tactical discussions. Indeed, even though you role-played every campfire conversation, it's reasonable to assume that you don't role-play every conversation between the PCs. It'd also be logical to assume that long-time "companions in arms" would develop some sort of "battle codes" or sign language to communicate their actions and tactical advice to others.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 18, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> A very good point. This is also how I usually try to relate to out-of-character tactical discussions. Indeed, even though you role-played every campfire conversation, it's reasonable to assume that you don't role-play every conversation between the PCs. It'd also be logical to assume that long-time "companions in arms" would develop some sort of "battle codes" or sign language to communicate their actions and tactical advice to others.




Like wolverine and colossus have "the fastball special"


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2008)

> Just like its impolite to fireball high-ref/evasion PCs (while chances are they'll make it, 1's happen and its just rude without permission).




Wizard:  Pardon me, sir knight, but would you mind terribly if I set you afire?

Knight:  Of course not good sir.  I always enjoy a good roasting.

FOOSSH



It made me giggle.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Then, we should also wait for all of the rules before praising the new rules as well, correct?



I'm not going to get into that. Suffice it to say that all "this looks good" comments should be read to include the proviso "assuming there isn't something we don't know about that materially affects how this works".


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A player who says, "Flank that orc over there!  Not this one, that one!  Its the better move, I tell you!" is annoying.




It is the way too many players treat one another. This kind of responce to a sitation and callow treatment of others is part of why gamers and the game have a bad reputation. I hope 4E does not encourage this behavior.


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 18, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> It is the way too many players treat one another. This kind of responce to a sitation and callow treatment of others is part of why gamers and the game have a bad reputation. I hope 4E does not encourage this behavior.




I think 4E is virtually guaranteed to encourage this sort of thing. 

Tactical movement has gotten much more complex, with tons of minor movement-related powers all over the place - push, pull, slide, shift, etc. Precise positioning on the battlemat is going to be more important than ever. In addition, Marks will come into play in virtually every combat, and who you mark is often going to affect other PCs. (who gets attacked being the most common issue, I guess)

That sort of stuff is always a common source of contention, and 4E seems to have a lot of it. I'm not sure if, in the end, it'll turn out to have more of it than 3.5, but on the surface at least, it seems likely.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Mar 18, 2008)

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm guessing that the reason the leader slides characters rather than giving them a free shift is because characters can on shift on their turn. To avoid the messy mechanical discussion of giving other characters a free out-of-turn action, the mechanics support the active character being the one who is active. The Warlord pushes, pulls or shifts on his turn, etc. Simple mechanics, and NOT an error or bad wording on the part of rules writers because of a simple idea that only one player is active at a time built into the rules to avoid confusion.

Just a thought.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wizard:  Pardon me, sir knight, but would you mind terribly if I set you afire?
> 
> Knight:  Of course not good sir.  I always enjoy a good roasting.
> 
> ...




Well, that's not quite what I meant...


----------



## Baka no Hentai (Mar 18, 2008)

It was obvious to me that the use of the term "Slide" was to indicate a difference in enemy character reactions as opposed to "Shift", not the difference in whether the benefiting ally had control of the move or not.

The benefit of the Warlord ability allowing an allied character to Slide as opposed to Shifting is that (as far as we know) sliding does not provoke special-case opportunity attacks like shifting would (shifting away from an NPC Fighter, for example, or any monster with special anti-shifting abilities). The term "Slide" also implies that the player need not spend a move action to do so, as Shifting might.

This clearly is not so obvious to everyone else, otherwise I can't fathom that we would have a 9 page thread of arguments over semantics... but honestly, do people really encounter these types of problems at their gaming tables? Or are these just cases of bringing up the worst case scenario, no matter how unlikely it would be?

Maybe it is because I game with real life friends and family members, but I just cant see any of these debates actually occuring.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> The benefit of the Warlord ability allowing an allied character to Slide as opposed to Shifting...




He doesn't allow an ally to slide.  He slides an ally.

-Hyp.


----------



## Michele Carter (Mar 18, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Isn't any class ability problematic if the player is going to be a prick about using it?




This.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we are not supposing that "ally" will be a voluntary status.




And also? This. Times a million. Ally = willing ally as a default; otherwise, "No thank you, warlord, I do not wish to be moved today."

My warlord doesn't get insulted when this happens, and she doesn't assume it's because they hate her, either.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 18, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> Ally = willing ally as a default; otherwise, "No thank you, warlord, I do not wish to be moved today."



/thread

Dear sweet merciful gods, let this be /thread


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 18, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> And also? This. Times a million. Ally = willing ally as a default; otherwise, "No thank you, warlord, I do not wish to be moved today."




Do you know if this has been codified?  Or is it the assumend social convention in your playtest groups?

There's also a difference between what you quoted (times a million), and what you describe; it sounds like you're saying "Any time a power affects 'an ally', that ally may decline to be affected by the power", as opposed to the bit you quoted, which was postulating that "A character may at any time declare himself to be no longer an ally"... which has wider-reaching effects, given that it would then prevent the use of _any_ power that relies on the ally-relationship between those two characters.

-Hyp.


----------



## Michele Carter (Mar 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Do you know if this has been codified?  Or is it the assumend social convention in your playtest groups?
> 
> There's also a difference between what you quoted (times a million), and what you describe; it sounds like you're saying "Any time a power affects 'an ally', that ally may decline to be affected by the power", as opposed to the bit you quoted, which was postulating that "A character may at any time declare himself to be no longer an ally"... which has wider-reaching effects, given that it would then prevent the use of _any_ power that relies on the ally-relationship between those two characters.




*is tempted to see this argued about for another five days*

But yes, codified; why would I post about a house rule? (Don't answer that.) And yes, you can decline to be affected by a power. 

I suppose you can decide you're no longer an ally as well, but then the rogue slides you into the lava and you don't have any choice about it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 19, 2008)

Hehe, thanks Miko hopefully some of the arguing will die down from this


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Isn't any class ability problematic if the player is going to be a prick about using it?



It is interesting that 4E is the solution to players being pricks in 3X games (for example - DMs were jerks who would arbitrarily make you take AoOs for kicking a table out from under npcs in 3X but not in 4e), but when the problem exists in 4e it is just the player's fault.

I agree 100% that it is up to the players to make the game good.  This warlord "issue" is a non-issue.

I just wish 3X could get the same slack around here instead of the double standard treatment.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 19, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> *is tempted to see this argued about for another five days*
> 
> But yes, codified; why would I post about a house rule? (Don't answer that.) And yes, you can decline to be affected by a power.
> 
> I suppose you can decide you're no longer an ally as well, but then the rogue slides you into the lava and you don't have any choice about it.






> Ranged Irresistible Command (minor 1/round; at-will) • Charm, Fire
> Range 10; affects one allied devil of lower level than the pit fiend; the target immediately slides up to 5 squares and explodes, dealing 2d10+5 fire damage to all creatures in a close burst 2. The exploding devil is destroyed.




this has to be changed then...

i propose: scratch allied. This would have the nice side effect, that noone can claim anymore, that they are too weak to be the rulers of the nine hells...

To the rogue:
positioning strike as artful dodger will be the most deadly maneuver at Lvl 1, and it can also be used to bring an ally in a advantageous position... at least for the rogue...


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 19, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> this has to be changed then...



Why?

The devils don't get to choose whether they are allied or not. _I _do.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 19, 2008)

WOTC-Miko:

Thanks for that information.  That makes the Warlord's power a bit more tactically interesting- the "pusher" picks where he wants to slide the "pushee," and the pushee decides whether to go along with it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> The devils don't get to choose whether they are allied or not. _I _do.




If i can chose, the devil can too (theoretically)... it won´t hurt scratching allied in the irresistable command... and i would really like it, if in a fight between devils once per round an enemy devil exploded...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> If i can chose, the devil can too (theoretically)



Only if the devil is a PC.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 19, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Hehe, thanks Miko hopefully some of the arguing will die down from this



Sadly, I believe we can wring another page or so on this.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 19, 2008)

double post :/


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 19, 2008)

i know its just nit picking, because i like those powers... i think that one more word would not be wasted space in this case... its just another thing which you have to look up. 

And the pit fiend would just be cooler when he can kill non allied devils...


----------



## Stogoe (Mar 20, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> If i can chose, the devil can too (theoretically)



No, not theoretically.  Not at all, actually.  The Rules for PCs are different than the Rules for monsters and NPCs.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 20, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> No, not theoretically.  Not at all, actually.  The Rules for PCs are different than the Rules for monsters and NPCs.




Certainly, but it depends whether the "A power which affects 'an ally' may always be declined" is expressed as PC-only or not.

-Hyp.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 20, 2008)

However, Devil's are Immortal. So, let's try this line of thinking.

Devil's are immortal, meaning "not subject to death". Assuming that this phrase is true in 4e (and there is no reason to assume otherwise) a Devil who disobeys any command will have eternity to be taught a lesson.

So, 'Destroyed' would be a preferable result to 'Unending pain and torture'?

Rationalisation is fun.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 20, 2008)

I can't quite see why Devil's would be immortal, given that Gods can die in 4e. 

Why would Devil's be immortal?


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 20, 2008)

Because their stat blocks say so?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125&authentic=true

"Large _Immortal_ Humanoid (Devil)"

I'm just guessing, but they can't die. Be destroyed, yes - but not _die_.


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2008)

"Immortal" probably just means they don't die of old age or disease. Nothing stops you dying from a big sword.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 20, 2008)

Sure it does, golem's don't die from a big sword - they were never alive.
The undead don't die - they were never alive.
Devils don't die either, it's Immortal. They can get Destroyed.

But there is a difference between Destruction and Death. One is Biological, the other is Physical.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 20, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Certainly, but it depends whether the "A power which affects 'an ally' may always be declined" is expressed as PC-only or not.



But _practically_, since the DM is the guy who makes that decision, does that really need to be spelled out?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But _practically_, since the DM is the guy who makes that decision, does that really need to be spelled out?



Not from the versimilitiude/realismn/simulation point of view. The Devil is not interested in dying by exploding himself, so he'll try to avoid it.

The flavour text name of the ability ("Iressistable Command) implies that the Devil might not have a choice to be "unallied" in this situation. But what the RAW says, is unclear.


----------

