The Warlord is up on WotC's website. Here's the url: LINK.
I haven't read it all yet, as I'm getting ready for my game tonight, but it seems interesting. I have to digest it later though.
I have a feeling the game is going to require a battlemat. :(
My thoughts from ENWorld:
The utility of White Raven Onslaught fully depends on the definition of "adjacent."
If it means "any square that touches yours" then you can use it to gain flanking, like so:
W = Warlord
F = Fighter
O = Opponentxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxOFxxxx
xxxxWxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxFxxxxx
xxxxOxxxxx
xxxxWxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
And
I think I prefer the use of daily powers as finishers rather than openers, and in some ways here the benefit feels rather... abstract? I could do with a little more fluff explaining how it works thematicallyCheers
I fully agree, especially if you take the text of the article itself into consideration (where Rob mentions the general purpose of these powers).
They seem like great powers for a game (e.g. computer-, board game etc.), but seem to lack the world-consistency of a role-playing game (I hope that makes sense).
In addition to the warlord's "shifting" powers:
Cause Fear for the Cleric,
Tide of Iron for the Fighter,
Nimble Strike and Fox's Cunning for the Ranger,
Fey Step for the Eladrin,
and Curse of the Dark Dream for the Warlock
are all 1st level powers that move people around the battlemat.
It seems that 4e will not suffer for movement during battles.
It seems that 4e will not suffer for movement during battles.
Apparently one of the design goals. 3.5 battles do tend to freeze up once you get extra attacks, from the "full attack/5 foot step" syndrome.
Not a bad idea. Although it could get to be too much when several different shifting powers from both sides of the battle occur on one person in the same round.
|
For those who don't feel like linking
Number One: Directing Damage
Don't play the warlord if your only idea of a good time is personally wreaking havoc on your foes. I love the name of the warlord class. I supported using the name instead of the original "marshal" name we'd drafted from 3rd Edition. But some players' first impression on hearing the name "warlord" is that the class must be tougher than all the other characters, the nastiest battlefield hack-and-slasher in the game. The warlord can hold his own in melee and will frequently save the day thanks to outright combat mojo, but every warlord is more effective as a commander than as a lone hero.
For example, the warlord's 1st-level daily attack power, pin the foe, does as much damage as the best of the fighter's 1st-level daily attack powers, brute strike. Pin the foe's advantage is that it locks down the target's movement whether the attack hits or misses. This pin effect only functions if the warlord has allies with him to team against the enemy. So the power might be a big enough hit to slay the enemy outright. But against an extremely tough foe, or when pin the foe misses, the power creates a tactical advantage that depends on teamwork between multiple party members to keep the target from shifting freely around the battlefield.
At that stage, with an enemy who is pinned and fighting to the last breath, the warlord isn't as likely to be the party member who gets in the killing blow. Take a look at the fighter's brute strike power again. While the warlord's cool 1st-level daily exploit sets up a teamwork benefit, brute strike has the keyword "Reliable," meaning that the power isn't expended if the attack misses. Eventually, as long as the fighter is alive to swing, that brute strike is going to connect -- the warlord doesn't have that certainty. If you're the player who always wants to be finisher, the party's sword-wielding ass-kicker, play a rogue, ranger, or a fighter who uses two-handed weapons.
Pin the Foe Warlord Attack 1
No matter where your foe turns, one of your allies is waiting for him.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target cannot shift if at least two of your allies (or you and one ally) are adjacent to it.
Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.
Daily
Martial, Reliable, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Number Two: Play Well with Others
This is the shiny-happy side of the previous commandment. Fourth edition has fundamentally selfish classes that care only about their own combat tricks and successes. 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.
During the early stages of design, we often used a sports metaphor, casting the warlord as the quarterback. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure quarterback is the right analogy -- after all, quarterbacks tend to land a huge percentage of the glory, MVP awards, and Hollywood girlfriends! Basketball point guard may be a more apt comparison. Not every combat depends on the warlord/point guard, but they distribute benefits the rest of the party thrives on. Without the warlord's assists, the party is often left only to its own devices, which might not be enough to triumph in a given encounter. You can operate without a warlord, but when you get to the playoffs against powerful competition, parties that don't have a warlord (or possibly some other to-be-designed tactical leader) have a rougher time of it. If you feel a glow of accomplishment when your assists combine with your attacks' damage to help the party succeed, the warlord is for you.
White Raven Onslaught Warlord Attack 1
You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display true teamwork.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide an adjacent ally 1 square. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, the attacker slides an adjacent ally 1 square.
Miss: Choose one ally within 10 squares. Until the end of the encounter, the ally slides an adjacent ally 1 square after making a successful attack.
Number Three: Order Up!
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.
Iron dragon charge is an example of how we're trying to make this type of guidance a welcome addition to another character's glory. Getting to charge as an immediate reaction when it's not your turn is a fantastic addition to any melee character's life, not an onerous order that forces your ally to spend their turn following your commands. Few players complain when the warlord in the party uses a well-timed exploit to give their PC a charge, another basic attack, or the chance to shift away from encroaching foes. Ditto for warlord powers that simultaneously allow the warlord to attack and inspire his allies to attempt a saving throw or recover hit points.
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.
Iron Dragon Charge Warlord Attack 9
Like a rampaging iron dragon, you hurl yourself at your adversary, landing a terrific blow that inspires your allies to charge as well.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Special: You must charge as part of this attack.
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, as an immediate reaction, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of you can charge a target that you charge.
Hmmm. Makes me anticipate playing 4e even more. The Warlord is a Player Character Class I would like to play. One of my fovorite 3rd edition characters was a Paladin SirKaikillah. He would have made a better Warlord.
The article "The Warlord Revealed" Also revealed some things to this old fiend. As a Dm I have more to work with in describing combat scenes and so do my players. Movement seems important in the game. The game board becomes even more important than it did in 3rd edition. D&D continues to move towards it's wargaming roots. Good.., bad.., there is only one way to find out. Play 4e Dnd. Really, I like a Heavy dose of story telling in my tactical gaming. I hope 4e delivers on both.
|
Ok Warlord and Rogue sure have some cool powers, that is for sure.
But I have a question. I thought they were releasing Dungeons and Dragons. You know, the paper and pencil roleplaying game.
So far I have seen material fitting the Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures game. You know, the paper and pencil tabletop rollplaying/wargame.
As someone said, how do you do all this without a battle mat? Has D&D come full circle? It was derived from tabletop wargames. Has it returned to its roots and become a tabletop wargame again?
I don't know. I hope not. If so, then I will begin the cry for 5E almost immediately. I guess we wait and see...
I loathe this concept.
First of all, it's taken from Marshall, a class I hated to begin with.
Second, it doesn't matter how much or how little glory the character gains in a good RPG unless the PC's goal is to gain that glory.
Third, the powers are...well...to put it bluntly "Too videogamey." I really felt during the playtests that I was pushing a button while my character sat there every round with recycled VOltron-Style animation saying "Tiiiide of Ironnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Tiiiiiiiiiiide of Ironnnnnnnnnnnnnn!"
...
As someone said, how do you do all this without a battle mat?
You delve into the powers description. You use the descritions in the powers to tell your story. You also use Dm fiat. The DM must decide how the movement of the characters brought on by this and that power, effects the game; does a character, PC or Monster, gain combat advantage, does the move trigger a an imediate action, etc. Its the thing DMs have been doing with out minis for as long as I have been gaming, almost 30 years. For me, well I have a 10 year old battle mat and a shoe box of WotC plastic minis (way more than any lead mini or token collection, I have ever had).
First of all, it's taken from Marshall, a class I hated to begin with.
Really? I liked the marshall, though I thought that he should have had a fighter's BAB. The marshall's aura's were IMO on par with a fighter's bonus feats, so the same BAB seemed okay to me.
But this doesn't really seem like the marshall to me.
These few items just aren't enough for me to see how the warlord is really going to function. A bigger preview, like the rogue preview, would have been a little nicer.
|
|
You delve into the powers description. You use the descritions in the powers to tell your story. You also use Dm fiat. The DM must decide how the movement of the characters brought on by this and that power, effects the game; does a character, PC or Monster, gain combat advantage, does the move trigger a an imediate action, etc. Its the thing DMs have been doing with out minis for as long as I have been gaming, almost 30 years. For me, well I have a 10 year old battle mat and a shoe box of WotC plastic minis (way more than any lead mini or token collection, I have ever had)....
As someone said, how do you do all this without a battle mat?
Well yes, DMs will have to make decisions about how things work, but never have PC class powers been so tightly connected with battlemat movement.
In older versions the DM could say the area is 50 feet x 50 feet and you can charge into battle, no problem. The rogue could then say, "I flank," no problem, because to flank really doesn't matter too much other than being opposite, which can be any orientation.
But with the Warlord the players says "I Charge and use such and such power so everyone can move forward." The DM says "OK, you charge, but the bad guy puts you out of range of the others."
The rogues says "But I would have moved further in than that, so I am within range."
The DM says, "Well, if you were further in, then the evil bloody bad guy would have used this power to suck you into his maw, so instead you are unconscious."
The warlord then says, "Forget it man, just get out the mat and we won't roleplay anymore."
While I am not harping the superiority of older versions or anything, they were much less tied to a mat than this one APPEARS to be. I emphasize APPEARS because without the book, I could be 100% wrong. It just that so far 4E has the appearance of being more tabletop wargame than RPG. I am absolutely NOT saying 4E sucks or anything like that, and I know my example is extreme. The example was used to illustrate my concern. I would never expect that situation in my own group.
I guess I should just shut up and wait and see :) lol
This seems dumb to me. They've taken abilities that IMO should be available for fighter customization, not grouped as a class concept.
How does one roleplay this Warlord?
Just another example of how 4E steers away from roleplaying and drives directly toward group/team combat. It's veeeery Warcrafty to me.
"We need someone to play a Warlord, not because it's integral to the plot or is a super-fun class to play, but because those specific abilities will be needed for several upcoming combats."
I was expecting quite a bit more nudity in this thread.
I was expecting quite a bit more nudity in this thread.
Yeah! Let's celebrate by taking all our clothes off!
|
I was expecting quite a bit more nudity in this thread.
Me too. Teh interweb has scarred me. ;-)
It's an interesting class for a game that I don't really value as a competitor to 3.X and other RPGs.
4E seems a very versatile, detailed and deep tabletop boardgame, in the style of Descent, rather than an evolution of roleplaying.
With each and every snippet of information, the gut feeling is more and more cemented.
|
|
I like the powers of the warlord.
All these moves are fun and give a lot of strategic options to the player.
But I can not but feel that these powers rather belong to the rules of a strategic board game.
The fluff explaining the effects of the powers seem overly contructed to me. It seems that the designers first had the idea for a power and then came up with fluff to describe why the power does what it does.
I am a firm believer in doing it the other way round: Having a great fluff idea and coming up with the rules for it. IMO in this way it feels more realistic (in the fantasy reality, not real world reality mind you).
And, but I have yet to see a game with a warlord, these powers also afford a lot of bookeeping. Which PC is able to shift which PC where...
Did I forget to shift you this round? Was I shifted this turn? Can I shift?
To sum it up: neat mechanics but I won' steal any of those fo my 3.75 edition.
Kudos to WotC for the Warlord design. I know at least 2 of my players who will enjoy the class. Man, these 4E articles are making me more and more eager for June to arrive.
By the way, in the Warlord powers stat block, does anyone know what the "3[W]" part in the Hit field means?
By the way, in the Warlord powers stat block, does anyone know what the "3[W]" part in the Hit field means?
The "W" stands for weapon damage. 3[W] means it does three times weapon damage on a hit.
Kudos to WotC for the Warlord design. I know at least 2 of my players who will enjoy the class. Man, these 4E articles are making me more and more eager for June to arrive.
If you could elaborate a bit, what about it do you think they will enjoy? What type of characters have they run that would make this appeal to them?
If you could elaborate a bit, what about it do you think they will enjoy? What type of characters have they run that would make this appeal to them?
Sure, friend.
Well, one of my players is a semi-metagaming Director-type, always quick to point out tactics and suggest actions to the other players. So I know he'll burst into insane giggles when he reads about Pin the Foe and White Raven Onslaught.
Another player comes from a strong wargaming background. (Heck, it's in his blood since his dad still plays Napoleonics.) He enjoys the tactical aspects of our 3.5E game, and has already mentioned his excitement over the 4E tactical rules (more movement, more combat optios, etc.). He's also VERY team-oriented. The fact that a warlord enhances some of the tactical rules for the party will definitely appeal to him.
Now, don't read my group the wrong way. They're not purely hack-and-slashers. We've been known to go through plenty of gaming sessions without evening swinging a sword.
|
I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.
I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.
Very good point!
If they aren't already optional in the 4E rules (meaning the target of the effect can decline if they want to), I will likely adjust that with a house rule.
That probably won't be necessary for us though. I don't foresee anyone in our group forcing someone to move or act without consulting them first. That's just RUDE! ;-)
I don't want to jinx this thread, but I would like to say it is a nice thread to read, without the bickering and just a discussion of what people do and do not like about the Warlord.
I like tactical gaming, but after a few attempts to bring it to my game I found out my players don't (well maybe one other guy besides me). So as a compromise the [battlemat] is kept on my side of the screen.
I don't think this will work very well in the new edition. Of course I haven't seen all the rules yet, so they might have suggestions to deal with this, we will have to wait and see.
I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.
Same here. My players tend to be furiously independent, by this I mean they each have their own style and ideas that make it hard for another player to guess what would be good for another, not independent as in against teamwork. I know if another player tried to decided what would be a good placement for another’s character (even if he was just trying to help) it would lead bad places.
Also can you shift an unwilling player? I think I can see bad thing happening here to if the answer if yes.
All in all it's sounds cool, but I don't think my players or myself would like this options. It seems like it would get a "That's neat/intresting/cool" head nod from my group and no play time.
I agree it feels like it should be an options for the fighter not a class in it's self.
Fizz
|
|
Well, one of my players is a semi-metagaming Director-type, always quick to point out tactics and suggest actions to the other players. So I know he'll burst into insane giggles when he reads about Pin the Foe and White Raven Onslaught.
Another player comes from a strong wargaming background. (Heck, it's in his blood since his dad still plays Napoleonics.) He enjoys the tactical aspects of our 3.5E game, and has already mentioned his excitement over the 4E tactical rules (more movement, more combat optios, etc.). He's also VERY team-oriented. The fact that a warlord enhances some of the tactical rules for the party will definitely appeal to him.
Now, don't read my group the wrong way. They're not purely hack-and-slashers. We've been known to go through plenty of gaming sessions without evening swinging a sword.
I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.
If they aren't already optional in the 4E rules (meaning the target of the effect can decline if they want to), I will likely adjust that with a house rule.
That probably won't be necessary for us though. I don't foresee anyone in our group forcing someone to move or act without consulting them first. That's just RUDE! ;-)
I agree it feels like it should be an options for the fighter not a class in it's self.
Fizz
Excellent points, all of them.
Great to see the Paizonian civil tone of discussion back in action.|
|
I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.
Same here. My players tend to be furiously independent, by this I mean they each have their own style and ideas that make it hard for another player to guess what would be good for another, not independent as in against teamwork. I know if another player tried to decided what would be a good placement for another’s character (even if he was just trying to help) it would lead bad places.
Also can you shift an unwilling player? I think I can see bad thing happening here to if the answer if yes.
I suspect that it will end up being more along the lines of...
Rogue: "OK, I move [shift/planeshift/whatever] as far as I can. Warlord! Gimme a push!"
Warlord: "I'm busy trying to do something over here."
Rogue: "Come on, this is what you do. Just get me to the other side of the bad guy."
Warlord: "I can't, I already did something that betters my own position on the battlemat and can't also push you."
Rogue: "Useless! Why don't you just play a fighter?"
etc.
Kind of like the healing batteries that were clerics in 2e and previous. When a character's cool powers all revolve around doing things for/to other characters in the party (and I don't know if the Warlord's all do, but that seems to be the point of it), those other characters are going to come to count them as their own abilities that just happen to originate from the warlord.
|
I hate being so pessimistic, but I'm less than thrilled by this class and battle-map based abilities. Don't get me wrong, I love miniature wargames--I'm a WH40K player. However, I don't want my roleplaying games to turn into that. That's what they evolved from, it's not where they need to go back to. I want my RPGs to be, well... RPGs. 4th edition may be an interesting game, but it's really not feeling like D&D to me, I'm sorry to say.
I suspect that it will end up being more along the lines of...
Rogue: "OK, I move [shift/planeshift/whatever] as far as I can. Warlord! Gimme a push!"
Warlord: "I'm busy trying to do something over here."
Rogue: "Come on, this is what you do. Just get me to the other side of the bad guy."
Warlord: "I can't, I already did something that betters my own position on the battlemat and can't also push you."
...
I'm sure that situations like this will indeed happen, just as they happen in 3.x rules with limited use abilities, such as the paladin's lay on hands, the cleric's turn undead or once-a-day domain abilities, or even a wizard's "sudden" spells.
Kind of like the healing batteries that were clerics in 2e and previous. When a character's cool powers all revolve around doing things for/to other characters in the party (and I don't know if the Warlord's all do, but that seems to be the point of it), those other characters are going to come to count them as their own abilities that just happen to originate from the warlord.
I thought of this, too. I've run a cleric (or two) with some very tactically-minded groups, and my role was the least varied in each unique combat situation. I loved those characters, but once we got into combat, my use to that group was pre-defined, and at times it just wasn't that fun.
But other times, I've run support characters that had enough different feats and class abilities to vary up the combat situtation, and I never felt like a one-trick pony.
On the outlook, and with my experiences with the marshall class, I don't expect the warlord to be a one-trick pony.
|
|
Read the four abilities. I'd like to start by saying that I wish they had posted more about the Marshal, but... oh well, I guess we wouldn't have gotten the abilities. C'est la vie, je pense...
Anyway, the four abilities seemed to target people who like to help others or command others, so its interesting. Not something I'd like to play, but that's just me. I'm guessing that a couple of my Canadian army buddies would love this class.
I wonder, and this can't really be backed up by anything, if the Warlord's tactical abilities are all daily powers, or if the encounter powers just don't do as much damage or if they only do tactical maneuvers? Time will tell.
I simply don't understand the issue that people have with these powers. They are movement powers, not "battlemat" powers.
Read Pin the Foe:
Until the end of the encounter, an ememy that is in melee with two of your allies can not move away without suffering opportunity attacks.
How about Iron Dragon Charge:
Until the end of the encounter, an ally that is next to you may charge an opponent you charge as an immediate action.
These are both valuable abilities, with or without a battlemat. White Raven Charge definitely benefits from having a battlemat, so don't take that ability if your DM doesn't use a battlemat. The same could have been said of many PHB 1e spells that talked about "foes within 10' of each other" and such.
The absence of a battlemat doesn't equate to the absence of movement during combat. Neither does the presence of a battlemat indicate a loss of roelplaying. If you don't use a battlemat then abstracting movement is a necessity- you'll have to live with abstracting some of these powers too. That's always been the case. In 3.5e the AoO rules practically screamed battlemat movement. Hell, back in the old days one of the first illustrations in the D&D handbook was that of a bunch of dice on top of a battlemat and some miniatures. They're not adding anything especially novel or bizarre here.
So as a compromise the [battlemat] is kept on my side of the screen.
An excellent suggestion! Graph paper will help keep all the distance details consistent when I describe things to my players.
I'm still writing up the playtest thingy I ran last night (it turned out to be long and the forum ate my first one I did last night, so I'm doing it in Open Office now) and I didn't try the Warlord out as there wasn't nearly enough to give it a go. But, from what I DID notice with the other Classes, I think the Warlord would be very handy. Most definitely. It will please a certain type of player and not appeal to others.
In regards to forcing movement, I don't read that it has to be done that way. If the Warlord can Shift an ally I would imagine that he tells the other player that he just gave him a Shift and that player shifts his own guy for free. Much more diplomatic and keeps everyone happy.
Sure, friend.
Thanks! Your group sounds fun.
I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.
Kinda like how some people don't like having a paladin in the group. ;)
It does seem like there should be a good reason for a group to have a warlord with them. It sounds like the warlord should be the default leader of the party, which is enough to throw PCs (and often their players) at odds.
I really like the marshall class, but the mechanics and the fluff make them sound like they should be NPC leaders of the local militia or whatnot.
The backstory for the only marshall I've run was something like he received formal military training, refused his commission as an officer in the military, thus was ostricised by his family and community, then ended up the defacto leader of a group of an outcast adventuring party.
I've often felt that one of the problems with the leveling system in D&D is that some backgrounds just don't make much sense. How can a 1st level fighter be a 10-year veteran from the last war? How can a 45-year old scholar leave his previous life behind to become a 1st level cleric after his family was killed by undead?
How can a warlord or marshall even exist as a base class? They provide mechanical benifits to an adventuring group as a person who thematically received military leadership training.
Again... I really like the marshall class, and I think I'll like the warlord, too. But it seemed like a stretch to have a marshall in a group, which wasn't too common, considering the sourcebook it came from. Now that the warlord is a base class it will become more common, but it still seems (to me) like there shouldn't be that many warlords running around the country as part of an adventuring group.
The absence of a battlemat doesn't equate to the absence of movement during combat. Neither does the presence of a battlemat indicate a loss of roelplaying. If you don't use a battlemat then abstracting movement is a necessity- you'll have to live with abstracting some of these powers too. That's always been the case. In 3.5e the AoO rules practically screamed battlemat movement. Hell, back in the old days one of the first illustrations in the D&D handbook was that of a bunch of dice on top of a battlemat and some miniatures. They're not adding anything especially novel or bizarre here.
Exactly.
As with the current feat system, the powers you choose for your 4e characters will greatly depend on how the DM runs the game. Any feat that relies on exact locations or conditions aren't as helpful in a game without maps, when the conditions would be clearly defined.
But that doesn't make them unusuable. I recall many gaming sessions where the DM didn't use maps. We'd ask "Am I close enough to..." or "How many people are within x feet of ...."
It can be done.
Now that the warlord is a base class it will become more common, but it still seems (to me) like there shouldn't be that many warlords running around the country as part of an adventuring group.
I always kinda thought the same thing about druids. And clerics, for that matter. In fact, most adventuring groups never made much sense: "A paladin, a barbarian, and a wizard" sounds more like the setup to a joke than an adventuring company, given how rare adventurers need to be to have most fantasy worlds make sense.
One of the things I really like about Eberron is how it manages to make sense of the "adventurers are common yet they aren't" and "druids, rogues, and paladins frequently work together even though they'd never get along in real life" tropes D&D relies on.
Big Jake & puggins,
I don't have any problems with the movement powers I've seen so far.
Yes, it can be done without a battlemat in front of the players. That is how I do it. My players don't want to see the [battlemat], they just want me to describe the battle. For example, if they say they want to help a friend across the room, I'll ask the PC if they want to take the "safer" route or do they want to get there as fast as possible. They liked to be removed from the mechanics of the game as much as possible.
The concern I have is whether or not I am up to describing all this extra movement. I am just having an "awww, crap" moment as I am trying to digest this and forecast how I will do it. It's like I'm juggling 3 pins and there is another pin tossed at me and as I struggle with that I see the Warlord standing off to my side with a whole armload of pins.
[edit: I had originally wrote balls instead of pins and after looking at the post I knew I had to change it.]
I agree with everyone that's indicated that the new rules seem more geared toward battlemat play. Fortunately, I like using battlemats (or a least graph paper with little Xs and Os to indicate where people are. I think it really helps to keep all the players on the same page during combat. Without the mat I find people get confused because everyone has a slightly different vision of what is happening, and they constantly ask questions about where people are related to other people. Having the mat saves all that hassle. Having characters that take advantage of battlemat format is fine with me. As a side note, I've heard that characters with access to flight type abiliities will tend to be at higher levels in 4E. Again this works well with battlemats because they don't do such a good job of dealing with flying PCs. Even for my 3E game I've considered building little, clearp, grided plexiglass towers with removeable shelf inserts that could be used to hold mini that are supposed to be flying at different heights. Since, I've never gotten around to making these, it will be nice to not have to worry about flying PCs unti later in the game.
What I don't like about the new options, is that they do feel like cheesy video game powers. I don't like the idea of players shouting out "White Raven blah, blah, blah" at the game table like a character from some crappy anime show. I suppose it will be at tradeoff, and one I might be able to put up with. I get tired of waiting for 3E two weapon fighters to roll their 5 of 6 attacks each round, so I really like the idea of PCs who move around more in fights and do less attacks, but ones that deal more damage. I think that will make combat aspect of the game run more smoothly.
This may not be the best thread for this, but throughout the 4E threads, I always see people saying that they don't like how most of the new 4E rules that are being discussed revolve around combat and how the PCs will perform etc... These posters then go on to complain that there hasn't been enough discussion about rules regarding the roleplaying aspect of the game. I need some enlightenment here. What kind of rules for role playing are people looking for or hoping to see? I find in my own game that when players are involved in roleplaying situations the rules don't come up very much. Sometimes I'll ask for skill checks (ie bluff, diplomacy etc...), but often I don't even have them role any dice, and I just base the reactions of NPCs based on what the characters say and do during rp interaction. In role playing situations, I find that rules get in the way more often than not. If anyone can tell me what sort of rping rules they hoping to hear about, please speak up; I'm curious.
I think the warlord sounds interesting. Of course I am also quite keen to get my hands on 4th, as are my players.
As for battlemats, I find them to be a great tool for the really complex battles, and my players like the instant overview it gives them and the feel it helps them emerse themselves easier into the combat aspect of the game (even the pascifist member of the group).
And i can't see how visual aids can impeed on the roleplaying aspects of the game, but we have always managed to keep a fair balance between combat and roleplay. Not to mention that some classes primary focus, even rolepaying wise, is combat.
Kinda like how some people don't like having a paladin in the group. ;)
Don't like having a Paladin!!!! Oh sure, you say that now, but when the forces of chaos start slaughtering innocents, destroying property, and unravelling the very fabric of reality, what then, huh?!? That's right! You call the Paladin!
The warlord. A class for those that want to play Fantasy Chess instead of a role-playing game. Knight (I mean martial defender 1) shifts 1 square. Checkmate!
Sadly, it's true. Those without the mental capacity to handle anything more complex than "I roll to hit. I roll damage." are advised to stick to 3.5.