Thursday, March 27, 2008

Warlord Crwth has a nice ring to it

I may have mentioned before, but the warlord role is one that appeals to be, just behind the role of healer. As a player, I'm definitely more interested in being there for the party, providing buffs, healing, morale bonuses and the like. I'm quite happy to let others dish out the hurt. Let's take a look at a couple of the powers that the 4th edition warlord will have available, at the almost two-week old post that I've been neglecting.

Pin The Foe. This is exactly what I'm talking about - a way to help the real bruisers (be it physical or magical) get the job done. If there was anything that stymied a party in 3rd edition, it was having to continually shift (as the five-foot step is now called) every round to try and maintain flanking around a tough foe. Now we not only have a nice new term for it, but a way to negate it. Very nice.

White Raven Onslaught. I'm not sure I get this one. I can see, perhaps, a need to slide an ally once in a while, but how often? I suppose this is a good counter to Pin The Foe. It doesn't mention that you may slide them, though; oversight, or do you just get too into your onslaught that you have no choice?

Iron Dragon Charge. Another interesting power, though it again exposes some of the wording that we've seen. This is a daily power, which means you can use it once, and it means, then, that you target one opponent with this Iron Dragon Charge. The Effect, however, says that "[u]ntil the end of the encounter" an ally can charge a target that you charge as an immediate action.

Now, I'm assuming that this means the target of this power, but really, players and rules lawyers are going to argue that even after the fact, if I just do a regular charge on a different opponent, I can enable that chosen ally to also charge this new foe. I'll beat my players with a DM's Guide if they try to argue that with me, of course, but I hope the wording for these new powers is getting a little more attention before being published, though they recently announced that the books have gone to the printers, so I guess I'm hoping that they've gotten that attention already. Getting errata the day the book comes out will be disappointing.


Griff said...

I hope the DMG is light weight and free of sharp corners because that was exactly how I interpreted the wording of that Iron Dragon Charge. ;-)

Anonymous said...

I also interpret iron dragon charge as allowing new targets for the rest of the encounter. I think thats what the rules are saying. On top of that, the power doesn't make much sense under your interpretation. If it is only one enemy that can be charged, it doesn't make sense to have the power last until the end of the encounter. Only very unusual circumstances will result in one character charging the same enemy more than once.

Crwth said...

Okay, I now agree with you, having seen the way that the powers have been laid out.

The initial Target: is for the Hit: 3[W]+Strength damage, and the Effect: is an extra benefit from that charge, basically girding your allies: "Look how much damage I do when I charge this guy -- why not join me as I do so to his friends?"

I stand corrected. No DMG-swatting my players -- for this one, anyway.

ptpops said...

Anyone know whether or not an ally can charge along with you as an immediate reaction to the first charge (i.e. the iron dragon charge itself) or does the effect kick in only with all the subsequent charges you make?

Anonymous said...

I think you should smack yourself with that DMG...

if that wasn't the meaning of the power, why would they include "until the end of the combat"? They wouldn't. They would just say "as an immediate action, one ally within 10 spaces can charge the target".

Crwth said...

ptpops, I'd say no; it's that first, impressive Iron Dragon charge (which the rest of the party stands watching agog) that girds the rest of the party to join in on subsequent charges.

Anonymous: the "until end of combat" doesn't define whether or not the power limits the effect to the original target or not, which was the original question (and one which I reversed my opinion about in the comments).