Warlord's Combat Leader class ability

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
Only one of these Clauses matches the actual rule.

Yes and its B.

A clause that a creature can see you is met unless something specifically say it can't be seen. (ex. blinded, invisible)
A clause that a creature can hear you is met unless something specifically say it can't be heard. (ex. deafened, silent)


A petrified warlord is certainly silent.

So is an unconscious one, unless he snores. 
No unconscious and petirfied don't say you are silent so you are not.

Hidden, Seeker of Shadow and Lurking Shadow specifically do so for exemple. I must say that silent has no particular definition in 4E though FWIW.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

No unconscious and petirfied don't say you are silent so you are not.

Hidden, Seeker of Shadow and Lurking Shadow specifically do so for exemple. I must say that silent has no particular definition in 4E though FWIW.


And if a word is not defined as a term of art within the rules, then we revert to its real-world definition, which in this case is: Not making any noise.

Do you really need the rules to specify each time a creature is not making any noise? 
Wether we rely on a dictionary or the glossary for the definition doesn't matter. What matter is that a game element must say it makes you X to be X despite how similar effect it might appear to have. Something must say it makes you silent to be silent, just like something must say it makes you hidden to be hidden.

Lurking Shadow doesn't make you hidden for exemple, despite making you invisible and silent similar to hidden because it doesn't say so. 


Lurking Shadow: You become invisible and silent until the end of your next turn

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

That sort of argument only applies to specific conditions and effects upon a creature. Being silent isn't a condition or effect, it's a natural feature of any object that isn't currently emitting noise. You no more need it to be specified than you need a game element to specify that someone standing in the rain is wet.
Being silent isn't a condition or effect

It is an effect, for creatures at least, as demonstrated by some game elements specifically making creatures silent. 

If you prefer, a creature isn't silent unless a game element specifically make it so. Since the Petrified condition doesn't inherently make you silent,  it means others still can hear you.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

The rule doesn't say the Warlord has to be able to make noise. Period.


Clause A:  Any ally who can see and hear
Clause B:  Any ally who can see and hear you
Clause C:  Any ally who can see and hear you, if you were able to make a noise.

And without making things up, the answer is B. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post, since you have nothing worthwhile to say on the matter. Ignorance is like that. Exception based design says things do precisely what they say they do. Nothing in the features requires you be able to make noise, so you don't have to be able to.
In addition to what Plague and Alcestis said about your complete and utter lack of understanding of the most basic design principle in all of 4e, you're also operating under the assumption that statues are silent.  Many of them aren't, and you can't just decide that they're silent just because, well, you say so.  The rules are the rules, and the rules say what they do, and they do what they say.

You can change the rules, sure.  But you don't get to say your changes are the rules.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
In addition to what Plague and Alcestis said about your complete and utter lack of understanding of the most basic design principle in all of 4e, you're also operating under the assumption that statues are silent.  Many of them aren't


Really? I've never heard of a noisy statue. Please enlighten me.
Are you trying to be funny, or did you really not mean to do that?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Are you trying to be funny, or did you really not mean to do that?


I'm asking in all seriousness. Plaguescarred himself mentioned that "silent" is not a defined term of art, so "silent" simply means "not making noise". If a statue is not silent, it is, by definition, making noise. Are you truly saying that you know of "many" noisy statues?
"I've not heard of a noisy stature"

Take away the debate for a moment, and that statement should be amusing.

But yes, statues (and other inanimate objects) can and do make noise.  Biggest source is thermal expansion, creaking and groaning as materials stretch and compress under temperature change.  Solid-cast statues won't make much in the way of noise, but anything assembled will.

Furthermore, if the statue does something as simple as topple over, then it will make noise, because it's not a tree in the forest and there are people around (otherwise we wouldn't be trying to figure out if they get an initiative bonus).

But the true bottom line is this:  the rules about rules say that your interpretation of the rules is wrong.  There is no argument, no logical persuasion, no deft rhetoric that will ever convince you.  There is what the rules say, and that is an axiom.  You can argue against it all you wish, but if you ever want to consider yourself as discussing 4e rules, then you have to accept it in the same way that you have to accept that 1+2 = 3 in mathematics.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Right, so it's the warlord's joints creaking through thermal expansion that inspires his allies to swifter action.

I'm curious: Does it even bother you, on any level, that an ability which requires no sound to activate has differing effects depending upon whether its targets can currently hear that non-existent sound?
No, it's not the warlord's creaking joints.  I never said that.  This is an example of the point you're not getting, and an example of the error you're making.  You're making leaps of logic, taking one thing, applying some form of extratextual context to that, and then forming a new conclusion.  You can't do that in 4e, at all, ever.  You are limited precisely to what is in the text.  No more, no less.  Until you fully accept what that means, you will continue to make this error.

And no, it doesn't bother me, because we're not talking about how to run a game, but rather what the rules say.  There are lots of things the rules say that bother me when applied to games, but none of that matters in determining what the rules say.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No, it's not the warlord's creaking joints.  I never said that.  This is an example of the point you're not getting, and an example of the error you're making.  You're making leaps of logic, taking one thing, applying some form of extratextual context to that, and then forming a new conclusion.  You can't do that in 4e, at all, ever.  You are limited precisely to what is in the text.  No more, no less.  Until you fully accept what that means, you will continue to make this error.



Except that the rules don't define everything in mathematical precision, so you can't come to consistent 1+2=3 conclusions if you never look beyond them.

The rules don't define "silent". They don't even define "able to hear", beyond the Perception skill. In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that if the warlord is not currently emitting any sound that could be discerned by an ally rolling a natural 20 on his Perception check, that ally is in fact not able to hear the warlord.
"reasonable" arguments aren't rules.  The rule says exactly how the feature works, you're the one who is reaching for other things to fill in what you think are logical holes in the rule.  They very well may be logical holes in the rule.  But it's still the rule, no matter how much you insist it doesn't make sense.

I'm not arguing with the conclusion you've reached so much as the way you arrived at that conclusion.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Exception based design says things do precisely what they say they do. Nothing in the features requires you be able to make noise, so you don't have to be able to.



"reasonable" arguments aren't rules.  The rule says exactly how the feature works, you're the one who is reaching for other things to fill in what you think are logical holes in the rule.  They very well may be logical holes in the rule.  But it's still the rule, no matter how much you insist it doesn't make sense.

I'm not arguing with the conclusion you've reached so much as the way you arrived at that conclusion.



So following along from what you are saying:
If the warlord is, say, magically silenced so that he is unable to be heard, then his condition matters, because the rule requires that he be able to be heard.

However, if the warlord is magically silenced so that he is unable to make a noise, then his condition is irrelevant, because making a noise is not mentioned in the rules.

That seems weirdly inconsistent. Especially so since "unable to make a noise" results in "unable to be heard".

Now I grant you, there is no rule that says "If you are unable to make a noise then you cannot be heard".  But there is also no rule that says "If you are unable to make a noise then you can still be heard".  The rules dont define what "can hear you" means. 

You seem to be saying that, in the absence of a specific definition of "can hear you" then you can only fail the condition if the specific words "can't hear you" or "is unable to hear you" are used.  You cant fail the condition if those circumstances can only be infered from the situation.
Sigh. Still wrong.

Look. The feature says you have to be able to see and hear the Warlord. That is something you have to be able to do. It has nothing to do with the Warlord. If the Warlord can't make noise, you're fine, because you can hear him. Things literally do precisely what they say they do in 4e. You are inventing the idea that the Warlord has to make noise in order for you to be able to hear him. That is not true. Your ability to hear him has nothing to do with wheather or not he makes noise. Ever. That is the part you're inventing, the feature itself says nothing like that. And one of the tentants of the logic of 4e is that things do only what they actually say they do. If the feature said "All your allies that you yell at when you roll initiative and hear you gain a bonus" then, yes, the Warlord being able to speak+take a free action would matter. That isn't what the feature says.
That seems weirdly inconsistent.

Yup.  And it'd be nice if the rules weren't ever weirdly inconsistent, but they often are, and this is one of those cases.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Meanwhile, back at the gaming table …


DM:      With a last expiring gasp, the evil wizard waves his wand and hurls a curse at you, Taskal. (rolls dice) 32! What is your fortitude, Taskal?


Taskal:  29.


DM:      Oh dear.  Take 19 points of damage, and you are petrified. Well, team, your warlord has been turned to stone.


Bodag: But he is the only one who knows the way out.


Taskal:  I can tell them where the map is.


DM:      No you can’t. You’re turned to stone. You can’t speak.


Kresta:  Maybe if I listen very carefully. (rolls dice)  There, I rolled a natural 20.  I must be able to hear him.


DM:      No, you can’t hear him.


Kresta:  Why not?


DM:      He’s made of stone.  He can’t speak so you can’t hear him. Nobody can hear him.


(pause)


DM:      And oh, look!  Here come some more monsters.  They must have heard the previous battle and have come to investigate.  Fortunately you were not surprised.  Time to roll initiative.


Bodag: This looks bad.  No warlord, so no healing and no bonus to initiative.  We could suffer here.


DM:      No, you do get the initiative bonus.


Bodag: But the rule says I have to be able to hear him.


DM:      It does.


Bodag: And you just said we couldn’t hear him.


DM:      Correct.


Bodag: So we don’t get the bonus.


DM:      No, you get the bonus.


Bodag: How’s that.


DM:      Well the rules don’t say that you can’t hear him, so you can hear him.


Kresta:  Then I can hear him!


DM:      Of course you can’t.  He’s a solid block of stone.


Kresta:  But you just said …


DM:      In the game you can’t hear him, but for the purposes of the rules, you can.


Bodag: I thought the rules and the game where the same thing.


DM:      Oh no. 


Thakis:  If the rules don’t say I can’t hear him, then I can?


DM:      Yes.


Thakis:  Then I can hear him, and he can tell me the way out.


DM:      NO YOU CAN’T!  Look at him. He is a solid block of stone. You can’t hear him and he can’t tell you the way out.


Monty Python would be proud.

The feature says you have to be able to see and hear the Warlord. That is something you have to be able to do.



This is the rule.  We have no dispute about that.

It has nothing to do with the Warlord. If the Warlord can't make noise, you're fine, because you can hear him.  You are inventing the idea that the Warlord has to make noise in order for you to be able to hear him. That is not true. Your ability to hear him has nothing to do with wheather or not he makes noise. Ever.



This is your interpretation of the rule.  I understand that his is what you think "ally can .. hear you" means.  But this phrase is not defined in the rules and must be interpreted. You have interpreted it as above.  I can just as accurately say that you are inventing that "It has nothing to do with the warlord."  After all, the rule says you have to be able to hear the warlord, but you say the warlord is irrelevant.

You say you can hear him even when he is not making a noise.  But the rule doesn't say that.  That is your interpretation.

  And one of the tentants of the logic of 4e is that things do only what they actually say they do. 



You say this loudly and often, but then promptly add all these additional restrictions.

I think your interpretation of the rule is poor, awkward and results in numerous unnecessary inconsistencies.  I aslo think you have lost track of what is rule and what is interpretation.

I understand you are trying to avoid idiocies that would arise with requiring the warlord to actually speak (you would know this if you had read and understood past posts). 

Your example is a good example of why the bonus gets applied.

"DM: You can hear him, you get the bonus
Player: But you said we couldn't hear him?
DM: He can't talk, if he could talk while turned to stone you would be able to hear him.  The problem is he can't talk while being stone.  Warlord do you have any telepathic way of communicating?  No?  Well, he can't talk, but you can still hear him.  You weren't turned to stone, he was."

Edit: Now if, rather than being turned to stone, he was trapped in a stone box and thus didn't have LoS or LoE to you (and you couldn't hear him regardless of the fact that he was making noise) then you wouldn't get the bonus. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Your example is a good example of why the bonus gets applied.

"DM: You can hear him, you get the bonus
Player: But you said we couldn't hear him?
DM: He can't talk, if he could talk while turned to stone you would be able to hear him.  The problem is he can't talk while being stone.  Warlord do you have any telepathic way of communicating?  No?  Well, he can't talk, but you can still hear him.  You weren't turned to stone, he was."

Edit: Now if, rather than being turned to stone, he was trapped in a stone box and thus didn't have LoS or LoE to you (and you couldn't hear him regardless of the fact that he was making noise) then you wouldn't get the bonus. 



Exactly.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

The only idiocy I am trying avoid is you thinking you're correct, when you are so far wrong it is laughable. That isn't an interpretation of the rule, that is the rule.

Meanwhile, back at the gaming table …


DM:      With a last expiring gasp, the evil wizard waves his wand and hurls a curse at you, Taskal. (rolls dice) 32! What is your fortitude, Taskal?


Taskal:  29.


DM:      Oh dear.  Take 19 points of damage, and you are petrified. Well, team, your warlord has been turned to stone.


Bodag: But he is the only one who knows the way out.


Taskal:  I can tell them where the map is.


DM:      No you can’t. You’re turned to stone. You can’t speak.


Kresta:  Maybe if I listen very carefully. (rolls dice)  There, I rolled a natural 20.  I must be able to hear him.


DM:      No, you can’t hear him.


Kresta:  Why not?


DM:      He’s made of stone.  He can’t speak so you can’t hear him. Nobody can hear him.


(pause)


DM:      And oh, look!  Here come some more monsters.  They must have heard the previous battle and have come to investigate.  Fortunately you were not surprised.  Time to roll initiative.


Bodag: This looks bad.  No warlord, so no healing and no bonus to initiative.  We could suffer here.


DM:      No, you do get the initiative bonus.


Bodag: But the rule says I have to be able to hear him.


DM:      It does.


Bodag: And you just said we couldn’t hear him.


DM:      Correct.


Bodag: So we don’t get the bonus.


DM:      No, you get the bonus.


Bodag: How’s that.


DM:      Well the rules don’t say that you can’t hear him, so you can hear him.


Kresta:  Then I can hear him!


DM:      Of course you can’t.  He’s a solid block of stone.


Kresta:  But you just said …


DM:      In the game you can’t hear him, but for the purposes of the rules, you can.


Bodag: I thought the rules and the game where the same thing.


DM:      Oh no. 


Thakis:  If the rules don’t say I can’t hear him, then I can?


DM:      Yes.


Thakis:  Then I can hear him, and he can tell me the way out.


DM:      NO YOU CAN’T!  Look at him. He is a solid block of stone. You can’t hear him and he can’t tell you the way out.


Monty Python would be proud.



Except none of this has to do with the rules talk.

Alcestis is completely right in this case. With how 4e's rules work, the power does exactly what it does. It says you must be able to hear him. It does not say he must be able to make noise, so whether he can or not is irrelevant.
Your example is a good example of why the bonus gets applied.

"DM: You can hear him, you get the bonus
Player: But you said we couldn't hear him?
DM: He can't talk, if he could talk while turned to stone you would be able to hear him.  The problem is he can't talk while being stone.  Warlord do you have any telepathic way of communicating?  No?  Well, he can't talk, but you can still hear him.  You weren't turned to stone, he was."

Edit: Now if, rather than being turned to stone, he was trapped in a stone box and thus didn't have LoS or LoE to you (and you couldn't hear him regardless of the fact that he was making noise) then you wouldn't get the bonus. 


You miss the point.

The power does exactly what it says it does.  In the scenario above, Kresta wants to listen to the petrified warlord, rolls a perception check and asks, "Can I hear him?"  The DM says "No you can't hear him."  Since the feature requires an "ally who can ... hear you", that is all it takes for the feature to fail.  Anything else, such as:
"He can't talk, if he could talk while turned to stone you would be able to hear him."
is just adding to the rules, and as you say, in 4E you can't do that.

Nothing in the rule makes any distinction between why you cant hear him.  If you cant hear him because he cant make a sound or you cant hear him because he is in a sound-proof box or you cant hear him because you are deafened, you dont get the benefit.  Same as for sight. If you cant see him:


  • because he is invisible

  • because you dont have line of sight

  • because you are blinded


You still cant see him and you dont get the benefit.  Any attempt to treat the situation differently because of why you cant see him or why you cant hear him is an addition to the rules.


Is the DM correct to say "you can't hear him"?
A creature that is petrified/unconcious is "incapacitated totally" and "unable to take actions".  Nothing in the rules adds "but you are still able to hear him".  That would be making up things that are not there.


As I said: the petrified warlord's petrified hair rattles inspiringly in the wind.  You hear it.  Unless you're deafened.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
If a petrified warlord falls over in a forest...
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Nothing in the rules adds "but you are still able to hear him".  That would be making up things that are not there.


Which is irrelevant.

"You must be able to see and hear the Warlord." is the only qualifier for the ability. Whether he's actively making noise does not matter.
I am able to swim, in general.

Right now, I am sitting at my computer, yet I am still able to swim.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
"You must be able to see and hear the Warlord." is the only qualifier for the ability. Whether he's actively making noise does not matter.



I totally agree.  However, if he cannot make a noise, then you cannot hear him.  It's not that you don't hear him - you cannot.  And that is the qualifier on the ability.

If the warlord is invisible you dont say "If he was visible I would be able to see him, and so the feature works."  The feature requires you to be able to see the warlord here and now.  What might happen if he was other than he is (i.e. invisible) is irrelevant.

Similarly, if the warlord cannot be heard, you can't say "If he could make a noise then I would be able to hear him".  If he could make a noise, then he wouldn't be this warlord, because this warlord cannot make a noise.  The qualifier is "can ... hear you".  It says nothing about a hypothetical "you" that could make a noise.  The feature requires you to be able to hear the warlord here and now.  If he is unable to make a noise now you cannot hear him.  
PLEASE NOTE:  I am not saying "if he is not making a noise right now".  I am saying "if he is unable to make a noise right now."
I am able to swim, in general.

Right now, I am sitting at my computer, yet I am still able to swim.



Yet if you were petrified right now, then you would not be able to swim.
Yes if sound waves were not able to pass between the warlord and your PC then you would not be able to hear him. 

But being petrified does not make you unable to make a sound, in fact if you would need some kind of "silenced" condition, which doesn't exist.

A free action is required to speak but nothing except death stops you from making sounds. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Can you quote your source on this?  I would have thought "totally incapacitated" in the defintion of Unconcious (and hence in the definition of Petrified) would be more than enough to mean that you could not make sounds.
nothing except death stops you from making sounds. 



And even then, some people can still produce sound after they're dead and thus be heard. Wink


Can dead people really fart? 
Yes. Every dead body releases the gas and liquids etc from the body. Not all the time but most dead bodies leak urine and feces. This is caused by the lack of muscle control. Though every dead body releases gas. Though this usually happens quite some time after the persons death. Source(s): biology major

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I walk over to the now petrified warlord and push him over.  BANG!!  Congradulations, he just made a sound you heard.  You get the bonus.

The "totally incompacitated" effect is not effecting YOU.  Even though the warlord does not make a sound, YOU can still hear the warlord.  If YOU were incompacitated or defeaned then YOU would not get the bonus. 
Your example is a good example of why the bonus gets applied.

"DM: You can hear him, you get the bonus
Player: But you said we couldn't hear him?
DM: He can't talk, if he could talk while turned to stone you would be able to hear him.  The problem is he can't talk while being stone.  Warlord do you have any telepathic way of communicating?  No?  Well, he can't talk, but you can still hear him.  You weren't turned to stone, he was."

Edit: Now if, rather than being turned to stone, he was trapped in a stone box and thus didn't have LoS or LoE to you (and you couldn't hear him regardless of the fact that he was making noise) then you wouldn't get the bonus. 



You miss the point.



No, I got the point.  Your point was just wrong so I changed it to reflect the rules.

The power does exactly what it says it does.  In the scenario above, Kresta wants to listen to the petrified warlord, rolls a perception check and asks, "Can I hear him?"  The DM says "No you can't hear him."  Since the feature requires an "ally who can ... hear you", that is all it takes for the feature to fail.



My point is that the DM shouldn't say "You can't hear him" because that is incorrect.  He should say "He doesn't make any sound".  The absence of sound does not make you unable to hear.  You still hear, but there is nothing to be heard.


  Anything else, such as:
"He can't talk, if he could talk while turned to stone you would be able to hear him."
is just adding to the rules, and as you say, in 4E you can't do that.



Which would still not effect their ability of anyone else to see or hear him.


Nothing in the rule makes any distinction between why you cant hear him.  If you cant hear him because he cant make a sound or you cant hear him because he is in a sound-proof box or you cant hear him because you are deafened, you dont get the benefit.  Same as for sight. If you cant see him:


  • because he is invisible

  • because you dont have line of sight

  • because you are blinded





You are correct.  The players are still able to hear the warlord stuck in the box, however a different issue is in play here.  That issue is that the warlord no longer has LoE to anyone else in the party (and they have no LoS to him most likely).  Anything that made a box of something that would break this effect would have to specifically state to the contrary (which petrified does not) in order to function the way you want it to.

The visibility part is two fold though.  Invisible specifically says he cannot be seen.  Not having LoS means he cannot be seen and the blinded effect says specifically you cannot see.  So all of those are specific rules reasons to not get the benefit.  The key here is all of them are based on the ally not the warlord.  So, if as an example, the warlord was in pitch darkness and one ally had darkvision and the other didn't.  The ally with darkvision would get the bonus and the one without would not.  If an ally had truesight he would still get the bonus if the warlord was invisible regardless of the fact that he is invisible.

Is the DM correct to say "you can't hear him"?


No.  The DM would be correct to say "you hear that he is not making any noise" 

A creature that is petrified/unconcious is "incapacitated totally" and "unable to take actions".  Nothing in the rules adds "but you are still able to hear him".  That would be making up things that are not there.



Nothing about being unconscious / dead / etc makes you invisible or silent.  If someone killed you with fire, you might be on fire and be very easily seen and heard (and smelled).  Unless of course you were shot three times with a Zat Nik Tel.

"You must be able to see and hear the Warlord." is the only qualifier for the ability. Whether he's actively making noise does not matter.



I totally agree.  However, if he cannot make a noise, then you cannot hear him.  It's not that you don't hear him - you cannot.  And that is the qualifier on the ability.


Except that you can hear him.  He just isn't making any noise.  Nothing is effecting your ability to hear.


If the warlord is invisible you dont say "If he was visible I would be able to see him, and so the feature works."



You are right, but that is because sight is very clearly defined.  If he broke Line of Hearing and LoH was something that existed in the game, then this would work.  As it doesn't exist you are comparing apples to oranges.

  The feature requires you to be able to see the warlord here and now.  What might happen if he was other than he is (i.e. invisible) is irrelevant.



Actually as long as you have LoS and LoE to the warlord, it is the warlord that is irrelevant.  Only the character whose initiative is being determined matters at all here.

Similarly, if the warlord cannot be heard, you can't say "If he could make a noise then I would be able to hear him".



You are not deafened when there is no noise.  You are still able to perceive.

PLEASE NOTE:  I am not saying "if he is not making a noise right now".  I am saying "if he is unable to make a noise right now."



PLEASE NOTE: Whether or not he has the ability to make noise is entirely irrelevant to anyone's ability to hear him.  People in silent movies cannot make noises, people in the theater are not deafened.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
nothing except death stops you from making sounds. 



And even then, some people can still produce sound after they're dead and thus be heard. 


Can dead people really fart? 
Yes. Every dead body releases the gas and liquids etc from the body. Not all the time but most dead bodies leak urine and feces. This is caused by the lack of muscle control. Though every dead body releases gas. Though this usually happens quite some time after the persons death. Source(s): biology major




Actually the point is that when you die, you are no longer a creature, no longer a warlord, so you no longer have that feature active.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Can you quote your source on this?  I would have thought "totally incapacitated" in the defintion of Unconcious (and hence in the definition of Petrified) would be more than enough to mean that you could not make sounds.

The point you keep seem to be missing is that nothing in the class feature requires the Warlord to make a sound.  If the party is currently hidden and ambushing an enemy, the Warlord doesn't have to make a sound and give up being hidden in order for his allies to gain the benefit.

  The only requirements are as follows:
1) There is a Line of Sight between the Warlord and his ally and the Warlord is not invisibile, and not hidden to the ally.
2) The ally is able to see (not blinded) and hear (not deafened) and has no other condition preventing the making a of a basic Perception check (i.e., the ally is unconscious)
3) There is nothing blocking the passage of sounds between the Warlord and the ally, such as magical silence, a solid transparent wall, etc. 
     There may be some cases where something obscures sound (a large distance (but still in visible range), a stampede of cattle, a glass wall, a swarm of crickets, etc) and would warrant a perception check, but that is totally up the DM.

Nothing in the class feature indicates that that the Warlord says or does anything in particular - it's simply his/her prescence which cause the effect.
Can you quote your source on this?  I would have thought "totally incapacitated" in the defintion of Unconcious (and hence in the definition of Petrified) would be more than enough to mean that you could not make sounds.

The point you keep seem to be missing is that nothing in the class feature requires the Warlord to make a sound.  If the party is currently hidden and ambushing an enemy, the Warlord doesn't have to make a sound and give up being hidden in order for his allies to gain the benefit.

  The only requirements are as follows:
1) There is a Line of Sight between the Warlord and his ally and the Warlord is not invisibile, and not hidden to the ally.
2) The ally is able to see (not blinded) and hear (not deafened) and has no other condition preventing the making a of a basic Perception check (i.e., the ally is unconscious)
3) There is nothing blocking the passage of sounds between the Warlord and the ally, such as magical silence, a solid transparent wall, etc. 
     There may be some cases where something obscures sound (a large distance (but still in visible range), a stampede of cattle, a glass wall, a swarm of crickets, etc) and would warrant a perception check, but that is totally up the DM.

Nothing in the class feature indicates that that the Warlord says or does anything in particular - it's simply his/her prescence which cause the effect.