Warlord's Combat Leader class ability

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have some questions on the Warlord's Combat Leader class ability.

1) Does the bonus apply ALL the time to the Warlord himself, or is there a condition or situation that it would not apply to him?

(such as if s/he is dying, helpless, immobilized, petrified, restrained, stunned, surprised, or unconscious)

2) What about the bonus applying to others when the Warlord is under one of those conditions?

3) What about if s/he is dominated, can the ability be turned "off" by the dominator?

4) If there are 2 Warlords in a group do their Combat Leader bonuses stack?

5) Is the Combat Leader bonus language-dependent, in other words does another PC have to understand the language the Warlord uses?

(Presume one or the other doesn't speak common)
If it wasn't for Shadowfax, Gandalf never would have made it. Shadowfax, the real hero of LotR.
1. It always applies to the Warlord, because nothing says it doesn't.

2. The only way Combat Leader does not apply is if the ally is out of range, or cannot see and hear the Warlord, because nothing says otherwise.

3. No.  The power does not say it can be turned off.

4. No.  Combat Leader gives a power bonus, and bonuses of the same type do not stack.

5. No, because it does not say that it is language-dependent.

The ability is very simple.  It says exactly this:
"You and each ally within 10 squares who can see and hear you gain a +2 power bonus to initiative."

And that is precisely what it does.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Here is where I may differ slightly from Salla.  Not suggesting one is better then other.  Just difference in style or interpretation I suppose.

1-2.  If rule doesn't specify it generally means what Salla says, unless you delve into the Rule as Intended.  Book can't write everything.  For these specific questions, I say it's up to you and your players.  Do what makes sense to you.  If you think a dying, unconscious or dead warlord shouldn't give class bonus, then it shouldn't.  He is a inspiring leader after all and his presence (while alive and leading the group) bolsters group.  In that sense sudden death of such inspiring leader may demoralize the group, but that may be delving too deep.  I think it's fair to just say group don't get bonus if warlord is dying, dead or incapacitated.  Entirely up to you on that one how ever you want to roll.

I agree with everything else with Salla.
Here is where I may differ slightly from Salla.  Not suggesting one is better then other.  Just difference in style or interpretation I suppose.

1-2.  If rule doesn't specify it generally means what Salla says, unless you delve into the Rule as Intended.  Book can't write everything.  For these specific questions, I say it's up to you and your players.  Do what makes sense to you.  If you think a dying, unconscious or dead warlord shouldn't give class bonus, then it shouldn't.  He is a inspiring leader after all and his presence (while alive and leading the group) bolsters group.  In that sense sudden death of such inspiring leader may demoralize the group, but that may be delving too deep.  I think it's fair to just say group don't get bonus if warlord is dying, dead or incapacitated.  Entirely up to you on that one how ever you want to roll.

I agree with everything else with Salla.



This is not 'Rules As Intended'.  The rule is so clear and unambiguous that there are no valid alternate interpretations.  What you are suggesting is 'making a house rule'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I understood the initiative bonus as only applying at the start of an encounter.  It affects how quickly you get off your first attack/action.  Thereafter you get your next turn one round after you finished your previous turn - this applies whether or not you initially received the Combat Leader bonus.

If at the start of the encounter your warlord was petrified, dead, dying or unconscious, then you couldn't hear him and you don't get the bonus.  But once the encounter is underway, initiative order doesn't change - you have your place in the order because of when you last acted, not because the initiative bonus still applies.  So if your warlord subsequently becomes dying, unconscious etc, this has no impact on the established initiative order.
Actually it'd still work if the Warlord was Petrified. You can see and hear the Warlord, the fact that the Warlord can't talk is irrelevant. Dead is the only condition listed that'd actually work that way.
So you are saying that you can hear someone if you are in a position that you would be able to hear them if they were able to make a sound.  It is not a point of view I have previously thought of.

I would still contend that the warlord must be capable of generating sound for his team members to be counted as "can ... hear you".  Petrified, unconscious and dying would all prevent the warlord from generating any sound, and so they cannot be heard.
"if a statue of a warlord is in a party, does it make a sound?"
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So you are saying that you can hear someone if you are in a position that you would be able to hear them if they were able to make a sound.  It is not a point of view I have previously thought of.

I would still contend that the warlord must be capable of generating sound for his team members to be counted as "can ... hear you".  Petrified, unconscious and dying would all prevent the warlord from generating any sound, and so they cannot be heard.

That is what the rules say, it isn't an opinion.
Alcestis, what would you say about an invisible warlord? The other party members can, in theory, "see" him, but the warlord isn't broadcasting an image for them to see (reflecting any light). Same line of thinking as your "hearing" interpretation.
Alcestis, what would you say about an invisible warlord? The other party members can, in theory, "see" him, but the warlord isn't broadcasting an image for them to see (reflecting any light). Same line of thinking as your "hearing" interpretation.

No they can't. They know where he is, but they can't see him. The rules are really specific about these things.
Alcestis, what would you say about an invisible warlord? The other party members can, in theory, "see" him, but the warlord isn't broadcasting an image for them to see (reflecting any light). Same line of thinking as your "hearing" interpretation.


No, invisible warlords can't grant the bonus.  Nor can blinded or deafened creatures receive it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I dont think Alcetis has any problem with blinded or deafened creatures being excluded from the bonus.  The dispute is about the warlord more than about the recipient.

I would also claim that the rules are clear about this:
Unconscious - "...  the creature cant take actions ..."

If it cannot take actions, even free ones, then it cannot generate sound.  It cannot be heard in the same fashion that an invisible creature cannot be seen.

The rules are clear - if it cant be heard, then no bonus. 
....So you're just making things up then? Right-o. Whether I can make noise  has nothing to do with whether or not you can hear me. Period.
Lets leave out the insults.

If I am silent then you cannot hear me. That is at least part of what being silent means.  If I am unable to make a noise, then I am silent and you cannot hear me - by definition.

You cannot hear a statue. At least not without imbibing a substantial quantity of alcohol first.

Whether I can make a noise is fundamental to whether or not you can hear me. 
Lets leave out the insults.



This is Alcestis we're talking about.  That's not going to happen.

If I am silent then you cannot hear me. That is at least part of what being silent means.  If I am unable to make a noise, then I am silent and you cannot hear me - by definition.

You cannot hear a statue. At least not without imbibing a substantial quantity of alcohol first.

Whether I can make a noise is fundamental to whether or not you can hear me. 



Not really.  The onus in this case is on the ally, not the Warlord.  It doesn't matter whether or not the warlord is making sound; it matters whether or not the ally can hear.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I would say from the rules that the onus is shared.  The requirement is not that the ally "can see and hear", but rather that the ally "can see and hear you (i.e. the warlord)".

It doesn't matter whether the ally can see and hear, if they cannot see or hear the warlord in particular. 

Since both the ally and the warlord are mentioned in the requirement, a shared onus appears to me the natural interpretation.

To put this another way, I would say that if you believe otherwise, then the onus is on you to demonstrate your alternative is more reasonble. 

Edit: I just read your comment again.  I agree that it doesn't matter whether or not the warlord is making a sound,  but I would contend that it does matter whether or not the warlord is able to make a sound.
Basically, feel free to houserule on this one. In real terms, if your Warlord is unconscious and locked in a glass case, it makes absolutely no difference to anyone else whether that case happens to be soundproof or not - in fact, it's pretty much impossible to know whether or not it's soundproofed. But by the game rules, you'll react less promptly when entering a combat situation if the glass case is indeed soundproof.

So, either ignore the inconsistency and go with a strict rules interpretation, or go with the minisculely less literal interpretation and assume that in order for you to be able to hear a person, that person has to be able to make noise.
I bet there are games out there which have completely ground to a halt over this measly +2 initiative bonus.
Lets leave out the insults.

Saying you're making things up when you're making things up is only insulting if you realize that is what you're doing and feel guilty about it. So thanks for confirming that for me. The rules are both clear and literal when it comes to sound and sight, whether the Warlord can make noise simply isn't relevant.

@Waxwing: The bonus becomes +Cha or +Int with a feat in Paragon. It is actually one of the strongest class features in the game.
Combat Leader only care if allies can see and hear the Warlord, regardless if it actually make noise or not. 


Unconscious - "...  the creature cant take actions ..."
If it cannot take actions, even free ones, then it cannot generate sound.


My wife disagree with you and think i make a fair amount of noise when unconcious. (I snore loudly while i sleep Wink)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Plaguescarred

I understand that.  The question is, how can they possibly hear a warlord who is unable to make a sound?  You cant hear a statue, no matter how good your hearing is nor how close you are to it.

Alcestis

The rules are clear.  The allies have to be able to see and hear the warlord.  It is not enough for them to be able to see and hear in general.  It is the warlord specifically that they have to be able to hear.  I note that they dont actually have to see and hear him, but they have to be able to. No one can hear a statue.

You have to go by the rules. You cant leave words out just to suit your interpretation.  The rules say you have to be able to see and hear the warlord.  (Again, not that you actually have to hear him, but you have to be able to.)  You are telling me that (in the game) you are able (at least potentially) to hear things that are completely unable to make noise. Doesn't that sound foolish to you?

The rules are clear and literal.  It is not enough for the allies to be able to see and hear.  They must be able to see and hear the warlord.

By the way, earlier on you made an exception for death.  To be consistent, I think you would have to rule that even if the warlord was dead, provided his body was present then you could see and hear him.  After all, you are saying that it is only the ability to see and hear that count.
Nothing is preventing you from hearing the Warlord. The fact that Warlord isn't making noise isn't relevant. And anything you say to the contrary is you making things up.

If he is dead, he is no longer a creature, which means he is no longer a Warlord. Obscure RAW, true, but it exists. See what opinions when you try to be smart about the rules when you're ignorant of them?
Here's the logic:

Axioms

  1. A petrified warlord effectively becomes a statue

  2. You cannot hear statues

  3. You must be able to hear (and see) the warlord to get the bonus


Deduction


You dont get the bonus if the warlord is petrified.


You are disputing the result, so you must be disputing one of the axioms, or the logic behind the deduction.  So which step do you think is wrong?



The rules dont say "nothing must prevent you from hearing the warlord". They say "any of your allies who can see and hear you."  There is a significant difference, and it appears your preconceptions are blinding you to what the rules say.


Come back when you are prepared to discuss the logic.  Schoolboy taunts just sound petulant.



If the statue was making noise, you could hear it. Whether the statue is making noise (or can) isn't relevant. Once you understand that, you'll understand why you're wrong and your logic is flawed.

Come back when you're prepared to admit you're wrong? I was nice till you were obstinately ignorant, at this point I'm just correcting you so no one else goes down the path of idiocy you've chosen for yourself.
The petrified warlord's loose petrified hair rattles in the wind.  His allies hear it.
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.
So, if my warlord stands stock still and doesn't speak, and you blink, the ability doesn't function?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

 My warlord who's a former mime is going to be crushed that his inspirational comedic performances are no longer effective.

Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

Come back when you are prepared to discuss the logic.  Schoolboy taunts just sound petulant.

Oh, because you're just the paragon of maturity?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Here's the logic:

Axioms

  1. A petrified warlord effectively becomes a statue

  2. You cannot hear statues

  3. You must be able to hear (and see) the warlord to get the bonus


Deduction


You dont get the bonus if the warlord is petrified.


You are disputing the result, so you must be disputing one of the axioms, or the logic behind the deduction.  So which step do you think is wrong?



The rules dont say "nothing must prevent you from hearing the warlord". They say "any of your allies who can see and hear you."  There is a significant difference, and it appears your preconceptions are blinding you to what the rules say.


Come back when you are prepared to discuss the logic.  Schoolboy taunts just sound petulant.




You can definitely hear statues - they just normally generate very little noise. If you drag a statue along the ground, or it tips over, or the statue has moving parts, it can still be heard.
  Similarly, if the Warlord were somehow rendered mute, he could not speak, but the class feature would still work.

  There are few very specific things that would prevent an ally from hearing the warlord:
1) An area of magical silence around warlord or ally  (or similarly an overwhelming amount of noise, like the noise levels of a rock concert or jet engine)
2) Ally is under the deafened condition
3) Ally is separated from the warlord by a barrier that prevents sound, and which doesn't already prevent the effect by blocking line of sight, such as a glass wall or a stone wall with glass windows, etc.   It's not clear if a Wall of Force blocks sound, but it is a "solid barrier" and blocks line of effect so it probably woud.
4) Combat in a complete vacuum, which has its own problem with everyone asphyixiating to death pretty quickly.

I assume Combat Leader wouldn't apply if the Warlord was affected by a silence spell or a sound bubble, if there was any for exemple.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Did you even read the thread? The question is whether the ally would be able to hear the warlord if he made a noise, not whether the warlord actually can.
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
Yes i did and i was in fact answering one of the OPs question below, by giving a hypothetical situation where Combat Leader would not apply:

Does the bonus apply ALL the time to the Warlord himself, or is there a condition or situation that it would not apply to him?

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

In which case my bad. But it might have been helpful if you'd've quoted him so that people (such as me) didn't misconstrue your answer.
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
If the statue was making noise, you could hear it. Whether the statue is making noise (or can) isn't relevant. Once you understand that, you'll understand why you're wrong and your logic is flawed.



That's the crux of the issue.  You understand the rule to be "an ally who can see or hear you if you were making a noise".  And if that is what it said, you would be correct.  But it doesn't.
That extra bit is a bit you've made up, and it is so ingrained now, you don't even realise that you have made it up.
If the statue was making noise, you could hear it. Whether the statue is making noise (or can) isn't relevant. Once you understand that, you'll understand why you're wrong and your logic is flawed.



That's the crux of the issue.  You understand the rule to be "an ally who can see or hear you if you were making a noise".  And if that is what it said, you would be correct.  But it doesn't.
That extra bit is a bit you've made up, and it is so ingrained now, you don't even realise that you have made it up.


To be fair, that extra bit is needed in order for the rule to make the slightest bit of sense. If the warlord doesn't need to issue any sound in order to activate this ability, then why are his allies required to be able to hear him?
yep, Alcestis is correct.  The language clearly states that you have to be able to see and hear the warlord to get the bonus.  The question of if the warlord can make noise or is making noise or not isn't important.  

And as MarkB specified. 
"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)

yep, Alcestis is correct.  The language clearly states that you have to be able to see and hear the warlord to get the bonus.  The question of if the warlord can make noise or is making noise or not isn't important.  

And as MarkB specified. 



Seconded (or is it thirded?).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
[That's the crux of the issue.  You understand the rule to be "an ally who can see or hear you if you were making a noise".  And if that is what it said, you would be correct.  But it doesn't.
That extra bit is a bit you've made up, and it is so ingrained now, you don't even realise that you have made it up.

So still making things up then, rather than admit you're completely and in every way wrong. Right. The rule doesn't say the Warlord has to be able to make noise. Period.
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.

Clause A would allow you to ignore the warlord completely. He is not even mentioned in the requirement.
Clause C requires the warlord to be present, but his condition can be ignored.
Clause B is the most restrictive, requiring you to be able to see and hear the specific warlord at a specific point in time (when initiative is rolled).  Since there is no rule in D&D that states you are able to hear something that is totally unable to make a noise, then this necessarily implies that the condition of the warlord matters, at least to the extent of the ability to make some noise. 

Only one of these Clauses matches the actual rule.  You may not like it, or you may not think it works in practice.  OK.  If you think that Clause B necessarily implies Clause C, or that some other rule or principle applies to modify it, make your argument.  Otherwise you are making things up that aren't there.


MarkB, I think, is arguing that since there is no (explicit) requirement for the warlord to make a noise for the feature to take effect, then it is incorrect to require the allies to be able to hear the warlord.
(If I have this wrong, MarkB, then I am sorry and please clarify).
This argument states that we should weaken a requirement that is explicitly in the rules (that the allies must be able to hear the warlord) because of the absence of a requirement (that the warlord is not explicitly required to issue a sound for the feature to operate).  In logic, arguments from absence are always weaker than arguments from presence, and should certainly not be grounds to change a requirement that is explicitly stated.
Rather, the explicit requirement of being able to hear the warlord in logic necessarily implies the requirement that the warlord is able to make a noise.  (Note: it does not necessarily imply that the warlord actually makes a noise, only that he is able to).

To be totally accurate I should extend this argument to cover telepathy, but the basic argument doesn't change.
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)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter