Community

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)

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.

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.

Dec 24, 2012 -- 7:47PM, Ghost007 wrote:

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'.

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?"

Dec 27, 2012 -- 1:14PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 1:54PM, waxwingslain wrote:

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.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 1:54PM, waxwingslain wrote:

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.

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. 

Dec 27, 2012 -- 3:24PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

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.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 3:24PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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. 

Dec 27, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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 )

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.

So, if my warlord stands stock still and doesn't speak, and you blink, the ability doesn't function?

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

Dec 28, 2012 -- 4:10PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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

Oh, because you're just the paragon of maturity?

Dec 28, 2012 -- 4:10PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

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.

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:

Dec 22, 2012 -- 3:18PM, Shadowfax7 wrote:

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?

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.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 4:30PM, Alcestis wrote:

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.

Dec 30, 2012 -- 3:45AM, Yendoroz wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 4:30PM, Alcestis wrote:

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. 

Dec 30, 2012 -- 8:00AM, Noctaem wrote:

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?).

Dec 30, 2012 -- 3:45AM, Yendoroz wrote:

[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.

Dec 30, 2012 -- 4:02PM, Alcestis wrote:

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.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 5:46AM, Yendoroz wrote:

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)

Jan 1, 2013 -- 7:05AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Jan 1, 2013 -- 5:46AM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 9:47AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

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

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.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 11:55AM, MarkB wrote:

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.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 5:46AM, Yendoroz wrote:

Dec 30, 2012 -- 4:02PM, Alcestis wrote:

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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 9:41AM, Mand12 wrote:

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?

Jan 2, 2013 -- 12:09PM, Mand12 wrote:

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.

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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 12:32PM, Mand12 wrote:

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.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 3:42PM, Alcestis wrote:

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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 1:13PM, Mand12 wrote:

"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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 2:56PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 3:38PM, Alcestis wrote:

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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 3:38PM, Alcestis wrote:

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.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 3:38PM, Alcestis wrote:

  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. 

Jan 4, 2013 -- 8:33AM, Matyr wrote:

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.

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.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 9:14PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 8:33AM, Matyr wrote:

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.

If a petrified warlord falls over in a forest...

Jan 5, 2013 -- 11:17PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 5:51AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

"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."

Jan 6, 2013 -- 8:21AM, Mand12 wrote:

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. 

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.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 3:45PM, Fardiz wrote:

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

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. 

Jan 5, 2013 -- 11:17PM, Yendoroz wrote:

Jan 4, 2013 -- 8:33AM, Matyr wrote:

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.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 2:59PM, Yendoroz wrote:

Jan 6, 2013 -- 5:51AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

"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.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:17PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Jan 6, 2013 -- 3:45PM, Fardiz wrote:

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.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 3:51PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 3:51PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Yeah not sure how many other ways we can explain this..

Jan 3, 2013 -- 9:14PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

LOL well said..  well said.

Good sense + Good judgement with interpretation of the letter of the law (literal, or RAW) while preserving the spirit of the law (intent, or RAI) can be hard.

Any portion of this missing in the decision making process when it comes to rules, makes it hard to come to an agreement.

Everyone of you guys post has merit.  But I got to agree with Yandorez though.  His seem to have all 4;  Good sense, good judgement, RAW and RAI, and his method probably works best in the game.  Rest will cause too much conflict and drive players & dm crazy.  IMHO.

Not saying those who disagree lacks any of it.  Just saying.  
 

Except for the fact that his post is lacking RAW Ghost...

Jan 12, 2013 -- 4:15PM, Matyr wrote:

Except for the fact that his post is lacking RAW Ghost...

Yup true.  It's his interpretation, but i like it.  In his post, he is just explaining why he interprets it that way.  

I think for me, Warlord Presence is a non-magical ability.  Just a inspiring class who shouts, inspiring words and acts inspiring actions, henceforth it limits to ally who can "see" and "hear" him for the bonus.  

If I see it as a magical ability,  like paladin's Divine Challenge, then everything else makes sense.  He can be incapacitated and still his "magic" works.

I guess it's just whether people want to treat this class ability as magical or non-magical that will be the crux in making sense out of it.

Jan 12, 2013 -- 4:25PM, Ghost007 wrote:

Jan 12, 2013 -- 4:15PM, Matyr wrote:

Except for the fact that his post is lacking RAW Ghost...

Yup true.  It's his interpretation, but i like it.  In his post, he is just explaining why he interprets it that way.  

I think for me, Warlord Presence is a non-magical ability.  Just a inspiring class who shouts, inspiring words and acts inspiring actions, henceforth it limits to ally who can "see" and "hear" him for the bonus.  

If I see it as a magical ability,  like paladin's Divine Challenge, then everything else makes sense.  He can be incapacitated and still his "magic" works.

I guess it's just whether people want to treat this class ability as magical or non-magical that will be the crux in making sense out of it.

I'm not saying you can't like his ruling.  Knock yourself out.  But don't state it is RAW when it isn't.  Because either you are unknowingly wrong (and thus we should discuss this) or you are knowningly wrong (and should stop spreading incorrect information).

Jan 6, 2013 -- 3:51PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Its pretty simple.  Treat this warlord ability like a magical ability then it all makes sense.  Magic dont need logic.  You and I treat it like a non-magical ability, henceforth ability to hear the warlord = warlord's ability to make a sound matters even though it's not clearly stipulated. Neither is wrong.  Both can be argued endlessly with both sides making equal sense.  I do tend to lean towards non-magic since Paladin's divine challenge specifically defines it to be a magical compulsion, so players and dm don't argue about how that's done on animals etc.  If Warlord Presence was magical, I think they would have done the same but that's just my conjecture.

Jan 12, 2013 -- 6:04PM, Ghost007 wrote:

Jan 6, 2013 -- 3:51PM, Yendoroz wrote:

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.

Its pretty simple.  Treat this warlord ability like a magical ability then it all makes sense.  Magic dont need logic.  You and I treat it like a non-magical ability, henceforth ability to hear the warlord = warlord's ability to make a sound matters even though it's not clearly stipulated. Neither is wrong.  Both can be argued endlessly with both sides making equal sense.  I do tend to lean towards non-magic since Paladin's divine challenge specifically defines it to be a magical compulsion, so players and dm don't argue about how that's done on animals etc.  If Warlord Presence was magical, I think they would have done the same but that's just my conjecture.

You are right, you don't need logic.  What you need is clearcut rules.  Luckily we have those, and it still works if the warlord is petrified.

I'm going to chuck my opinion into the "can hear, even if you -don't- hear" crowd. If you look at this like a nonmagical ability, you're assuming that the Warlord is somehow constantly vocally inspiring his allies, even if for some reason there's no action going on (his ability still functions perfectly well even when he is surprised in an ambush and therefore not immediately aware of combat imminence). I find this unlikely and am more likely to go with the key difference between "can" and "do". If you can hear a sound that the warlord makes, whether or not you actually do hear a sound, you get the bonus.


Also, the Paladin's "magical compulsion" is more vulnerable to incapacitation than the Warlord's, since his Divine Challenge is ineffective if he can't engage or attack the target on his turn (even immobilization or a slowed condition can cause this, unlike this debate over petrifying the warlord). Despite being a magical compulsion, it has less claim to reliability than Combat Leader.