Warlords at D&D XP?

[Derro]

I think the warlord IS the bard. +/-

I'm not sure how serious a statement that is but consider this.

If I remember correctly what we know about the warlord indicates they are a mid-range combatant, have bolstering powers usable on the multiple allies, can heal from a non-standard source, and probably are the most charismatic of the martial source characters (how they compare against paladin I'm not sure).

That does kind of sound like the bard to me. I'm sure the window dressing is different. I'd imagine their combat role is closer to 3e cleric than 3e bard. Maybe this is illustrative of why there is no bard for core 4e. The designers would rather not overshadow a new toy with the re-working of an old one.

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, warlords sound like the plucky young protagonist archetype.

"We'll beat this dragon in no time, Believe it!"

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Same here, but I think we are not going to get it My players hate playing any religious characters so I always end up DM NPCing a party Cleric- I am sick of them. With 4E maybe one of them will be a Warlord, if not I'll be DM NPCing a Dragonborn Warlord FTW!

Or you could just not have a leader at all, and let your party use those healing surges.

 

[Ipissimus]

Playing devil's advocate here for a second, I'm not sure I see a big deal here or why anything should be changed. If you mix Rogue and rouge up, I mean, yeah, it's slightly embarassing and someone might pay you off about it any more than someone might pay me off about mixing up it and if in the wrong context. Ditto on Warlord/Warlock.

People complain on one hand that 4E is dumbing the game down yet they're supposed to account for someone's spelling mistake? Laugh it off and spell it right next time, make a few jokes, what's the issue?

 

[lutecius]

People complain on one hand that 4E is dumbing the game down yet they're supposed to account for someone's spelling mistake? Laugh it off and spell it right next time, make a few jokes, what's the issue?

I don't think it's a big issue for anyone, just us rambling, waiting for actual news.
hopefully someone with info will notice the thread!

 

[_sheepy_]

The fact that even native English speaker is confusing the name again and again indicates that there is a problem, and if they go ahead this will plague new and old players alike, causing communication problem and game time lost. The names look almost the same, pronounce almost the same, but is two totally different class powered by different powers and sit in different roles. I have confused them myself, was shocked for the confusing name choice, and still think it *needs* to be changed to anything with less 'confusibility'.

On the other hand, being a bard lover, I would support replacing warlord with bard. Maybe I should just go ahead and rename it in my campaign.

 

[The_Fan]

Playing devil's advocate here for a second, I'm not sure I see a big deal here or why anything should be changed. If you mix Rogue and rouge up, I mean, yeah, it's slightly embarassing and someone might pay you off about it any more than someone might pay me off about mixing up it and if in the wrong context. Ditto on Warlord/Warlock.

People complain on one hand that 4E is dumbing the game down yet they're supposed to account for someone's spelling mistake? Laugh it off and spell it right next time, make a few jokes, what's the issue?

*shrug* I don't think it's that big of a deal either. I find it vaguely amusing when someone, myself included, makes the mistake.

 

[Voss]

Or you could just not have a leader at all, and let your party use those healing surges.

After trying it out... that isn't going to work well. You *need* a leader.


@Derro. I don't think the warlord will be a mid-range combatant. More like front line, or secondary line. The cleric is almost mid range, but with the ranged combat weirdness, mid-range is 5 squares.

 

[Blacksway]

I suspect that the character they wanted to do was a Dragonborn Warlord, and apparently they didn't have enough miniatures to include the Dragonborn, so hence no Warlord either.

 

[lutecius]

I suspect that the character they wanted to do was a Dragonborn Warlord, and apparently they didn't have enough miniatures to include the Dragonborn, so hence no Warlord either.

A dragonborn warlord may have been too obvious.

Did you notice how they tried to shuffle "favored classes"?
No tiefling-warlock, elf ranger, eladrin wizard, halfling rogue

...well there was a dwarf fighter