Warlove? Warhate?

[Swack-Iron]

To begin with, I don't like the concept of having a "leader" class in and of itself. The assumption that if there's a Warlord in the party then my character will defer to his leadership and advice in combat, doesn't sit well with me at all. Writing rules that put one character in a position of authority (no matter how subtle) over others is boneheaded design.

I've seen this opinion expressed a couple of times on this thread, and I'd like to state that in the game I'm in it doesn't necessarily play that way.

In the 3.5 game I'm a member of we have a marshal, but the party's "leader" is actually a bard (and an odd sword-and-board oriented bard at that). The bard speaks for the party in front on nobles, makes a lot of strategic decisions, and often makes tactical decisions during fights.

The marshal is more like a lieutenant, or a tactical genius, than a leader. That's mostly due to the fact that the marshal's player just doesn't like leading, but he likes making tactical contributions. So when our party benefits from one of our marshal's abilities, it's more like we take inspiration from him, or we enhance our own abilities based on the marshal's advice. Less "I command you to hold the left flank!" and more "Hey rogue, if you slide a couple of inches to the right you'll get a better backstab!"

So although the warlord looks like it's written up with a lot of fluff (and some abilities) that imply command authority on the battlefield, it doesn't have to be played that way.

Edited slightly for clarity.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I quite like the Warlord. It will make combat much more interesting and have more specific strategies being deployed thanks to the Warlord. I don't really see the Warlord as bossy or a immediate party-leader. I seem him as someone who watches his friends back, tries to assist them and understands the flow of battle better. He is in some regards more background-character then forefront-character.

 

[Starbuck_II]

On the other hand, I've yet to see a Warlord power that really makes me go "wow, that is awesome!" to the same extent as with other classes. I'm also slightly concerned about the absence of heavy armor training even though it’s a melee-focused class, though I suppose their AC should still be ok in light armor due to decent Int.
my warrior-based characters. I'm definitely looking forward to check out the full product.

Dude, Chain mail is heavy in 4.0, it was meduim in 3.5; it was never light.

Now there is only Light /Heavy.
While they made Hide light, everything meduim they kept is now heavy.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The name is still stupid. Surprisingly enough, the names of the powers in the excerpt are at least decent.

The execution, however, seems solid enough. Names can be changed.

 

[mmu1]

So although the warlord looks like it's written up with a lot of fluff (and some abilities) that imply command authority on the battlefield, it doesn't have to be played that way.

I can see your point, but it just doesn't work for me - in the thick of combat, when trying to coordinate multiple individuals, you don't have time for polite suggestions... you can try to cast it in a different light, but I just find it rather forced.

 

[jackston2]

The Leader category is really just an illusion, an image spin. What does the "leader" do in the end? Help other people. If anything, the "leader" is uncomfortably close to being a "servant".

The least you could do to thank someone for watching your back every day is to call him a leader.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Yes, Warlord is a misnomer. Because the word implies a certain degree of power that a 1st level character probably doesn't have; moreover, it implies an intrinsically greater amount of influence than any other class, except perhaps Paladin. Paladin ended up working out all right, maybe Warlord will too, name-wise.
Actually, maybe it's "Fighter" that is the badly-named class now. Maybe if Fighter was instead called straightforwardly "Tank" or "Gladiator," Warlord wouldn't seem like a pretentious ripoff.

Edit:
Also, it's pretty obvious Warlord doesn't need to be The leader. Only really annoying people would consider that playing this class gives them an automatic right to veto other party members' actions.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Edit:
Also, it's pretty obvious Warlord doesn't need to be The leader. Only really annoying people would consider that playing this class gives them an automatic right to veto other party members' actions.

They already mentioned that "Leader, not boss" is a sidebar in the PHB that explicitly points out that being a Warlord or Cleric doesn't put you in charge of the group. I wanna say it was mentioned on the boards a while back.

I'm happy to have the Warlords Griffith to the Fighter's Guts. </anime> Definitely happy, though I do want to see a few more "active" powers out of the class, too.

 

[mmadsen]

Warlord is the Simulationist Roleplayer's dream come true!

Is that sarcasm?

 

[pukunui]

Personally, I don't find the class all that interesting and I strongly agree with the sentiment that the name "warlord" is a misnomer (I think it would be more appropriate for a martial-oriented paragon path), I have no problem with idea of having a "tactician" class. There's definitely a place for that sort of thing in the game and I've got at least one player in my group who'd be interested in it, so I'll let it alone (except maybe to change the name if I can think of a better one).

If the choice of what classes to put in the PHBI had been up to me, though, I'd have picked bard over warlord (especially considering that the bard was supposedly the first class they finished and yet they still chose to leave it out ...).