Excerpt: The Warlord

[Steely Dan]

I say we change the name of the class to Mugabe!

 

[Stormtalon]

Then again, when I think of the word Warlord, what immediately pops into mind is this:

*edit -- 'cause I'm an idiot at linking images*

 

[I'm A Banana]

It may be that these roles turn out to be mandatory after all, but I think it'll be a lot more arguable in 4e than it is in 3e.

By all appearances, you will no more need a wizard in your party in 4e than you needed a cleric in your party in 3e. You'll just need to use "different tactics," which is exactly what a cleric-less party in 3e needed to do.

However, you would find that a cleric would be the BEST, and that the other classes wouldn't be quite as good, and this means that for the more swingy monsters (which, at high levels, got to be basically every monster), the need for very solid tactics would be more dramatic. So you got the impression that you "needed" a cleric, despite not REALLY needing a cleric.

You can probably cope without a wizard, too, but it seems like you'll be missing out on the BEST area-effect abilities, which can certainly make a difference in, say, a combat full of minions, or one with a highly mobile enemy.

I also found it annoying, although I wouldn't consider it "schizophrenia" so much as just different designers having different perspectives, the idea that companies or design teams are some sort of monolithic hive mind is not one I subscribe to.

Some schizophrenia is good, but too much means that I don't know how to tinker with the game. Is a game without a second controller working As Intended? What would a different controller look like? Can I ban wizards without making my party feel weaker? Etc.?

 

[hong]

Then again, when I think of the word Warlord, what immediately pops into mind is this:

*edit -- 'cause I'm an idiot at linking images*

I'll have you know that "grell warlord" inspired DOZENS of vivid images, none of which were satisfied by the actual picture.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Oh, yes, the whole 'where's the other controller' issue. I too share it; I don't understand why WotC injured the parallel nature of the game in this manner. I imagine it was due to market research; too many people like playing Rogues and Rangers to axe one (even at the beginning) in favor of another controller. I would hazard a guess that by the same market research, they figured that they could most easily 'skimp' on a Controller, since the Wizard is much 'more' iconic than a Cleric, especially from a 'wanna play' perspective.

 

[Remathilis]

My personal theory: there was to be a 9th class, but space constraints kicked it down the pipe.

 

[med stud]

1) If we accept barbarian as a class name, I can't see why we couldn't accept warlord.

2) According to the defenition, the warlord is someone who is "a military commander exercising civil power in a region". It doesn't say how much civil power that someone exercises. A level 1 warlord will be a leader of men. In certain settings (like Sweden in the 1000 ADs), 20 armed men under your command gave you a substantial power.

3) When I hear the word "marshal" I get the image of a Texas highway patrolman, and I'm not even American. The other image I get is the supreme leader of all armed forces. The term "marshal", at least in Swedish history, is the second in command to the king. I think that's much worse.

To get past the dictionary- game, I also think that the term marshal is very anachronistic. You have a paladin, a wizard, a rogue and a... marshal? It sounds silly to me, and I yet again get the picture of a US official.

 

[Stormtalon]

I'll have you know that "grell warlord" inspired DOZENS of vivid images, none of which were satisfied by the actual picture.

Yeah, but not a single one of those images would pass the Eric's Grandma test, now would they?

 

[Protagonist]

Edit: ninja'd mself

 

[Protagonist]

1) If we accept barbarian as a class name, I can't see why we couldn't accept warlord.

2) According to the defenition, the warlord is someone who is "a military commander exercising civil power in a region". It doesn't say how much civil power that someone exercises. A level 1 warlord will be a leader of men. In certain settings (like Sweden in the 1000 ADs), 20 armed men under your command gave you a substantial power.

3) When I hear the word "marshal" I get the image of a Texas highway patrolman, and I'm not even American. The other image I get is the supreme leader of all armed forces. The term "marshal", at least in Swedish history, is the second in command to the king. I think that's much worse.

To get past the dictionary- game, I also think that the term marshal is very anachronistic. You have a paladin, a wizard, a rogue and a... marshal? It sounds silly to me, and I yet again get the picture of a US official.

What he said. Especially #3, which might be an European /Non-American thing, but seems valid nonetheless.