Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

[rounser]

I don't see as that leaves you a whole lot of room to complain, then. If you want an implicit setting served up to you that you don't have to change, then you either have to hunt long and hard, hope and pray that some third-party makes a setting you can stand, or else learn to live with disappointment. Or do what everyone else does and modify the game according to their taste.

But I didn't have to hunt long and hard, and hope and pray. D&D was what I wanted, and now it's been borked up.

 

[Hussar]

What isn't?

1) They don't fit an adventuring party, they should be commanding an army. An adventuring party is a group of heroes who cooperate, not a military hierarchy with orders being thrown around. This is the first class that actually attacks the nature of the adventuring party, and implies that everyone's running Black Company. Very, very shortsighted. All of a sudden, if someone takes "warlord", your formerly independent Conan-type becomes a shoe-licking subservient looking up to the inspiration and guiding tactical light of his precious master and hierarchical leader, because that's what the sodding rules imply.

No, they really don't. Warlord is no different than cleric. Did clerics take over your group? Because, let's face it, in a medieval setting, your average clergyman had a fair bit of power.

2) The name is completely wrong. A warlord has land and troops, has current currency of commiting atrocities, and the status the name implies makes no sense at low level. It's like having a first level archmage. There is no role behind the name - the idea of saying "we need a new warlord" in the tavern is ludicrous - adventuring parties are adventurers, not soldiers. They go on adventures by default, they don't "declare war"! This name, this concept, belong on a battlefield with soldiers at the "warlord's" beck and call, and a D&D party is NOT that.

You actually had people saying, "We need a new rogue"? in the tavern? And they got answers to that? There are more definitions of Warlord than the one you insist on using, and they fit the bill very well.

3) The warlord's powers imply that somehow he's more knowledgeable about archery than the ranger, more knowledgeable about blade combat than the specialist fighter - he's the dork know-it-all who somehow knows better than the specialists about their specialty, if they'd only listen to him. It makes no sense in a D&D class context, where classes are the masters of their own specialist domains. The warlord's specialist domain is "illegitimate contemptuous out-of-line order-barking know-it-all who deserves to be ignored if it weren't for the stupid rules" IMO.

Buh? Did the 3e bard somehow come across as being more knowledgeable about archery than the ranger? Yet, somehow, the bard giving encouragement to the ranger made him better at fighting. The bard, whose attack bonus is miles behind the fighter's, could make the fighter fight better.

4) If they really have to exist in the game, IMO all the warlord's powers should have been dismembered and distributed among the classes. The ranger should be instructing the other PCs on how best to do archery, the fighter how to fight with a sword and board maybe etc.

Okay, enough ranting...but really, argh!

Again, buh? You have no problems with the bard, but you have problems with the warlord who's doing pretty much EXACTLY the same thing - using his force of personality to make people fight better.

This one I really don't get.

 

[Mallus]

D&D was what I wanted, and now it's been borked up.

You really liked that mish-mash as is?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You really like to play the man and not the ball, don't you?

Hong's antics are an established "feature" of ENworld. By default they are always on, but you can turn them off with the Ignore feature.

 

[Wormwood]

You really liked that mish-mash as is?

4e is the first edition of D&D that I've played directly out of the core books without any changes.

 

[rounser]

No, they really don't. Warlord is no different than cleric. Did clerics take over your group? Because, let's face it, in a medieval setting, your average clergyman had a fair bit of power.

The cleric never implied a hierarchy. The next PC could tell them to stick their holy symbol where the sun didn't shine, because they a) worshipped another god, and b) could throw lightning bolts on a whim.

You actually had people saying, "We need a new rogue"? in the tavern? And they got answers to that? There are more definitions of Warlord than the one you insist on using, and they fit the bill very well.

It makes sense for a D&D party to need a "burglar", just as they do so in the Hobbit. The dwarves need a burglar, and Bilbo turns out to be it.

Again, buh? You have no problems with the bard, but you have problems with the warlord who's doing pretty much EXACTLY the same thing - using his force of personality to make people fight better.

The bard never ordered anyone about. World of difference.

This one I really don't get.

That's okay. I consider all your counterarguments refuted.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What isn't?

1) They don't fit an adventuring party, they should be commanding an army. An adventuring party is a group of heroes who cooperate, not a military hierarchy with orders being thrown around. This is the first class that actually attacks the nature of the adventuring party, and implies that everyone's running Black Company. Very, very shortsighted. All of a sudden, if someone takes "warlord", your formerly independent Conan-type becomes a shoe-licking subservient looking up to the inspiration and guiding tactical light of his precious master and hierarchical leader, because that's what the sodding rules imply.

2) The name is completely wrong. A warlord has land and troops, has current currency of commiting atrocities, and the status the name implies makes no sense at low level. It's like having a first level archmage. There is no role behind the name - the idea of saying "we need a new warlord" in the tavern is ludicrous - adventuring parties are adventurers, not soldiers. They go on adventures by default, they don't "declare war"! This name, this concept, belong on a battlefield with soldiers at the "warlord's" beck and call, and a D&D party is NOT that.

3) The warlord's powers imply that somehow he's more knowledgeable about archery than the ranger, more knowledgeable about blade combat than the specialist fighter - he's the dork know-it-all who somehow knows better than the specialists about their specialty, if they'd only listen to him. It makes no sense in a D&D class context, where classes are the masters of their own specialist domains. The warlord's specialist domain is "illegitimate contemptuous out-of-line order-barking know-it-all who deserves to be ignored if it weren't for the stupid rules" IMO.

4) If they really have to exist in the game, IMO all the warlord's powers should have been dismembered and distributed among the legitimate D&D classes. The ranger should be instructing the other PCs on how best to do archery, the fighter how to fight with a sword and board maybe, the paladin should inspire with his righteous divine courage etc.

Okay, enough ranting...but really, argh!

A well formulated and well thought-out post... I totally can't agree with.

I love the Warlord. I don't care if there could be a better name, it is an interesting archetype.

On points 1&2): Who would go into a tavern and call out "We need a Priest on our adventuring mission!" D&D assumes that everyone is religiously interested enough to get a priest together, not only showing some token respect to his faith, but actually relying on it.
A party can have a Warlord, a party can have a Cleric. Maybe they are militaristic and belief in a ordered combat so they prefer being lead by a Warlord, or they trust in the gods and let a Cleric join their ranks.

On points 3&4): The Warlord sees opening the Ranger does not. Not because the Ranger is less competent, but because the Warlord is standing somewhere else and is trained to look at the entire flow of the combat. The Ranger focuses on his target. He can't afford to spend so much time contemplating all of the enemies or allied movement or actions. The Warlord can, but he is giving up options to directly act himself.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The cleric never implied a hierarchy. The next PC could tell them to stick their holy symbol where the sun didn't shine, because they a) worshipped another god, and b) could throw lightning bolts on a whim.

And the Cleric still offers him the benefit of his faith, like his precious healing magic? Or is the Cleric actually also in a very strong position of power, since others need him to survive or heal?

 

[Fifth Element]

1) They don't fit an adventuring party, they should be commanding an army. An adventuring party is a group of heroes who cooperate, not a military hierarchy with orders being thrown around.

If this doesn't fit the party, don't imagine it that way. There is more than one way to imagine a warlord in action. If this one bothers you, don't use it.

2) The name is completely wrong.

Ditto cleric, druid, barbarian, ranger, etc. These only have the advantage of having been wrong for a long time, so we're used to it. Don't like the name? Don't use the name.

3) The warlord's powers imply that somehow he's more knowledgeable about archery than the ranger, more knowledgeable about blade combat than the specialist fighter - he's the dork know-it-all who somehow knows better than the specialists about their specialty, if they'd only listen to him.

Nope, he's just more knowledgeable in tactics. He finds the openings and positions the enemies, it's up to the allies to make their attacks.

4) If they really have to exist in the game, IMO all the warlord's powers should have been dismembered and distributed among the legitimate D&D classes.

You're missing the point of the warlord entirely. The warlord is about tactics. The warlord is not a better archer than the ranger. Just look at their ranged attacks. But he can spot opportunities that the ranger would have missed, for example.

 

[Tervin]

I don't love the name "warlord" but I can live with it. After all, if I have accepted the concept of "paladins" at first level or "clerics" that are out adventuring, I think warlords are sort of ok by default. And... "warlord" is just a name of a class, not something that influences the game itself. I like the concept of warlord in my D&D. Isn't that what really matters?