I just realized what bugs me about Warlords . . .

[Gloombunny]

They're not all that dissimilar by my understanding.

The difference is scale, of course.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm viewing the matter from a "minimalist" perspective, where the fewer base classes, the better.

I'm with you on the concept of minimalist base classes - but I think it's been pretty firmly established that isn't the direction that they are going here. As long as we can have fun with all the classes I'm happy though

Cheers

 

[Wulfram]

Warlords get an ego boosting name, because what they are doing will be rather unglamourous buffing and healing. Just like they are calling it's role the "leader", rather than the probably more accurate "support".

They know that people often don't want to be the healer. In 3e, they tried to counter this by making the support character very powerful. In 4e, they're trying to make it seem cool.

 

[rounser]

'm just trying to save myself the pounding headache of having to deal with Warforged Warlock/Warlords down the line.

An excerpt from the latest 4E playtest:

Warren the Warforged Warlord/Warlock wode into town on his warg. There, his fellow party members Reginald the Rogue, Roger the Warrior and Roderick the Wizard came out to greet their warforged friend.

"Weginald," said Warren, "you are such a wascally wogue. I have a good mind to decware war on you, you wapscallion. Woger and Woderwick, I can wead you against him!"

"Oh you silly warlord, Warren!" said Reginald.

And they all had a good laugh.

 

[Imp]

Then Warren the Warforged Warlock/Warlord gets married to Wowilda the welf by the priest from Princess Bride.

Augh! Aspirin!

 

[Zaruthustran]

Warlord evokes to me a commander, some type of fighter leader who would thus be mid-to-high level. This is not generic enough.

Well, the warlord *is* a commander. It's a class that fills the Leader role; it leads the party.

If you, me, and Bob get in a room and decide to work on a project, and we all elect for Bob to schedule tasks and monitor timelines--in other words, we make Bob the manager--then that's pretty much the same thing. The title "Warlord" is equivalent to "Manager". It's the guy in charge. Both titles imply responsibility and leadership, but neither title implies experience.

 

[Odhanan]

Well, the warlord *is* a commander. It's a class that fills the Leader role; it leads the party.

Is there a description of the warlord class that specifically spells out its role as leader of the group, or did you just assume it is? I'd agree with your argument, but then, I would potentially have a problem with the class itself, no longer its name.

 

[rounser]

The title "Warlord" is equivalent to "Manager".

No. No it's not.

Dictionaries define it as a military leader of a nation, or a commander who has seized power. Adventuring parties are neither armies nor nations. It's just a misnomer, plain and simple.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Is there a description of the warlord class that specifically spells out its role as leader of the group, or did you just assume it is? I'd agree with your argument, but then, I would potentially have a problem with the class itself, no longer its name.

We already know that there are four main class roles that are going to be a formal part of 4E: the defender, the striker, the controller, and the leader. The Warlord is already known to be under the Leader role, and the Martial power source. So yes, the Warlord is going to be the leader of a party by that definition, at least in the same way the Cleric is going to be the Divine Leader.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

They're not all that dissimilar by my understanding.

If you really think that Alexander the Great or Napoleon are similar in some way to the local drug dealer who hangs around on the street corner with his three hooligan friends, then I can only weep at the inadequacy of the formal schooling you have received.