Leader Role: The end of the cleric?

[Aldarc]

MMORPGs to the rescue! They'll keep the concept alive.

(And no, WoW is not among them here, WoW-haters. There's paladins, shamans and priests, none of which are D&D clerics, although D&D clerics show up in EverQuest and other games.)

There are also no D&D Paladins in WoW either. In WoW, the Paladin is half D&D Cleric & Paladin. And the WoW Shaman also fulfills a similar role as the battle-healing cleric that is capable of fighting, healing, or decent attack spells if pressed. The priest is the pure support aspect of the cleric.

But overall, calling the role "leader" is basically glorifying the support role. And you know there are going to be people who think that having the leader role will now make them the party leader. And it almost sounds as if they are trying to justify the continued existence of the cleric. I wish that D&D would just go the way of True20 or AE and get rid of the cleric and just have mages who cast all sorts of magic, healing or otherwise.

 

[Darkness]

Same impression I got, too. I'm REALLY hoping they don't stick with "Warlord" as the name, because it's confusing the heck out of people.

But WAR drawing a picture of a warforged warlord with a warhammer would be kinda neat.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But WAR drawing a picture of a warforged warlord with a warhammer would be kinda neat.

Good one.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I like the insta-hooks: pick St. Cuthbert and you immediately get a default personality, goals, enemies.

Well, to be fair: religion is an insta-hook for any class. A fighter, mage, or rogue--all worshiping St. Cuthbert--can also have that default personality, goals, enemies.

I too am sick of the cleric class, and am really glad to see other solutions to the old question, "who will patch us up?" become available. I liked the Dragon Shaman, and am very interested in seeing this new Warlord class in play.

As for the name, I don't understand the problem. A warlord is anybody who leads warriors. The warlord class fills the Leader role, and derives his power from a Martial (as opposed to the cleric's Divine) source. It's the perfect name. A leader (1st level warlord) of a petty street gang (composed of 1st level fighters) can reasonably call himself a warlord, or at least a "warband leader".

I suppose they could have called the role Marshal or Sergeant, but those have military/organizational/rank implications that may be undesirable. "Warlord", to me, seems as generic as you can get. What other generic, single word could you use to describe a martial leader who tells warriors, strikers, and controllers what to do?

 

[KingCrab]

I've never liked the cleric. It's much too similar to the paladin.

I've liked clerics and hated paladins for the similar reasons. That and all the goody two shoes paladin morality issues.

 

[KingCrab]

Can someone explain to me the rationalization behind the Warlord? I don't mind shaking up the core game, but the term "warlord" strikes me as someone who has elevated himself above others either through a high CHA or fear or intimidation. I have a hard time seeing a 1st level character with an average Charisma doing this very well. However, if the concept is that 1st level characters are already head and shoulders above commoners, maybe it makes sense. Maybe a 1st level warlord can realistically wrangle a tribe of 50 1st level commoners or warriors.

Agreed. The name is bad. It's quite a charged term, even these days, one heard on the news when politicians speak about current leaders they disapprove of in other countries.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oh, definitely. I've always been curious though why vampire turning became its own mechanic, when stuff like exorcising demons fell under the umbrella of spellcasting.

To be fair, in 1e clerics *could* turn demons (and evil clerics turn paladins. Heh.)

 

[Klaus]

To be fair, in 1e clerics *could* turn demons (and evil clerics turn paladins. Heh.)

Which was teh awesome.

Turning Paladins FTW!

 

[GreatLemur]

And I'd prefer that the cleric keep his "holy warrior" role, suitable for any god, with the paladin reserved as a unique champion that Lawful Good gets, to reflect a mythic/legendary archetype. Non-LG paladins as a core rule MAY be a deal-breaker for me switching to 4e.

See, I'm really happy about the non-LG Paladin announcement, as I've always felt that classes should be skill sets, not world views or life styles.

And I'm totally with Gort on the "Why do we need two holy warrior classes?" issue. The Cloistered Cleric is a better class than the regular Cleric, by far.

But WAR drawing a picture of a warforged warlord with a warhammer would be kinda neat.

And then he can multiclass as a Warlord/Warblade/Warlock/Warmage.

But, yeah, I've got to agree with a lot of folks here: Warlord ain't an ideal name. "Commander" would be better.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

See, I'm really happy about the non-LG Paladin announcement, as I've always felt that classes should be skill sets, not world views or life styles.

By and large I agree with you. The bard, for example, I have NEVER had a problem with, if you look at it as a skill set and ignore the rather silly flavor. He's got a unique set of abilities that are outstandingly useful and a great deal of fun.

The paladin I've viewed differently, since without the flavor he really is just a fighter/cleric. There's no need for a paladin class for anything OTHER than the flavor of "The Ultimate Heroic Good Guy, or At Least Someone Striving To Be." And, it's such a strong archetype in heroic fantasy (much more prominent than the bard).