Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[Fallen Seraph]

This is more just my general view on how a Warlord in a descriptive scene would be used in combat.

The Warlord crashes the hilt of his blade into the Goblin's head crushing it, as it collapses; it reveals a Ogre about to strike the the Rogue, he yells out, the Rogue spins around and guts the Ogre.

In game-terms: The Warlord kills the Goblin, enabling a party-member a AoO. He designates the Rogue, seeing that he is in the weakest position. The Rogue is able to use the AoO to kill the Ogre.

This enables both in-game rping benefits as well as out-of-game tactical strategy.

 

[rounser]

The Warlord crashes the hilt of his blade into the Goblin's head crushing it, as it collapses; it reveals a Ogre about to strike the the Rogue, he yells out, the Rogue spins around and guts the Ogre.

That's a good handwave so that no toes get trod upon, but a class and archetype that does not make.

"My PC is really good at calling out warnings" <- Not worthy of a class.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It was simply one example, the same can be said of any class if you only look at one ability. The most basic of fighter abilities = I hit things with a sword. That doesn't make a class, but it is the basis for which a fighter class develops.

With a Warlord a number of things can develop from communicating, and I think that is the emphasis, communicating not ordering. The Warlord actually makes battles something where both in and out of character people communicate more. No longer is it simply PC vs. monster.

Other abilities a Warlord could give is:

-Declaring a weak-spot on a enemy, giving person who strikes that enemy next a Attack bonus.
-A successful tumble through enemy space, knocks them aside, and gives AoO to all PC nearby.
-Free attacks on a enemy

The one thing I will say about the name I dislike, it gets annoying when you accidentally type "Warlock" instead of "Warlord"

 

[rounser]

With a Warlord a number of things can develop from communicating, and I think that is the emphasis, communicating not ordering. The Warlord actually makes battles something where both in and out of character people communicate more. No longer is it simply PC vs. monster.

Which is an excellent example of how all this business should have been wrapped into the fighter class, or paladin class or something (as this thread seems to be suggesting). It doesn't deserve the distinction of a class, which is why it's got no concept apart from "battle aid guy", which is just package of abilities, not an archetype. That's a big hint that it shouldn't exist as a core D&D class.

 

[Incenjucar]

The one thing I will say about the name I dislike, it gets annoying when you accidentally type "Warlock" instead of "Warlord"

People will probably just start calling them locks and lords. Compound words don't last long on the internet.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Which is an excellent example of how all this business should have been wrapped into the fighter class, or paladin class or something (as this thread seems to be suggesting). It doesn't deserve the distinction of a class, which is why it's got no concept apart from "battle aid guy", which is just package of abilities, not an archetype. That's a big hint that it shouldn't exist as a core D&D class.

Well I guess here is when it really comes down to personal interpretation, neither can be truly proved right or wrong on this account. It all depends on how you view a archetype.

This has actually gotten me tempted to make a very-weak, possibly disabled Warlock, who was a great warrior in the past. Now a party of youngsters (in his eyes) has joined him in his last great adventure. They heed his call in battle and centre protectively around him, cutting down foes left and right thanks to his training and keen eyes.

 

[The Shadow]

It occurs to me that if one doesn't care for the warlord, but likes the idea of inspirational powers as a talent tree, you can always ban the class but allow people to take Warlord Training from another class.

So far as I can tell, that basically *does* turn a class into a talent tree. (Of course, we don't know the details yet, but I think this is close to being right.) I think the Training feats have a lot of potential for tweaking campaign flavor. Want a low-magic game? Don't allow spellcasting classes, but let people Train in them a bit.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which is an excellent example of how all this business should have been wrapped into the fighter class, or paladin class or something (as this thread seems to be suggesting). It doesn't deserve the distinction of a class, which is why it's got no concept apart from "battle aid guy", which is just package of abilities, not an archetype. That's a big hint that it shouldn't exist as a core D&D class.

This is purely a matter of preference. Where does a package of abilities end, and a class begin? A paladin can be viewed as a package of abilities as well.

 

[rounser]

double post

 

[rounser]

Where does a package of abilities end, and a class begin? A paladin can be viewed as a package of abilities as well.

With an archetype. In the paladin's case, "holy knight". Warlord seemingly doesn't have a unifying concept other than "combat aid", which isn't an archetype.

We'll go around in circles, though, because you'll point to some military leader archetype that doesn't belong in an adventuring party. I'll refer you to earlier in the thread if you want to play that game.