Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[Fallen Seraph]

It is not so much the Warlord is the expert on everything, as much as he is the expert at combining the various strengths of the classes. He could very well become the glue that the party sticks too.

 

[rounser]

It is not so much the Warlord is the expert on everything, as much as he is the expert at combining the various strengths of the classes. He could very well become the glue that the party sticks too.

Or killed, and his stuff taken. Yep, I think that's the ticket.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Lol, well I guess that is the big difference, I think it is justified and works as a single class. You think it works best divided amongst the rest of the classes.

Neither of us can really say till we get our hands on the books

 

[Zaruthustran]

Not so.

war·lord (wôr'lôrd') Pronunciation Key
n. A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it.

And I haven't excluded any definitions to make my point.

I'll repeat what I said before, which is that King is a title. King Midas. King Arthur. King Henry. Warlord is a descriptive term. It's improper to say "Warlord Bob". It is proper to say "Bob, who is a warlord."

Also, King comes with necessary baggage (like a kingdom). If someone says "I'm a king" you can rightly ask "of what kingdom?"The dictionary definition mentions civil power, sure, but the word Warlord is not a title. If someone says "I'm a warlord" I suppose you could ask "and what region do you exercise civil power over?", but really it's not at all the same thing. And anyway, the warlord could rightly answer "this party/this battlefield".

I could bring up the dictionary definition of all the other classes, but honestly they're equally useless at describing the function of D&D classes. I mean, Cleric is "member of a the clergy". Great, real helpful there.

The important thing is not the definition in Webster's, but the definition in the PHB. I guess one can dislike the choice of name, but it doesn't make sense to claim that choice is wrong. The PHB authors could name the class "Zasdafd" if they wanted to.

Me, I would have preferred Captain. But it's Warlord. Oh well; no big deal.

Only, it shouldn't be named that, and it shouldn't be a core class, because that archetype belongs on the military battlefield where there's a hierarchy and underlings to order around, or in the war room or engaged in political skullduggery...not in a company of heroes.

Shouldn't be? It's all opinion; there is no objective right or wrong here. At the end of the day the designers had to come up with a name for a class that fit the archetype of combat leader. They could have called it captain, or sergeant... and people would complain those words are too strongly associated with a formal military. They could have called it knight... and people would complain that's too similar to paladin, or carry an implied code of honor and fealty. They could have called it marshal and even that would be decried as awful (I have no idea why; but judging by the poll most people don't like it).

Anyway: they called the class "Warlord." It's not right. It's not wrong. It's just a name.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Seriously. It seems to me that the Paladin would make an effective 'leader', without requireing a fancy new class called warlord. The paladin could have the leadership abilities, aura's, boosts,etc. Just remove paladin spellcasting and add in everything else from the warlord and what you already have for the paladin.

I dunno, just something about the paladin screams 'LEADER'.

I couldn't agree more. Even earlier editions of D&D described Paladins as natural leaders. And unlike the Warlord, it actually makes sense for them to have healing abilities.

 

[Sitara]

Yeah, especially as the fighter seems to have killed the knight and taken his stuff. (drawing attacks upon him self, rawing fire, etc). Though the paladin may have taken some of the knights stuff as well, especially the mounted abilities.

 

[DandD]

The Fighter should kill the Paladin and the Barbarian and take their stuff too. Or, alternatively, the Cleric smites the Paladin and calls himself the new big mojo, when he follows that talent-tree.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

What's so terrible about having a character that is capable of effectively directing tactics in a squad and giving bonuses to allies due to his superior knowledge of combat? If your character is so much of a maverick that he outright refuses aid on this level, you're free to decline any bonuses given by the Warlord.

 

[rounser]

What's so terrible about having a character that is capable of effectively directing tactics in a squad

Adventuring parties aren't, by default, military squads. This is Dungeons & Dragons, not Saving Private Drizzt.

and giving bonuses to allies due to his superior knowledge of combat?

Fighters should have "a superior knowledge of combat." The "warlord" appears at this stage to be an imposter, a collection of crunch with no obvious flavour justification off of the military battlefield.

If your character is so much of a maverick

Heroes that are autonomous are the rule, not the exception. They may cooperate and act as a team, but the ones who take orders from others are the exception, and they're generally called "soldiers" or "mercenaries". Not every adventuring party is a military squad like the Black Company, and the warlord seems to imply that this is the case - if you accept the "sergeant" version of the "warlord". The "White Raven" version doesn't make sense in terms of archetype either.

that he outright refuses aid on this level, you're free to decline any bonuses given by the Warlord.

The rules shouldn't force you to make this suboptimal choice. The rules should change, not the nature of D&D's adventuring party conceit, IMO.

I hope that this isn't the case, and that I'm wrong about what the warlord is going to be. It's just looking a bit bleak so far IMO.

 

[Belphanior]

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

Well then let's hope there's never going to be a blackguard class again. "We killed us some guards" is going to be hugely misinterpreted... but not as badly as "we killed us some blacks".