Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Fighters should have "a superior knowledge of combat."

The Fighter is superior in close combat. He knows how to hit a foe where it hurts, keep his attention, and so on. He knows fighting styles, he knows how to use his sword to best effect.

The Warlord strength is keeping the whole battle flow in mind. He oversees the combat, he identifies the best targets for attacks and can direct others to strike at the cruicial moment.

The Fighter concentrates his efforts on one target. The Warlord coordinates the efforts of the party so that everyone strikes at the best possible target.

 

[rounser]

The Warlord strength is keeping the whole battle flow in mind. He oversees the combat, he identifies the best targets for attacks and can direct others to strike at the cruicial moment.

No he doesn't. He doesn't exist in an adventuring party. He's on a battlefield somewhere, directing troops in some war. He belongs in a D&D party no more than a sapper or engineer does. The warlord simply doesn't belong in the PHB, regardless of what WOTC have done, IMO.

 

[Wulfram]

The Warlord's basically a Fighter doing Clericy stuff so that people can choose not to play the Cleric. It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me, but making sense seems to be even less of a priority in this edition than in previous edition. Making sense probably isn't very cool.

 

[Sitara]

A lot of players really don't like being told what to do though, especially not by other players. So when the warlords of 4e start sprouting orders, I forsee some issues in gaming groups world over.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No he doesn't. He doesn't exist in an adventuring party. He's on a battlefield somewhere, directing troops in some war. He belongs in a D&D party no more than a sapper or engineer does. The warlord simply doesn't belong in the PHB, regardless of what WOTC have done, IMO.

Not IMO.

Maybe seeing an actual Warlord in play may convince one (or for fun: both) of us otherwise. (Remember: If a class is fun to play - without detracting the fun of others, obviously - not the class is wrong. Our game design theory saying the class is not appropriate and need to be removed is wrong. And vice versa.)

So, I am going for an "agree to disagree".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A lot of players really don't like being told what to do though, especially not by other players. So when the warlords of 4e start sprouting orders, I forsee some issues in gaming groups world over.

I think that has a lot to do with how the Warlord's player acts.

If he tells you "Yo, guys, I use my Feather Yon Oaf against the Hobgoblin Soldier - everyone can take an immediate action to attack him with his bows!" or "I use my Point out Exposed Belly Button on the Sorceress If you attack her you get +4 damage!", I think most players will be inclined to use the benefits.
Now if he says "Stupid Fighter, attack that damn Ogre - he nearly hit me last round!", the Fighter player might be inclined to ignore him.

Now, in-game, the Warlord might yell commands, but that doesn't mean he has to yell them to the players.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I'm still not seeing the issue, here. People are essentially saying that the Warlord should not be able to direct his allies in combat due to his superior knowledge of tactics, for precisely what reason? The fact that he is better than you at understanding combat and how to direct the efforts of a group in battle is so terrible, why?

To me, it's like saying that while tracking an enemy through dense woodlands, you shouldn't have to follow the Rangers lead. Well, guess what, you don't have to follow the Rangers lead, you can go off trying to find the target on your own, but due to the Rangers superior training and ability in this area, you're better off following his lead in that situation.

Same with the Warlord and tactical expertise. He's better at it than others, so, following his lead in that situation is of benefit to you. And why is this a bad thing?

 

[ObsidianCrane]

No he doesn't. He doesn't exist in an adventuring party. He's on a battlefield somewhere, directing troops in some war. He belongs in a D&D party no more than a sapper or engineer does. The warlord simply doesn't belong in the PHB, regardless of what WOTC have done, IMO.

How do you know that?

Have you read the 4E PHB and the fluff for the Warlord?

Because reading the fluff in R&C makes Aragorn from the LotR movies leap to mind, particularly in the Fellowship, and Two Towers stuff.

Others here have brought up the idea of how ordering the other players around will be bad, to which I can only shrug and say "not in my experience". The combination of RP and real mechanical benefit smooths that over real fast, as long as like some others have pointed out you are not obnoxious about it.

The Bo9S power "Leading the Charge" would seem to be a great example of the idea of the Warlord you can use now, heck the Bard's Inspire Courage ability to use something from the PHB works as well (Imagine "Perform (Speech)" as the basis of the Bards power, then think about how often its used in movies....).

The main argument against Warlords seems to be their name, or based in literal thinking derived from their name, try a little more lateral thinking and see where it takes you.

 

[Wulfram]

I think that has a lot to do with how the Warlord's player acts.

If he tells you "Yo, guys, I use my Feather Yon Oaf against the Hobgoblin Soldier - everyone can take an immediate action to attack him with his bows!" or "I use my Point out Exposed Belly Button on the Sorceress If you attack her you get +4 damage!", I think most players will be inclined to use the benefits.
Now if he says "Stupid Fighter, attack that damn Ogre - he nearly hit me last round!", the Fighter player might be inclined to ignore him.

Now, in-game, the Warlord might yell commands, but that doesn't mean he has to yell them to the players.

So basically the warlords great, as long as you don't do any roleplaying?

Whatever you're doing OOC, IC it still amounts to the warlord being the boss, and the rest thus his subordinates.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

In combat he understands positioning and tactical advantage better than the other characters, and gives them direction/leadership that aids them in combat. This, in some way, turns the other PCs into his subordinates? The Warlord is actively aiding his friends and allies with his superior understanding of battle, just as a Rogue would aid his friends when engaged in a dinner with the leading nobles of the city, or a Wizard would aid his friends when identifying strange mystical writings found in the lair of the arch villain.

If anything, the Warlord takes less of the forefront than in the other examples I've given, since he's merely assisting the group in performing better in combat, rather than completely taking over the situation as a solo act. So how, precisely, is this lessening the importance of the other PCs in any way?