Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[orc food]

Good grief man. Did you have this same issue with the Bard's inspire courage? With the Paladin's aura of courage?

Where did you get this idea that the other party members don't respect the Warlord? He's skilled in tactics. His ideas *work*. What, are the other party members idiots? If they complain when the warlord uses a tactical maneuver, do they likewise whine when the wizard announces his intention to fireball? I honestly don't understand your issue.

And yes, a party leader is indeed an archetype. Any group--any group, in any setting--works better when there's a clearly defined leader. Combat is not a time for decisions by committee. And a D&D party is by definition a 4-person combat squad.

Had a good l.o.l. at this one. NEVER seen a party respect a Bard or a Paladin. Not once in playing 3th ed from the start.
You state one on the problems I foresee with this class, The less then smart person taking the Warlord class to be crowned team "leader". AND not being up to it or having the party respect starting. It well get even more bad when the newbie DM try to make that person the "leader".

 

[orc food]

I have to say, many players in my group (myself included) are guilty of trying to take other people's turns for them, and I think the Warlord class finally gives me an excuse to put the hammer down on that kind of thing. "If you want someone else to do something for you, take some Warlord Training and give them some free actions to do it with; otherwise, please shut the hell up when it's someone else's turn."

Sadly, The other side of the gold piece is true. It also gives the same hammer to those that what to take over other person(s) turns.

 

[Wulfram]

I think I get a lot of the problems in this thread, and as long as they existed against the bard also, then there's not much room for discussion: do whatever you want to the warlord, he's not gonna please you as writ, because he's a bard that ran into a marshal in a null magic zone.

The bard is better, firstly because he operates through encouragement rather than instruction and secondly because what he does is less intrusive - he's basically giving me a plus to do what I want with it, not taking command of my character.

I just don't get some of the venom

No venom, just forceful argument

Your worldview appears to involve everyone being equally good at everything, with everyone sharing exceptional levels of genius and insightfulness. I wished I inhabited your worldview, because then I would be as brilliant with theoretical physics as Stephen Hawking and as clairvoyant as Rainman.

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying.

I expect Stephen Hawking to be brilliant at theoretical physics. What I do not expect is there being some guru who can, with a few words, tell him how better to do theoretical physics, and also tell Roger Federer how to play better tennis, Bill Gates how to make more money and Yo Yo Ma how to play the cello more beautifully.

All the other characters are specialists, good at their own thing. The warlord's job is telling them how to do their thing better, and that's a problem.

 

[Incenjucar]

All the other characters are specialists, good at their own thing. The warlord's job is telling them how to do their thing better, and that's a problem.

Coordination and managing are extremely potent in war and any other matter.

I don't see why generals and managers are a problem.

You basically just have a character whose role it is to notice things that you might miss because you're busy doing what you do with all your might while they're only doing enough damage to remain useful.

Their specialty is seeing advantages.

The only issue is that they called it a "lord."

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I get the feeling a lot of the venom directed at warlord class is because a lot of gamers seem to detest anyone telling them what to do... even if that "telling them what to do" is restricted to tactical hints and coordination in combat, which gives you bonuses. Can't really fathom it, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[rkanodia]

I get the feeling a lot of the venom directed at warlord class is because a lot of gamers seem to detest anyone telling them what to do... even if that "telling them what to do" is restricted to tactical hints and coordination in combat, which gives you bonuses. Can't really fathom it, but that's what it looks like to me.

"Alright, I scored a hit! Hammer and Anvil time, Lurks-no-More; grind that punk into dust with this free melee attack you get from my abilities!"
"What? Forget you, rkanodia, you're not my boss! Where do you get off telling me what to do?"

Coordination and managing are extremely potent in war and any other matter.

I don't see why generals and managers are a problem.

QFT. It's not like the average general is better at pounding sand than the average infantryman, yet I don't see that same infantryman being offended by the suggestion that the general might be better at organizing a battle.

Sadly, The other side of the gold piece is true. It also gives the same hammer to those that what to take over other person(s) turns.

I guess I don't see what the problem is with that - as long as the Warlord class doesn't interfere with my ability to also do whatever it was I had originally wanted to. From what little preview material we have seen, it would seem to be the case that Warlords give bonuses and free actions to other PCs, rather than forcing PCs to spend their own actions doing what the Warlord wants.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I expect Stephen Hawking to be brilliant at theoretical physics. What I do not expect is there being some guru who can, with a few words, tell him how better to do theoretical physics, and also tell Roger Federer how to play better tennis, Bill Gates how to make more money and Yo Yo Ma how to play the cello more beautifully.

But that's closer to the Bard ability to "Inspire Competence" then the Warlocks abilities! They are focussed on combat, and that's as "narrow" as theoretical physics, not as theoretical physics, cello playing, tennis and making money combined.

It's more about a collague of Stephen Hawking pointing out an error in one of the formulas he used, or showing him a mathematical concept that might be applicable to solve a complex equation. Maybe pointing out a conference about a similar topic then he's just working on which might be worth attending..

 

[Gloombunny]

He's telling them what to do, and they're obeying. Yup, sound's like a commander and his subordinates to me.

Suggestions are not the same thing as orders. They're... not even close, actually.

 

[Wulfram]

Generals operate on a completely different scale. They don't tell their soldiers where to stab, except in very broad terms.

If combat is so narrow and easy to master a field, what are all these classes doing? I assume the Warlord doesn't spend his time just looking after the Fighter.

The difference between suggestions and orders is getting pretty semantic when there's a Leader who tells people what to do and some others who do what they're told. Whether or not they phrase things politely isn't really of much import.

Edit: One more thing. There's one set of people telling me that the warlord makes sense because there are all these military leaders around, and another lot telling me that the warlord isn't really in charge. These two don't really fit together. In fact, a sergeant type leader character can make sense - but that doesn't require a seperate class to do, but rather the cooperation and support of the other PCs, which is just as it should be.

 

[Incenjucar]

Warlords are like having the passenger in the car you're driving looking to make sure you're not about to get rammed while you are merging on the highway during rush hour.