Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[Fallen Seraph]

I think one thing not being examined, is we are looking at each class, each player as a separate entity. Obviously when a group of people join a party, there is a reason. One of the most basic reasons is to support eachothers back during a fight.

The Warlord is there to give extra support in this area, while the fighter is keeping back opponents with his sword, the ranger is picking off distant enemies, the cleric is healing, the wizard is casting spells and the rogue is backstabbing. The Warlock is the one in the middle, checking out the battlefield, noticing when a player is being pummelled back and then goes to assist. Or he notices a weakness in the enemies attack, the other players have missed and informs them. Or if the battle is truly going badly, he can charge ahead breaking a path in the enemy line giving the rest of the party a chance to escape.

If anything he isn't a leader, nor a supporter. He is the guy you want to have a in a pinch, because his tactical-mindset can help win the day. He may not kill as many, nor be as precisely more knowledgeable, but he keeps his eyes and ears open to any advantage that he can give to his party.

 

[Klaus]

Theoden is the first example given in this thread that seems a Warlord to me. I'd point to Maximus Decimus Meridius (Gladiator) as another example.

The Warlord makes his group more effective, but he MUST be there at the front lines. Historical tacticians don't fill this role. Of course, maybe there's a Paragon Path for the Warlord that lets him make legions of followers more effective, as a general would.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Since it is still much 'in'.... Is Leonidas of 300 a warlord?

 

[Belphanior]

It's just the Hunter class from Iron Heroes, come to think of it. Only this time he has White Raven maneuvers and took some of the Marshall's stuff.

I agree the name can conjure up images of a military type of person, but it's not the first time D&D has a somewhat wonky name. Do 3.x druids have anything to do with historical druids? No. Is the paladin an imperial guard for the Roman emperor? No. Is the barbarian uncivilized per se? Not really. Can we honestly say "assassin" is a class instead of just a job description for killing an important enemy? Aren't all PCs by default assassins the moment they took on the job of killing the ogre raiders? (The answer is: yes, they are.)

 

[Zamkaizer]

Aren't all PCs by default assassins the moment they took on the job of killing the ogre raiders?

No, because they're not ingesting hashish! Come on here, people!

 

[Belphanior]

No, because they're not ingesting hashish! Come on here, people!

Ha! You're confusing etymology with synonymity! And you dare show your face on an internet messageboard? Get ye away from here!

 

[Klaus]

Since it is still much 'in'.... Is Leonidas of 300 a warlord?

I think so. Leonidas, the storyteller (played by Faramir) and several others seemed Warlord material.

In fact, with the whole "group mind" of Spartans, I wouldn't put it past them to all be Warlord/Fighters, or at least Fighters with some sort of Warlord Training. They seemed very focused on making each other more effective.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

QFT. The argument against the warlord is that he shouldn't be telling the other PCs what to do. But it appears he will be able to grant additional actions - allowing the other PCs to do what they want to do, and to take advantage of the warlord's tactical genius at the same time. If that's the case, there are no issues with the class. And it sounds like an interesting addition to the game.

In 3.X, if I set up a flank with another PC, and that other PC has a selection of opponents to attack (including the flanked one), am I forcing him to attack that specific opponent by granting a bonus? Of course not. It may still be better to attack another opponent, but the option is there.

 

[quixoteles]

Ever heard of a word called Vanguard, or Avant-garde? It seems to me that this idea of being at the forefront of battle, and pushing the boundaries of embodies what is going on in the Warlord. I think of the Vanguard, I'm sorry, the Warlord, just by doing his thing is breaking open what's possible on the death grounds we see every weekend at the table. A Warlord may not even need to talk, he just may tag the openings. On "Feather me Yon Oaf" He may screams "Et La!" An archer, waiting for some shot, any shot sees it, clear as day and his blood rises, he takes that shot! The Warlord (Vanguard) does what few people are willing to do, to place herself in harms way and make the play for the team, that's what a real leader does. You guys may not realize this but teamwork feels good! Instead of saying, "Once more into the breach!" He goes once more into the breach, and heads fly off!

 

[rounser]

The argument against the warlord is that he shouldn't be telling the other PCs what to do.

No it's not. Re-read the thread. You'd like it to be, but there are much more compelling reasons than that.