Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Which of the warlord abilities we've seen suggests bossing anyone around? "Feather Me Yon Oaf" is just pointing out a vulnerable enemy, and "Hammer and Anvil" is drawing an enemy's attention with your attack so that an ally gets in a hit of his own. This isn't just me trying to justify the abilities - it's really the way they seem to be designed. Mechanically, the warlord doesn't seem to need to boss anybody around any more than the wizard does when he's trying to lay down fireballs. A party is always going to need a certain level of mutual respect in order to optimize tactics, but lack of that respect doesn't seem likely to "break" warlords any more than it does other classes. You can ignore those free attacks, just like you can Will save to resist the cleric's heal spells, and it'll make about as much sense.

Let's say I'm a grumpy mercenary Fighter forming a party. I know I need someone to keep us stitched up. Who sounds more appealing, the guy who knows a lot about tactics (and a thing or two about combat triage to boot), or the preachy chick who won't shut up about Pelor? Maybe the guy down the hall playing a LUTE? I'd take a warlord over a cleric or bard any day!

Rounser: I'm not going to play the game of "naming warlords from fiction" with you, because you'll always be able to say they're just fighters with a couple leadership talents. Just as you could say a ranger is just a fighter with a couple archery talents. (Heck, in 3e that made for a better build anyway.) I'd say that ranger and warlord differ from "fighter" to about the same degree, both in roleplaying and in mechanics.

 

[rounser]

Rounser: I'm not going to play the game of "naming warlords from fiction" with you, because you'll always be able to say they're just fighters with a couple leadership talents. Just as you could say a ranger is just a fighter with a couple archery talents. (Heck, in 3e that made for a better build anyway.) I'd say that ranger and warlord differ from "fighter" to about the same degree, both in roleplaying and in mechanics.

You don't have to. A big hint that there's nothing truly archetype-wise there is that there's no decent name for it, except maybe in military terms.

 

[FireLance]

You don't have to. A big hint that there's nothing truly archetype-wise there is that there's no decent name for it, except maybe in military terms.

There may not be any clear-cut historical or fictional archetypes, but there is certainly a character concept or theme here that appeals to a number of posters: the martially inclined (as opposed to the religious cleric or the arcane bard) character that somehow enables his companions to fight harder and better, whether it is through inspiration, advice, or threats, or creating openings in an opponent's defences that others can exploit.

It seems to me that WotC has done something similar to Sony's invention of the Walkman here: it created something that consumers did not even know that they wanted. Unfortunately, instead of giving it a new, completely made-up compound name, which would certainly have been heartily welcomed by the community of D&D players , they used an existing word which was the least bad fit for the concept. Alas.

 

[rounser]

they used an existing word which was the least bad fit for the concept.

Let me think about that....nup. It's name carries far too much baggage. And it's no "walkman", it's more of an irksome unwelcome guest who doesn't fit his surroundings and company...and it belongs in a supplement.

They seemed very focused on making each other more effective.

So anyone who acts as part of a unit on the battlefield is a "warlord"? You just saw the fighter's role as a soldier diminish to nothing. Are you guys using the Chewbacca Defense on me? "If the fighter is no longer a soldier because of this archetype-less "class" that was fabricated, that doesn't make sense and so you must acquit..."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It seems to me that WotC has done something similar to Sony's invention of the Walkman here: it created something that consumers did not even know that they wanted.

It's absolutely a type of character I now want to play. I tried playing this with a Bard (weak...) or Cleric (to much baggage I dislike), and now, in 4E, I might finally be able to do this.

 

[FireLance]

it belongs in a supplement.

Well, given that the Divine Leader cleric is one of the Basic Four and thus a shoo-in for the first PH, the choice of a second Leader-type was essentially between the Martial Leader and the Arcane Leader. Of the two, I'm guessing that the likely Arcane Leader, the bard, probably needed more tweaking because of how open-ended enchantment and illusion abilities can get, whereas the Martial Leader already had a decent and well-defined package of abilities based on the White Raven school from the Book of Nine Swords. So, WotC basically went with the second Leader class that needed the least work, an alternative I prefer to having no second Leader class at all. (I'm still slightly annoyed that we seem to have only one Controller in the first PH. :\)

 

[HeinorNY]

It seems to me that WotC has done something similar to Sony's invention of the Walkman here: it created something that consumers did not even know that they wanted.

Totally agree, I want to play a Warlord NOW

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Let me think about that....nup. It's name carries far too much baggage. And it's no "walkman", it's more of an irksome unwelcome guest who doesn't fit his surroundings and company...and it belongs in a supplement.

Exactly how do you know this?

Do you have the complete 4E PHB sitting in front of you from the future? Or are you just blindly stating your personal opinion as a fact?

The mechanical concepts of the Warlord are apparent in the Bard and White Raven Maneuvers from Bo9S, along with the Marshall. The fluff concepts of it are far more vague as R&C is pretty much silent on the matter.

So where exactly are people getting this information about how terrible the class is? Because I'd love to see some legitimate crunch on the class to make my mind up on properly. Right now I'm guessing, and the Warlord as a class sounds right up my alley based on what little is known.

 

[rounser]

So, WotC basically went with the second Leader class that needed the least work, an alternative I prefer to having no second Leader class at all.

I know. Crunch priority one, flavour compromised. Bad design IMO. Getting both right is possible, surely.

 

[FireLance]

So anyone who acts as part of a unit on the battlefield is a "warlord"? You just saw the fighter's role as a soldier diminish to nothing. Are you guys using the Chewbacca Defense on me? "If the fighter is no longer a soldier because of this archetype-less "class" that was fabricated, that doesn't make sense and so you must acquit..."

This may sound somewhat heretical to those of us who grew up with older versions of the game, but maybe it would help if we stopped thinking that most people (and characters) have a single "class". The average soldier probably has abilities that help him guard others (defender), hit hard (striker) and co-ordinate with and encourage his comrades (leader), and might thus be a multiclassed fighter/ranger (or rogue)/warlord.

In fact, the idea that a person only has a single class is probably a gross over-simplification that could not exist outside of some extremely unrealistic game.