Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!
- Thread starter Sitara
- Start date
Fifth Element
Legend
No, I read the other reasons. I don't find them compelling at all. I'm quite keen on playing a warlord, actually. Though I may call him a marshal or a vanguard or something else.rounser said:
I agree that the name is not great, and can cause some confusion as to how the class is perceived, particularly by new players. I don't see that as a big issue, and it's not a problem with the class itself, just the name.
I agree that there is no single defining name for the archetype the class is intended to represent. That doesn't mean there is no archetype. It may be a difficult archetype to express in a single word, but it's still an archetype.
Any argument that it's just a collection of crunch rather than a class is purely subjective. The same could be said about many classes.
I think the flavour text of the warlord can go a long way toward dispelling some of these perceived issues. If it's well-written, there shouldn't be any confusion about what the class is all about.
So there really aren't any significant issues (though you'd like there to be), unless the class is badly written, which we cannot assume.
Fifth Element
Legend
You haven't even seen the flavour text that goes along with the warlord. Perhaps you could read the class before dismissing it entirely?rounser said:
ObsidianCrane
First Post
rounser said:
A poor attempt in your opinion.
But what is that opinion based on?
R&C offers half a page on what a Warlord is, and even then offers no generalised fluff, but rather mostly concepts of what a Warlord character might be (several of which sound suspiciously like Paragon paths for the Class).
FireLance
Legend
I don't see why having an archetype is necessary. Is the crux of your argument that a class is only good if someone else has thought of it before? It can't be simple distictiveness because several posters seem to be able to find something distinctive about the warlord concept.rounser said:
Ximenes088
First Post
Personally, I can think of dozens of different ways a warlord could buff his party without giving verbal orders, and I suspect anyone else charitably inclined towards the basic concept could easily do as much. If you're not willing to buy into the basic idea of a party member who specializes in coordinating and optimizing the rest of the group's abilities, however, you're not going to find the warlord a coherent class concept.
We've already seen that the warlord has the ability to grant certain kinds of free actions to his teammates. For "Feather Me Yon Oaf", he gives everybody a chance to get a free missile attack off. If you want to be uncharitable, you can complain that this means he's ordering the whole party to drop what they're doing and shoot. Somebody more friendly to the concept might just say that due to his superior tactical awareness, the warlord realizes at that moment that the whole party is perfectly positioned to get a bowshot off if the warlord draws the bad guy's attention with a shout, flourish, feint, or Heroic Pose of Awesomeness. Same ability, different interpretations.
It does seem to me that if your party is composed of such maverick individualists as would take umbrage at somebody knocking an enemy's shield out of position, be offended at the way monsters hesitate before the warlord's Heroic Presence, or get their noses out of joint at the warlord distracting that bugbear at the perfect time to slip a knife in, then your party's problems extend further than WotC's class conceptions. A party of rabid individualists is not going to accommodate a concept based on teamwork, whether it comes in Martial or Divine flavors.
We've already seen that the warlord has the ability to grant certain kinds of free actions to his teammates. For "Feather Me Yon Oaf", he gives everybody a chance to get a free missile attack off. If you want to be uncharitable, you can complain that this means he's ordering the whole party to drop what they're doing and shoot. Somebody more friendly to the concept might just say that due to his superior tactical awareness, the warlord realizes at that moment that the whole party is perfectly positioned to get a bowshot off if the warlord draws the bad guy's attention with a shout, flourish, feint, or Heroic Pose of Awesomeness. Same ability, different interpretations.
It does seem to me that if your party is composed of such maverick individualists as would take umbrage at somebody knocking an enemy's shield out of position, be offended at the way monsters hesitate before the warlord's Heroic Presence, or get their noses out of joint at the warlord distracting that bugbear at the perfect time to slip a knife in, then your party's problems extend further than WotC's class conceptions. A party of rabid individualists is not going to accommodate a concept based on teamwork, whether it comes in Martial or Divine flavors.
D.Shaffer
First Post
...Just once I'd like to see a thread involving the Warlord that DIDNT devolve into an argument of semantics, especially when it has little to do with the thread to begin with. 
It's like it become a personal crusade for some people.
Ignoring the entire back and forth about whether Warlords even deserve to be in the game and getting back to the actual thread subject, I'd rather that the Paladin NOT becomes a Leader class like the Cleric is if it keeps the same general sort of Buff+Heal abilities it current has. Half the point of the Warlord class is to have a Leader role without the baggage attached to having a Divine class. If they had to have a non-Warlord leader in the PHB, I'd rather it be the Bard.
It's like it become a personal crusade for some people. Ignoring the entire back and forth about whether Warlords even deserve to be in the game and getting back to the actual thread subject, I'd rather that the Paladin NOT becomes a Leader class like the Cleric is if it keeps the same general sort of Buff+Heal abilities it current has. Half the point of the Warlord class is to have a Leader role without the baggage attached to having a Divine class. If they had to have a non-Warlord leader in the PHB, I'd rather it be the Bard.
quixoteles
First Post
To be honest, I have been wanting to play the brother in arms, ie the Warlord since I started playing DnD when I was 12. The idea that the fighter would be a combat enhancer, would make everyone else better fighters is a fun idea, and people want it. It is what is missing in the game. A fight sometimes is not ideological or personal but collective. People who fight in wars have time and time again said their aim is to keep their fellows alive. In DnD someone in the adventuring party that you can depend on is actually a gross oversight that I wasn't able to mention for a very long time because I couldn't but it into words.
I disagree with the original argument, A paladin is not there to judge you, he's there to serve a god's will. You follow her [4e Paladin] because you believe in the suasion she's spouting and she is spreading divine protection she receives on to you. It's not a really paladin's concern wether they follow. The paladin as a defender is a powerful redeeming idea, better than a divine leader, which reek's offensive offal to me. The GM roleplay's god, anyone wanting to be a leader-type with a divine power source is looking for the GM to state: this is my chosen one, come to heel and don't mess with him. I think that is truly obnoxious, at least as an American who believes in the separation of church and state, in this case the state of the battle.
Is it really the player power trip that makes heads shake? You secret fascist at the table squeeing at the table because he want's to make his upteenth unstoppable empire and now all the players have to listen to him b/c he's the warlord? From what perspective does this come from, player or GM? And just what makes this kind of battle whiz type (please do not get into the "there is no such thing as tacticians in Fantasy" contention, this is metagame) so irritating or the potential of it so irritating?
What is a DND, or rather a 3.5 party to you? I figure 3-5 guys are going to get absurdly powerful and save the world, while along the way becoming incredible rich and famous and visiting incredible gorgeous locales and meeting terribly exotic peoples. I make this assumption about your games, and base it on what I think it takes to make a game go well, with this assumption I assume that war, the nasty anonymous process to exert control over a region and make it subjugate to their will is an unnecessary, or unwanted part of the game.
Stating this opinion in term that I understand, and for the record stating that I like very much for players to weave in and out of sweeping battles occurring in settings, you see that someone like the Warlord as nothing but a irritant in a collection of independents. You have a guy that is odd in a group of rugged individualists who are out for fame, fortune, power, and glory. She is literally stealing an ounce of every other roles thunder, by making them not so individual anymore, and thereby killing the cool of the game.
Killing dragons in dungeons is the name of the game, snatching their hoard and such not is the realm of DND any else is a wargame and has no place in the dungeon? If that is true, then yes fine this doesn't work.
I remember hearing a podcast titled "you already may be playing 4e" and hearing one of the designers say; fantasy has changed. WW II is part of the fantasy dreamscape I believe, and so war in front and behind it. The battle of Thermopylae, and Normady beach need's to be filled with warlords. And in people's dreams they want them there and in the dungeon and fighting the wizard in the tower and standing up to the gods. I think the warlord is just that it represents what people think when they identify with the evolving notion of what fantasy is. I certainly do think that the leader of men/kind stranger/pale rider is a fantasy trope, I also think it's embodied in the fighters raw aggression, in the rouges backstab, in the clerics buff, and in the paladin's interposition and every class can survive on it's own, it's just that the Warlord is best standing for and beside his fellow's.
I certainly don't understand this idea that belief in god of some kind or belief in some divine principle for a good leader makes. There are not many theocracies, and few surviving monarchies. The idea that a leader has to be divine seems outdated Gothic to me. I believe that most player' don't even recall that kind of trope or detail. The distinction between fellows like Heracles and Mars is in fiction quite clear and I believe ultimately finally, finally, DND reflects that.
I disagree with the original argument, A paladin is not there to judge you, he's there to serve a god's will. You follow her [4e Paladin] because you believe in the suasion she's spouting and she is spreading divine protection she receives on to you. It's not a really paladin's concern wether they follow. The paladin as a defender is a powerful redeeming idea, better than a divine leader, which reek's offensive offal to me. The GM roleplay's god, anyone wanting to be a leader-type with a divine power source is looking for the GM to state: this is my chosen one, come to heel and don't mess with him. I think that is truly obnoxious, at least as an American who believes in the separation of church and state, in this case the state of the battle.
Is it really the player power trip that makes heads shake? You secret fascist at the table squeeing at the table because he want's to make his upteenth unstoppable empire and now all the players have to listen to him b/c he's the warlord? From what perspective does this come from, player or GM? And just what makes this kind of battle whiz type (please do not get into the "there is no such thing as tacticians in Fantasy" contention, this is metagame) so irritating or the potential of it so irritating?
What is a DND, or rather a 3.5 party to you? I figure 3-5 guys are going to get absurdly powerful and save the world, while along the way becoming incredible rich and famous and visiting incredible gorgeous locales and meeting terribly exotic peoples. I make this assumption about your games, and base it on what I think it takes to make a game go well, with this assumption I assume that war, the nasty anonymous process to exert control over a region and make it subjugate to their will is an unnecessary, or unwanted part of the game.
Stating this opinion in term that I understand, and for the record stating that I like very much for players to weave in and out of sweeping battles occurring in settings, you see that someone like the Warlord as nothing but a irritant in a collection of independents. You have a guy that is odd in a group of rugged individualists who are out for fame, fortune, power, and glory. She is literally stealing an ounce of every other roles thunder, by making them not so individual anymore, and thereby killing the cool of the game.
Killing dragons in dungeons is the name of the game, snatching their hoard and such not is the realm of DND any else is a wargame and has no place in the dungeon? If that is true, then yes fine this doesn't work.
I remember hearing a podcast titled "you already may be playing 4e" and hearing one of the designers say; fantasy has changed. WW II is part of the fantasy dreamscape I believe, and so war in front and behind it. The battle of Thermopylae, and Normady beach need's to be filled with warlords. And in people's dreams they want them there and in the dungeon and fighting the wizard in the tower and standing up to the gods. I think the warlord is just that it represents what people think when they identify with the evolving notion of what fantasy is. I certainly do think that the leader of men/kind stranger/pale rider is a fantasy trope, I also think it's embodied in the fighters raw aggression, in the rouges backstab, in the clerics buff, and in the paladin's interposition and every class can survive on it's own, it's just that the Warlord is best standing for and beside his fellow's.
I certainly don't understand this idea that belief in god of some kind or belief in some divine principle for a good leader makes. There are not many theocracies, and few surviving monarchies. The idea that a leader has to be divine seems outdated Gothic to me. I believe that most player' don't even recall that kind of trope or detail. The distinction between fellows like Heracles and Mars is in fiction quite clear and I believe ultimately finally, finally, DND reflects that.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
