Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7862571" data-attributes="member: 6779196">It has been said that the Warlord was poorly named because people often had exactly this reaction to it. They probably should have called it a Tactician or a General or a Marshall or something.So, In 4e, each class had a power source (Arcane, Divine, and Martial in the core,&nbsp; with Primal, Psionic, and Shadow being added in later supplements), and a combat role: Controller (basically debuff and CC), Defender (basically tank), Leader (basically buffs and healer) and Striker (basically DPS). This was a major contributing factor to the overblown comparisons to WoW. The idea behind the warlord was that it was a Martial Leader - it buffed and healed the party in a nonmagical way.Thematically, it was a military commander type class, commanding, rallying, and inspiring its allies. Mechanically, it combined healing powers and powers that enhanced its allies’ attacks, and/or allowed them to attack off-turn, at the cost of the Warlord’s own action. It wasn’t as strong of a healer as the Cleric or as strong of a buffer as the Bard, its true strength was in its ability to grant its allies additional chances to attack (lazylord became an endearing term for warlords built around never actually attacking, and “making,” or rather, allowing, their allies to do the attacking for them.)They were extremely unpopular among the HP-as-meat crowd, who hated that their could heal without magic, deriding it as “shouting wounds closed.”</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7862571, member: 6779196"] It has been said that the Warlord was poorly named because people often had exactly this reaction to it. They probably should have called it a Tactician or a General or a Marshall or something. So, In 4e, each class had a power source (Arcane, Divine, and Martial in the core, with Primal, Psionic, and Shadow being added in later supplements), and a combat role: Controller (basically debuff and CC), Defender (basically tank), Leader (basically buffs and healer) and Striker (basically DPS). This was a major contributing factor to the overblown comparisons to WoW. The idea behind the warlord was that it was a Martial Leader - it buffed and healed the party in a nonmagical way. Thematically, it was a military commander type class, commanding, rallying, and inspiring its allies. Mechanically, it combined healing powers and powers that enhanced its allies’ attacks, and/or allowed them to attack off-turn, at the cost of the Warlord’s own action. It wasn’t as strong of a healer as the Cleric or as strong of a buffer as the Bard, its true strength was in its ability to grant its allies additional chances to attack (lazylord became an endearing term for warlords built around never actually attacking, and “making,” or rather, allowing, their allies to do the attacking for them.) They were extremely unpopular among the HP-as-meat crowd, who hated that their could heal without magic, deriding it as “shouting wounds closed.” [/QUOTE]

Verification