soldier instead of warlord

[Scarbonac]

We're talking about game mechanics. As a Leader class, the warlord is supposed to be buffing his allies and healing them. He does this through martial training, which would likely take the form of shouting orders, since it isn't some magic spell that allows him to grant his rogue buddy a +2 to attack someone. He has been trained to be some kind of combat officer, whether it's through an actual army, crime group, or whatever.

It has nothing to do with who decides whether you're going to Shadowdale or not.

That would be a stupid mechanic.

The concept of a "Leader" class is even worse.

I don't get how buffing and healing="Leader"; buffing and healing have traditionally been support tasks. I begin to think that "Sidekick", "Henchman" or "Valet" would be more suitable than "Warlord".

 

[RandomCitizenX]

Buffing is something a "Leader" archtype would do because they are using their grasp of tactics to keep the party operating more efficiently.

 

[Scarbonac]

Buffing is something a "Leader" archtype would do because they are using their grasp of tactics to keep the party operating more efficiently.

Warlord: "Do this! It's Tactics!!!eleven11!"
PC: "Whatever. Hey, I suddenly am hitting better! Pelor must love me!"
PC2: "Hey, me too! Yay, Pelor!"

:\

 

[Hairfoot]

What I dislike about "warlord" is that is suggests a high level power right out of the gate. Whether the rules reflect that or not remains to be seen.

Give me the good old "fighting man" any day, who may, with skill and luck, progress to heroic status, rather than being a god-in-training from level 1.

All conjecture, mind.

 

[Nifft]

The concept of a "Leader" class is even worse.

I don't get how buffing and healing="Leader"; buffing and healing have traditionally been support tasks.

Marketing.

The "Leader" role is exactly a support role. That's not been a secret ever.

But why would you want to stick an unpalatable title on the role? People play few enough Clerics as it is -- how many would we see if the class were called "Butt-Monkey Servant Boy"?

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't get how buffing and healing="Leader"; buffing and healing have traditionally been support tasks. I begin to think that "Sidekick", "Henchman" or "Valet" would be more suitable than "Warlord".

Bonus to attack:
"Make sure you and the boys make attacks at the weak points in it's armor. Strike just above the hips and at the joints!"

Healing:
"Private, are you trying to tell me this is serious?! BOY, THIS ISN'T EVEN A FLESH WOUND!"

Bonus to AC:
"Keep yourself on his left flank! He's got a blind spot there!"

But then again, if you don't see that it's a Leader's job to keep his "subordinates" in the fight, then this discussion will go no where.

 

[Scarbonac]

Bonus to attack:
"Make sure you and the boys make attacks at the weak points in it's armor. Strike just above the hips and at the joints!"

Healing:
"Private, are you trying to tell me this is serious?! BOY, THIS ISN'T EVEN A FLESH WOUND!"

Bonus to AC:
"Keep yourself on his left flank! He's got a blind spot there!"

But then again, if you don't see that it's a Leader's job to keep his "subordinates" in the fight, then this discussion will go no where.

Oh, I get that a "Leader" has to keep his "subordinates" in the fight, but doesn't that presuppose that the rest of the party even pays attention to what the "Warlord" has to say? If another party member started treating my PC as if my PC were a "subordinate" based on the class written on his character sheet, he might find himself facing the foe alone.


With a few daggers stuck in his back.

 

[The Little Raven]

Oh, I get that a "Leader" has to keep his "subordinates" in the fight, but doesn't that presuppose that the rest of the party even pays attention to what the "Warlord" has to say? If another party member started treating my PC as if my PC were a "subordinate" based on the class written on his character sheet, he might find himself facing the foe alone.

Without magic, the only way the warlord can get his benefit, realistically, is giving everyone orders based on what he sees on the battlefield. It doesn't mean you're his bitch, merely that by following his directives, you gain the advantage of his tactical knowledge. Sure, you can ignore him, but then you don't get those bonuses or anything.

 

[Celebrim]

Not to mention you will have FINALLY plugged a hole in the D&D fighting-class pantheon.

Since the earliest days of the game, Fighters have always been about consummate skill at arms. . . . NOT about about military leadership, strategy, and tactics. Yet fighters have always been shoehorned into the soldier role. . . even though their skills and abilities didn't reflect that specialty.

FINALLY WotC can create a dedicated soldier class with abilities focused around tactical combat and leadership. . . instead of simply being very good with a sword.

Hense, my problem with the whole concept. I would have been happier with a plugged hole than a whole new plug.

 

[Scarbonac]

If they called the class the "Instigator", "Shepherd", "Agitator" or "Firebrand" and the power were "suggestions", "exhortations", "encouragement" or "counsel", I don't think I'd have a problem with the class.


Meh; I think that I prefer the Bard, at this point; militaries have used music (fife & drum, bagpipes, war-drums, harps, etc) to inspire troops (or dishearten enemies) for a very long time.

It's a decent tradition.