Warlord - I don't get it

[the8bitdeity]

Whomever suggested that the Warlord was the proper 4e replacement for the Bard is 100% correct. I currently have a Bard in a 3.5 campaign, and once I saw the Warlord class I realized this was the character I was trying to make. I'm hoping that we'll change over our 3.5 group to 4e, as the group hasn't hit any PrCs yet, so it shouldn't be too complicated. Basically I enjoy the tactical portion of the game, and I like to support / buff others without a Theological bend.

 

[malraux]

I've gotta say I love the what I've seen of the warlord. It's got tactical choices up the wazoo, but the munchkinism is all about opening up choices for other people. I've been recreating my human Clr6 as a warlord 6, and even though I'm loosing the ability to be the helicopter of doom (fly + ring of blades), I'd still rather run the warlord.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Warlords do fill an important role. They are the commaders and generals of armies or any large fighting group like bandits, mercenaries, and strike forces.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It seems like a fighter/cleric multiclass, perhaps a cleric of a god of war. Or it could be a 3ed prestige class. But the point is, the Warlord seems too specialized to be a core class (perhaps like the Warlock, but let me get back to you on that). I'm wondering if it more the designers desire to include "something new"...

You could say the exact same things, and they'd be more true, about the paladin. Fighter/cleric, could be a prestige class (and is, in Unearthed Arcana), too specialised to be a core class, included in an OD&D splat just to be something new even though it barely had a niche.

Or how about the druid? Just a nature priest, a flavour of cleric, too specialised to be a class. Or the ranger, he's just a fighter/thief. Or the barbarian, he's nothing but an angry fighter who refuses to wear plate mail. Or the cleric, basically a fighter/wizard. Give the wizard healing spells and you don't need a cleric no more.

Hey I just got rid of every class in D&D except fighters and wizards, nice! Except illusionists, you gotta have them. And monks, for the anime fans.

 

[pawsplay]

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

 

[Lizard]

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
...
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

So, uh, what, you want me to shift closer to the wizard? Or more to the left?

 

[Pbartender]

It seems like a fighter/cleric multiclass, perhaps a cleric of a god of war. Or it could be a 3ed prestige class. But the point is, the Warlord seems too specialized to be a core class (perhaps like the Warlock, but let me get back to you on that). I'm wondering if it more the designers desire to include "something new"...

Let me put it this way...

I think back to last year, when I was playing a Knight in a Red Hand of Doom game, and realize that the 4E Warlord does everything I wanted my Knight to do, but couldn't.

I look at the Warlord class now, and think "That's what Sir Harvey should have been."

 

[That One Guy]

The warlord is very similar to a knight or other martial character. The idea is a tactically inclined individual who has some ability (either by training or what-have-you) to organize and rally troops (ally pcs or even npcs). This is a specific and focused roll, yes, but this type of warrior could have a varied reason for his/her purely martial abilities. It just occured to me that I think the idea of a commanding melee person is less specific than a ranger or cleric.

My only thoughts against the warlord border on declassing... giving a character a combination of warlord/ranger powers or rogue/fighter powers in a way that is different than the multiclass rules and makes a gestalt of sorts.

Also, the warlord is (in a lot of ways) the new bard. Give him/her a flavor twist and some sort of performance ability (perhaps diplomacy for oration and history for lore) and... bard. From the one session of pre-4e my group's run w/ a warlord I think they add something very excellent to a fight that is different than the divine feel of a cleric (we have both in the same party. The cleric leads from the back, and the warlord leads from the frontlines).

 

[Bishmon]

The warlord should have been my favorite class. A smart leader who is tough and has martial skill? That should have been right up my alley. Unfortunately, though, I hate the warlord. I can't stand the attack-something-to-buff-your-allies mechanic that pervades the class. As a result, what should have been my favorite class turned into one of my least favorite classes.

Oh well, at least I love the fighter.

 

[Voss]

It seems like a fighter/cleric multiclass, perhaps a cleric of a god of war. Or it could be a 3ed prestige class. But the point is, the Warlord seems too specialized to be a core class (perhaps like the Warlock, but let me get back to you on that). I'm wondering if it more the designers desire to include "something new"...

I'm puzzled by the 'too specialized to be a core class' bit. All of these classes are extremely specialized. (Usually in one of two options, but still). Specialized classes seems like a design goal, and all of them are very limited in scope.