Derren said:
Except that the Warlord doesn't give orders but warps the other PCs around however he wants. Also while normally leaders in adventuring groups get chosen because all members agree that someone is a good tactican the Warlord, or rather the player of the Warlord could have no tactical knowledge at all but he still gets to command other PCs around because of class choice.
The warlord's powers exist to partially mitigate the requirement that the warlord's player actually be a military tactical genius. Just as the rogue's player does not have to be an expert on disarming traps, the charismatic character not have to have a charismatic player, etc.
You get the pluses, the extra movement, etc even if your warlord player isn't that great. Not all military leaders are either. At the gaming table, at least the players can offer each other advice.
Note that a really bad player is bad no matter what class. The fighter who goes after the easy kills, the wizard with friendly fire issues, the rogue who doesn't bother to check for traps, the 3.5 cleric who didn't want to waste his spells on healing, or worse, used it to control other players. All bad bad bad. It's a team effort. Always has been.
Just as some groups strongly discourage anyone playing a bard, druid, etc, I imagine some groups will find issue with anyone playing a warlord. I think that's a shame. People should get to play what they enjoy. The warlord's players will screw up sometimes, save your bacon sometimes, just like any other class. Maybe some people just have difficulty with the concept of abstraction...
