Warlords at D&D XP?

[lutecius]

I hate to crush any hopefuls here, but the Bard is just not going to be in the PHB.

Lies, all lies!!!

I'll be interested to see the Bard, but something tells me it won't be the "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" that it was in previous editions. Of course, that dubious honor did make the Bard an underpowered class, so I can't say that I'll miss it. He'll probably still have a good, eclectic skill selection.

This is getting way off topic, but I'd like them to give up the "master of jack all" route and go specialist enchanters"

 

[Black Flame Zealot]

The rogue and warlord weren't included in the group of characters because there was only a need for 6 characters. We didn't want 2 leaders in the party at first so we just decided to go with cleric, since more players are familiar with general nature of the class.

Warlock was chosen over rogue since some information on the rogue had become available on the Wizards site, and we wanted to give the warlock some love. Plus, I really like warlocks.

The only reason why there wasn't a dragonborn PC was that we didn't have a real good representation in minis form of a dragonborn that wasn't a rare mini. I didn't want DMs to dig out a rare mini to represent a character at the convention, since minis sometimes easily walk.

 

[fafhrd]

Way too logical without a hint of conspiratorial cover up. Lies.

 

[lutecius]

Way too logical without a hint of conspiratorial cover up. Lies.

most obviously

thanks Chris, for the info, and shattering my dreams.

 

[Derro]

@Derro. I don't think the warlord will be a mid-range combatant. More like front line, or secondary line. The cleric is almost mid range, but with the ranged combat weirdness, mid-range is 5 squares.

My bad. Unclear in my statement. By mid-range I meant the middle grade combatant. In 3e terms the +3/4 base attack guy. I seem to remember reading this in the early previews. That the warlord is more about bolstering and inspiration than toe-to-toe combat. Or at least not heavy damage dealer in the sense of fighter, ranger, and maybe paladin.

 

[lasergreger]

But IMO "core" means you have to have it to play the game, not "we really want you to buy all these books".

Well, then it's suddenly a matter of what people think they need to play the game then. Let's say some of the previous classes from the 3.X core books shows up in PHB2, which seems to be the case, then you would need it to play say a Druid? Then suddenly, that's a Core book to you.

But as you say, "core" is just a word, and that argument makes your post totaly void, so I think we should just let people discuss the Warlord instead, as intented. Sorry for going OOt people!

 

[Derro]

My understanding of core is that it is present in the main rules that are required to play the game. In 3e Fighter, core, Cleric, core, Knight or Beguiler, not. Core classes are called such under the assumption that they are usable right out of the box without splats, house-rules, or web enhancements. No? I'm pretty sure that's what the term has meant to date.

And just to stay on topic...

What do we know about the ol' warlord? Anything? Weapon and armor preferences. The names or effects of any powers. Core (there's that word again, I think it means something different this time though) ability.

I'm wondering if he's gonna even make the cut. It's been very hush-hush. Compared to the warlock at any rate seeing as he's the only other variant that we're not familiar with from core D&D classes (that word, that ubiquitous word).

 

[Incenjucar]

Warlord will be in, they're banking on it. I think they just want to keep people curious.

I'm just wondering if they're automatically heavy armor types.

 

[Gargoyle]

Well, then it's suddenly a matter of what people think they need to play the game then. Let's say some of the previous classes from the 3.X core books shows up in PHB2, which seems to be the case, then you would need it to play say a Druid? Then suddenly, that's a Core book to you.

But as you say, "core" is just a word, and that argument makes your post totaly void, so I think we should just let people discuss the Warlord instead, as intented. Sorry for going OOt people!

My fault for derailing my own thread, you have nothing to apologize for. I'll agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Gargoyle]

The rogue and warlord weren't included in the group of characters because there was only a need for 6 characters. We didn't want 2 leaders in the party at first so we just decided to go with cleric, since more players are familiar with general nature of the class.

Warlock was chosen over rogue since some information on the rogue had become available on the Wizards site, and we wanted to give the warlock some love. Plus, I really like warlocks.

The only reason why there wasn't a dragonborn PC was that we didn't have a real good representation in minis form of a dragonborn that wasn't a rare mini. I didn't want DMs to dig out a rare mini to represent a character at the convention, since minis sometimes easily walk.

Rogues not in the playtest? Using Internet logic I can only conclude that rogues are not going to be in the PHB.

Seriously though, thanks for the clarification. Any chance we'll get a preview soon of a 1st level warlord, like the playtest characters? It would be fun to see some of their powers, etc.