Warlove? Warhate?

[Knightlord]

Warlord, in both name and function, seems solid to me.

 

[mmu1]

Don't like it, not even a little bit.

To begin with, I don't like the concept of having a "leader" class in and of itself. The assumption that if there's a Warlord in the party then my character will defer to his leadership and advice in combat, doesn't sit well with me at all. Writing rules that put one character in a position of authority (no matter how subtle) over others is boneheaded design.

Second, I don't like the idea of making "tactics" an in-character skill. Perhaps that's inconsistent of me, since I have no problem with abstracting (for example) Diplomacy in the same way, but tactical combat is such a big part of the game that I feel it is actually one of those things that ought to come down to player skill. Not that this really changes anything in terms of metagame battle tactics - aside from introducing yet another layer of abstraction, anyway.

Now, instead of using the best tactics you can think of to play a guy who is good at fighting, you're using the best tactics you can come up with to play the guy who's good at using tactics...

 

[Chimera]

I am well pleased.

Now I want to see the Bard, because I'm playing a Bard in a WotBS campaign and we won't be converting until all of our PC classes are released.

While pretty cool and I'd certainly be happy to play a Warlord in the future, it isn't the same concept as a Bard and I would not agree to convert my really-not-a-fighter Bard to a fighting-leader Warlord just for the sake of conversion. It would be too different of a character.

 

[Fieari]

I'm in favor of the crunch, but the name...

Yeah, I know, it's been discussed. I just wish they'd stayed with Marshal. "Lord" should be an earned rank, not something handed off at first level. Heck, I could see a "Lord" class as a paragon path easily. Just... not base.

But it's been discussed, so, water under the bridge. I like the crunch I've seen so far.

 

[Kzach]

Writing rules that put one character in a position of authority (no matter how subtle) over others is boneheaded design.

I seem to recall in 1e and 2e that a party leader was more than just a suggestion in the books as to how to organise your out of game roles.

But I guess 1e and 2e were full of boneheaded ideas and design.

 

[Ruined]

Given my choice, at this point I'd play a Warlord over the other classes. The potential with the character really interests me.

 

[Sphyre]

That's a healthy attitude. I hold it towards certain classes and races as well.

Do you think you might enjoy playing a Fighter alongside a Warlord? Not just in the sense of enjoying the Fighter in spite of the Warlord, but rather in the sense that having a Warlord in the party might make playing a Fighter even better?

I don't see why I'd have a problem playing along side a warlord. Like you said, if anything, it's going to make the Fighter do better.

In 3.5 I traditionally played classes with spells. I played melee a few times and each time I was underwhelmed. I liked how spells were a swiss army knife. Playing a fighter never appealed to me because it was so underpowered and uninteresting. Yeah, you could make one that worked with a lot of optimization, but then you were a one trick pony, and that's just not fun for me. The mechanics for the fighter look strong and fun, something that is new and exciting. I think it's opening up doors.

Although, I think I'll like the strikers and controllers much more, the thought actually enjoying melee intrigues me - but the warlord just doesn't look like my cup of tea.

You know, to each their own. The inclusion of the Warlord doesn't stop me from playing what I want to play. If I were to play a leader, I still have the Cleric as a choice, and other leaders to choose from later on down the line.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I liked the concept when I first heard of it, and I like the details that we've seen.

The game needed a class that could enhance the abilities of other party members, and replenish hit points, all without magic. I'm a fan of Conan-style, low-magic games, and I'm just delighted that I can have a completely juju-free party.

Well, almost. Still could use a martial controller, I suppose. But yeah, it's *cool* that the game could run just fine with: fighter, ranger, rogue, warlord. Or in other words: Gimli, Legolas, Pippin, and Aragorn.

Plus, in my experience there's always someone at the table who enjoys "suggesting" certain moves and attacks. You know That Guy. The guy that says "Oh, don't go there--go there instead, and you'll get a flank bonus!" Well, the Warlord is perfect for That Guy. It's been hinted that some of the Warlord's powers will allow him to grant move actions or even attacks to another character. That Guy will revel in the ability to give extra actions to other players on his turn, and the other players will probably appreciate that That Guy has an in-game outlet for his tendencies.

 

[Mr Jack]

I like it but I'd like to take the person who thought it'd be a good idea to have classes called Warlord and Warlock in the same game outside and shoot them.

 

[CleverNickName]

Plus, in my experience there's always someone at the table who enjoys "suggesting" certain moves and attacks. You know That Guy. The guy that says "Oh, don't go there--go there instead, and you'll get a flank bonus!" Well, the Warlord is perfect for That Guy.

True. But unfortunately, That Guy always insists on playing a wizard. A drow wizard. Which he mispronounces. :\