Warlove? Warhate?

[Fallen Seraph]

Don't like the skills, don't like the fact that his abilities only seem to function in combat (unlike the marshal who was _very_ useful outside of combat).

Do like the theme/idea/high-order-bit. And I think given the reality that is 4e, what we've seen looks quite nice.

What is wrong with the skills? They seem quite good for a Warlord.

As for the Powers, well it makes sense they be combat oriented. Those are his combat powers, not his utility powers.

Man, Warlords are just WotC looking at Iron Heroes and realizing the idea behind the Hunter class was a good one and deciding to dress it up with a really wrong title.

Didn't Mearls work on Iron Heroes?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I think you mean Hobbits, not Kinder.

(ducks)

lol! Kender is way better IMO, no matter how much it sounds like the German word. Hobbutts is teh l4m3 n e wayz.

 

[Shroomy]

I have to agree, I think the skills fit perfectly with the class concept.

For the record, I really like the warlord. I'll probably end up DMing most of the time in 4e, but I'm really interested in playing a warlord at some point.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Didn't Mearls work on Iron Heroes?

Self-plagiarism, I say.

 

[breschau]

I'm just waiting for all the puns like "Lock and Lord!"

I was thinking more of "lock the lord."

Code for "strikers, hit the leaders first."

 

[CleverNickName]

Man, Warlords are just WotC looking at Iron Heroes and realizing the idea behind the Hunter class was a good one and deciding to dress it up with a really wrong title.

Nice.

Well, there's nothing we can do about the awful name...the book has probably finished printing by now, and will be on its way to the distributors in the next couple of weeks. Like it or not, first-level swordsmen in cheap armor will be introducing themselves as "warlords" and getting laughed out of every tavern in Waterdeep.

I suppose you could change the name to Marshal or Knight or something, and then make your players put a quarter in a jar everytime they say "warlord" at your table. Might help pay for the beverages, anyway.

 

[Vaeron]

The Warlord seems very useful for large parties. In a smaller party, perhaps not useful at all. But many of the abilities are quite nice.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

5 Warlords

I suppose you could change the name to Marshal or Knight or something, and then make your players put a quarter in a jar everytime they say "warlord" at your table. Might help pay for the beverages, anyway.

If I just make my players call the class something else, "Knight Errant" may be the best idea I can come up with. Though "Soldier" has a nice ring to it.

My second problem with Warlords is: Moreso than any other class (except Paladins perhaps, though I'd have to see some higher-level abilities), there doesn't seem to be a reason not to have a full party of them. Since all of their offensive abilities are attacks that boost each other's attacks, I foretell that multiple Warlords could be exploited into a vicious cycle of bonuses to attacks and damage. Along with the potential for a constant stream of healing. Each party member having fairly ok hitpoints and defenses.
5 Warlord party for the win?

Edit:
Healing Surges help to keep this kind of thing from happening, I think, but is it enough.

 

[Victim]

If I just make my players call the class something else, "Knight Errant" may be the best idea I can come up with. Though "Soldier" has a nice ring to it.

My second problem with Warlords is: Moreso than any other class (except Paladins perhaps, though I'd have to see some higher-level abilities), there doesn't seem to be a reason not to have a full party of them. Since all of their offensive abilities are attacks that boost each other's attacks, I foretell that multiple Warlords could be exploited into a vicious cycle of bonuses to attacks and damage. Along with the potential for a constant stream of healing. Each party member having fairly ok hitpoints and defenses.
5 Warlord party for the win?

Edit:
Healing Surges help to keep this kind of thing from happening, I think, but is it enough.

Most of the abilities we saw are providing a POWER bonus to X. Presumeably, bonuses of the same type still don't stack, so additional warlords would seem to have diminishing returns.

 

[Stalker0]

If I just make my players call the class something else, "Knight Errant" may be the best idea I can come up with. Though "Soldier" has a nice ring to it.

My second problem with Warlords is: Moreso than any other class (except Paladins perhaps, though I'd have to see some higher-level abilities), there doesn't seem to be a reason not to have a full party of them. Since all of their offensive abilities are attacks that boost each other's attacks, I foretell that multiple Warlords could be exploited into a vicious cycle of bonuses to attacks and damage. Along with the potential for a constant stream of healing. Each party member having fairly ok hitpoints and defenses.
5 Warlord party for the win?

Edit:
Healing Surges help to keep this kind of thing from happening, I think, but is it enough.

I don't believe class bonuses stack with each other, nor do power bonuses stack together. So while having an intelligent and a charismatic warlord in the party would be quite useful, I don't think a full squad of them would be as good.

But have a party of any kind of 1 role will lead to interesting consequences. A team of strikers will mow down enemies, but will take tons of damage in return. A group of controllers will be painfully vulnerable to ambushes, but on open field will destroy all that they see. A group of defenders can endure wave after wave of attacks with their high AC and hitpoints, etc.