What is missing from 4E

[FireLance]

Because giving orders implies a military hierarchy on the concept of the adventuring party (an unforgivable trespass on the nature of fantasy heroes), and trivialises the expertise of the other heroes by assuming that the warlord is somehow more expert than they are in their chosen field. Singing, praying and spellcasting don't imply this.

I'd say that the warlord isn't necessarily as militarily hierarchic as you have painted him. It's probably the easiest and most obvious way to conceptualize his abilities, but it isn't the only way.

A warlord could be:

1. A scrappy kid that inspires through his natural optimism and enthusiasm.
2. A cool-headed thinker with a knack for analyzing the tactical situation and spotting opportunities.
3. A grim, battle-scarred, threat-spewing warrior who unnerves his enemies (or occupies their attention) so much that they make mistakes which his allies can exploit.

When you boil the warlord class (and, in fact, all of the Leader classes) down to its most basic concept, it's that of helping others to do better. Shouting orders and telling people what to do because you know better is only one way of doing this. It isn't even the only non-magical way of doing it.

 

[rounser]

1. A scrappy kid that inspires through his natural optimism and enthusiasm.
2. A cool-headed thinker with a knack for analyzing the tactical situation and spotting opportunities.
3. A grim, battle-scarred, threat-spewing warrior who unnerves his enemies (or occupies their attention) so much that they make mistakes which his allies can exploit.

And a haberdasher could be:

1. A goofy sidekick with an interest in flogging small wares and notions to passing monsters.
2. A cool hand luke-type with an affinity for colour coordinating ties, gloves and hats for the goblinoid races, even in the midst of combat.
3. A no-nonsense, gruff veteran of a thousand shoe sales, prepared to declare war on those who don't accept his bargain basement prices for accessories.

The haberdasher, like the warlord, would still be a bad choice for a core class, because he belongs in a retail setting, not an adventuring party, just like the warlord doesn't belong in the non-military setting of a band of adventurers.

 

[FireLance]

The haberdasher, like the warlord, would still be a bad choice for a core class, because he belongs in a retail setting, not an adventuring party, just like the warlord doesn't belong in the non-military setting of a band of adventurers.

Are you objecting to the name of the class? If not, what is it about the scrappy kid, the cool-headed thinker or the intimidating warrior that requires them to be part of the military?

 

[rounser]

Are you objecting to the name of the class? If not, what is it about the scrappy kid, the cool-headed thinker or the intimidating warrior that requires them to be part of the military?

Because of their class abilities, and the implications of how their effects are achieved, and the arbitrariness of what they specialise in. Your guys give orders and specialise in "set ups", which makes no archetypal sense, except perhaps in a military sense.

My goofy sidekick, cool hand luke-type and gruff veteran have class abilities selling wares and coordinating accessories, which makes them inappropriate for an adventuring party too. At least my guys don't tread on the toes of other characters, though, implying things about them (they're too busy deciding if the cerulean blue of that sash goes with the bugbear's eyes).

Oh, and the names of both classes suck too.

 

[FireLance]

Because of their class abilities, and the implications of how their effects are achieved, and the arbitrariness of what they specialise in. Your guys give orders and specialise in "set ups", which makes no archetypal sense, except perhaps in a military sense.

Funny thing about archetypes. The archetype of a character who is focused on inspiring others, or pointing out opportunities, or creating openings for others to exploit, happens to resonate with me, and to me, at least, does not require the character to be part of a military hierarchy, to give orders, or to be a jerk.

Oh, and the names of both classes suck too.

I dunno, I think haberdasher describes the class to a T.

 

[wedgeski]

Because giving orders implies a military hierarchy on the concept of the adventuring party (an unforgivable trespass on the nature of fantasy heroes), and trivialises the expertise of the other heroes by assuming that the warlord is somehow more expert than they are in their chosen field. Singing, praying and spellcasting don't imply this.

??? This is by far the strangest criticism I've heard about 4E. "...unforgivable trespass..."? You mean you can't name any popular fantasy characters that have been the de-facto leaders of their group, either by training, birthright, or simple unspoken agreement?

 

[Halivar]

Your guys give orders and specialise in "set ups", which makes no archetypal sense, except perhaps in a military sense.

In one of my current 4E games, the warlord is not the party leader. In one game in particular, he's the goofy mascot who shouts inane non-sequiters and carries doves around so he can "John Woo" his fight scenes (leaving bird crap everywhere).

There is, however, always a party leader, because my gaming groups like organization and sound tactics. This is the case in 3.x games, and other non-D&D games. Therefore, even if the flavor of the warlord was "he orders people around," I still wouldn't chafe at the idea.

Because giving orders implies a military hierarchy on the concept of the adventuring party (an unforgivable trespass on the nature of fantasy heroes)

I don't recall anybody telling Conan "You're not the boss of me." Maybe it happened, but I'll need a citation.

 

[rounser]

In one of my current 4E games, the warlord is not the party leader. In one game in particular, he's the goofy mascot who shouts inane non-sequiters and carries doves around so he can "John Woo" his fight scenes (leaving bird crap everywhere).

There is, however, always a party leader, because my gaming groups like organization and sound tactics. This is the case in 3.x games, and other non-D&D games. Therefore, even if the flavor of the warlord was "he orders people around," I still wouldn't chafe at the idea.

That's nice.

I don't recall anybody telling Conan "You're not the boss of me." Maybe it happened, but I'll need a citation.

Well duh. Conan's the hero. And when he's king, he's ordering his soldiers. Note the key words "king" and "soldiers".

 

[rounser]

??? This is by far the strangest criticism I've heard about 4E. "...unforgivable trespass..."? You mean you can't name any popular fantasy characters that have been the de-facto leaders of their group, either by training, birthright, or simple unspoken agreement?

Of course there are leaders. "What should we do now, Tanis?" That's a right earned and agreed upon, not implied by game mechanics that suggest that Tanis is shouting orders or hitting things in a way that offers game bonuses, and you'd be a fool to decline them whether Caramon or Raistlin thinks Tanis has his head up his rear or not.

They've crossed a line here, and it's a big one. It deals with the independence of heroes, and the fundamental nature of the adventuring party. Heroes are not a mobile war or battlefield, they don't have a hierarchy by default, and they don't shout orders to one another. They might seek counsel or call for help, or say "guard my back!", but the warlord class makes a mockery of that, turning it into some sort of specialty bollocks, like some drill sergeant cheerleader with a penchant for hitting things just so in a way that helps his friends. As far as archetypes go, what a load.

"Feather Me Yon Oaf"? How about "Stick It Up Yon Behind"?

 

[Halivar]

Well duh. Conan's the hero. And when he's king, he's ordering his soldiers. Note the key words "king" and "soldiers".

So... it's not fantasy?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I was referring to the small-party "team-up's" that were my favorite stories, not "Conan with a bunch of subordinate soldiers."