What is missing from 4E

It doesn't support the kind of heroes we read about in novels, though. They help each other, but can fight just as well alone. A D&D party is not a military unit, until now. Conan, Pug, and other lone wolves wouldn't feel comfortable in 4E.

D&D isn't a "go team!", "and I'll form the head!" type game, because it's against type - fantasy heroes aren't about that for the most part. I'm suprised some people seem to think it is. It's just another gamist alienation of D&D away from the genre it supposedly is supposed to convey.

Most fantasy fiction doesn't even involve a party of adventurers, that is something that D&D pretty much created, with a few notable exceptions in literature. Its probably easier for an author to tell a compelling story about one major protagonist, rather than a group of five or more people. However, because D&D is a group-based RPG, has ALWAYS (since OD&D) been about the group, group dynamics, and utilizing the group's resources to best effect. As has been discussed before, D&D sucks as emulating fantasy fiction, but its very good at providing group roleplaying activities based on fantasy fiction. This isn't something new with the "go team!", its always been there, but 4e spelled out the distiction more clearly.

I can see your point to a degree, but I think you're forgetting some basic facts about Conan as well. While in some stories he adventured alone, he was often a commander of other forces, such as Belit and her crew of corsairs, when he joins and leads warparties of the Vilayet kozaks in "The Devil in Iron", or when he works FOR Prince Almuric as a military commander along with Natala in "Xuthal of the Dusk", to name but a few examples found in the core Howard stories. This idea you have about all fantasy figures being lone wolves is a a false one, especially in the case of the quintessential "lone wolf", Conan. To quote from Wikipedia:

"Despite his brutish appearance, Conan uses his brain as well as his brawn. The Cimmerian is a talented fighter, but his travels have given him vast experience in other trades, especially as a thief; he is also a talented commander, tactician and strategist, as well as a born leader. In addition, Conan speaks many languages, including advanced reading and writing abilities: in certain stories, he is able to recognize, or even decipher, certain ancient or secret signs and writings."

That sure sounds like a warlord to me, or at the very least a multiclass warlord. There certainly is a place for warlords in D&D, even according to fantasy classics such as the Conan stories.

Another very good example of warlords can be found in the Lord of the Rings books, and you don't get much more D&D than that. Boromir was clearly a warlord, having been described as one of the great captains of Gondor. However, as others have said, warlords don't HAVE to be military commanders or barking out orders- they can be interpreted that way, but I can just as easily envision a warlord who inspires his comrades and creates chaos in the enemy ranks by his own reckless bravado, or his fearsome presence, or any number of other possible ways. Another good example of a warlord from LotR would be Aragorn. To me, Aragorn is probably a ranger who multiclassed into warlord, and took several warlord powers. We know Aragorn worked for years in the North leading warbands of rangers against the minions of the Witch King. A great example of Inspiring World would be in the Two Towers, after Boromir is dead, and Merry and Pippin have been taken by the uruk-hai. Gimli and Legolas are exhausted and demoralized after their battle, but Aragorn implores them to go on, because he won't leave Merry and Pippin to die at the hands of the uruks. Gimli and Legolas press on despite their wounds, having found extra reserves of strength to begin the cross-country trek in pursuit of their friends.

I think you're artificially limiting yourself by interpreting the name "warlord" too literally, and the concept of the class too narrowly. There are clearly examples of warlords to be found in fantasy fiction, even in the classics of the genre. IMO, warlords were one of the best new aspects to be added to the game that were sorely lacking before, and add to play immensely.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


All classes work better as part of a team but the warlord seems a bit more team dependent than any other core class.
I play a warlord who is not only the face and leader of the group, he's also the tank. More often than not, he uses his Inspiring Word ability on himself. In roleplay, this usually takes the form of him defiantly struggling through his grievous wounds with a shout to Bahamut, followed by an appropriately cinematic standard action. Of course, just because he's got more-than-half hitpoints afterwards doesn't mean he doesn't still look like he's just been through a meat-grinder.

I think this character could viably do a solo campaign, if the campaign were tailored for it.
 







Yet somehow it was not regarded as annoying or rude glad to see everything is still handled in such a fair and balanced way still...

And that's any of your business why? :erm:

So, the Warlord is bad because they're not a good class to play alone...except I could think of some pretty kick-ass solo campaigns involving a Warlord. Throw in some skill training, have him/her travel around on diplomatic missions, getting into all sorts of trouble and eventually bringing down the BBEG to assume his/her rightful place on the throne.

It'd be really tough, and probably heavily RP-focused, but it'd be damn fun.

...what were we talking about, again?
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top