[d&d 4e] Lord of what?

[cmdr_zoom]

I can't seem to get my head around warlords.

Some of it, I think, is that in earlier and less aggressively Gamist editions, "leader and primary tactician" wasn't a class but a role - one that might be taken by the party fighter, or a paladin or cleric, or even sometimes a mage or rogue. It seems like they should occupy a space between fighter and cleric similar to the paladin, but along another axis, or opposite, forming a sort of diamond. Or maybe it's a really tough bard? *scratches head*

Some of it, though, is that even in the sorts of online games I've played and I think this edition is trying to emulate or borrow from, I can't recall ever running into this type of character. It's like a tank with the Leadership pool or something. CoH's masterminds are sort of close, but only if you think of the other PCs as pets...

I'm almost tempted to disallow the class in my game, but not just yet.

EDIT: And it's not "my game" anymore, since (as I am not and never have been a miniatures gamer) I went and turned it over to pjack. Everyone will probably be happier.

Comments

[biomekanic.livejournal.com]

I think of them as petless MMs.

[ash-3.livejournal.com]

Eh, 4E really does nothing for me. There are a few interesting bits, like the per-encounter, per-day and at-will powers, but for the most part, I just don't like it. If I want to play World of Warcraft, I'll freaking _play_ World of Warcraft, not this.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

Mostly my opinion too, but I'm giving this a try, in part because our gaming group badly needs something else to play and someone else to run - the main GMs aren't able to right now.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Best as I can tell, they're Bards without the performance aspect. They wanted to keep a class that had the primary task of being a force multiplier, but for some reason the Bard was perceived as being too weak (not something I've ever seen in my games, but obviously I'm outside the maintstream). So they stripped out the performance and social aspects (because everyone is equally social) and beefed up the combat. But at the end of the day they're decent fighters who make their allies more effective and have a little bit of healing ability. It's a Bard.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can kind of get that now. But "warlord" makes me think of heavy fighter types, and bards have always been more rogue-like in my head. The ones who stand back and sing and encourage, not stand in the battle line.

[mechaman.livejournal.com]

Maybe, to wrap it around, think of the warlord (as far as I can understand it) is kind of the anti-mage. The one who used Deeds and Words to cause his own effects, which strengthen and bring the party together. Actually, more accurately? A melee-based rad defender. Buffs and debuffs radiate from him or on the foes he focusses on.

Honestly, the idea is actually sound and the class name isn't bad, it's just most of the classic versions were ALSO excellent in another class as well.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

From reading their powers, the Warlord seems to be a way of introducing a professional solider-type with solid tactical knowledge to the game without requiring players to have that knowledge. INHO, a warlord will be the won shouting commands and advice to his compatriots, leading from the front, and timing his attacks to give his companions an advantage.

I like the class, since it represents something new in the game.

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

Jack not class! Jack job!