As much as I appreciate the reasonably detailed preview of the "new" Warlord class, I really don't see the need for it. I just don't see anything that this class brings which isn't or can't be covered by the paladin or cleric.
Sure. I should really wait to see the nitty gritty details on the paladin and cleric before flying off the handle. But where's the fun in that?
Anyways. Regardless of which "build" (might as well say "cookie cutter" or "road map") of Warlord is chosen it all smacks of paladin and cleric. It's like those two classes hooked up after a night of heavy drinking and nine months later the Warlord was born. And now we're all forced to pat this ugly little bastard on the head and gush about what a beautiful baby it is.
Seriously. Does the Warlord bring anything new to the game?
The other redundant classes; the sorcerer, barbarian, and bard all brought something different to the table. A different method of choosing and prepping spells, rage and DR, and inspiring songs (yeah, the bard is just a super gay class). Admittedly those things really aren't a lot but they are something at least.
From the preview article, "Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand. Warlords know how to rally a team to win a fight."
Sounds like a Fighter, or Paladin, or even a martial focused Cleric. Not sure why we need another class issuing commands in battle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
From what i understand, the Warlord is a combination of many aspects of the Fighter/Cleric/Paladin.
At first i was all ready to disagree with you on your post but then i got to thinking and realised that you don't need the Warlord as a standard class (certainly not in the first Player's Handbook) if you already have the Fighter/Cleric/Paladin.
I can see it as a prestige class or a martial standard class in a supplementary book but not in the first core book.
Post a Comment