Spot the Difference
I really like the warlord. I like support classes and have fond memories of my buffing bard in 3rd Edition. I enjoy making everyone else in the party awesome. But I have a few problems with the warlord.
One of my problems is the visual overlap with the fighter. I’ve often teased that you can tell if a picture shows a fighter or a warlord because the warlord will always be pointing. This seems to be the sole visual cue: warlords gesture.
If you divorce the warlord from mechanics – or even just its role in combat – the warlord begins to look a lot like a fighter. They wear heavy armour, are strong, rely on weapons, and have no inherent magic. You could make a charismatic fighter with a leadership-oriented maneuvers and it would be pretty functional as a warlord. While I think the warlord deserves to be its own class (especially as much as other fighter-overlap classes such as the ranger, paladin, or barbarian) it needs some work to stand apart.
The name is also problematic. What’s a first level warlord? One who quite literally has zero-experience. Bilbo Baggins was a first level rogue when he ran out of Bag End without his handkerchiefs, Willow (from the movie of the same name) was a first level wizard when found the infant princess, and Parn from Record of Lodoss War was first level when he grabbed his father’s sword and armour and left the farm. But what does a rookie warlord look like?
The real world connotations of the name also trouble me. There are real warlords in the world as I write this, ones who terrorize their citizens. It’s like naming a class “Führer ”: it’s a perfectly fine word meaning “leader” and “guide” that would make an excellent name for a type of ranger. But is a term utterly ruined by the real world connotations. Everytime I hear “warlord” I think BBC reports of Afghan warlords, or similar stories from Somolia, Sudan, and Libya.
The first level warlord is the corporal or the leader of the militia who leads not as much by example as by orders. While the fighter might inspire his village militia to furious assaults on the orcs, the warlord will make sure they stay calm and release the arrows at the perfect moment. He might not become a legend there and then, but he will bring a larger part of the militia back home alive. So yes, he will be pointing a lot. But compare this to paintings. Is it not the generals that we see, rather than the front line hero?
A lot of this depends on what a first level character is. Someone who is “leader of the militia” doesn’t strike me as someone with zero experience. You’re captain of the guard, which suggests experience.
I’ve heard many people describe a first level warlord as someone right out of the officer’s academy which also doesn’t feel right, as officer’s academies are a pretty modern idea, and you can’t imagine one in Fallcrest (or Hobbiton).
What is “zero experience”? Is wizard with zero experience the apprentice who just came to his master’s tower, or the person who just left the tower to explore the world? Is the cleric with zero experience a person who just came to a temple to learn about a god, or a person who after studying for years in the temple goes out to spread the god’s influence. Is the warlord with zero experience the squire who just got to start training, or the recently dubbed knight gaining command of a handful of soldiers?
I would say that while there might be no officer’s academies in D&D worlds, there probably are nobles or persons with influence. A scenario to demonstrate what I mean by militia:
The villagers in a village just large enough to have a blacksmith look to old blacksmith for leadership due to his age, strength and deeds. He has a son who just took over the full responsibility for the blacksmith. One day a monster starts to harass the village, killing animals and villagers alike. One victim is the old blacksmith. Afraid of the monster and lacking the leadership of the old blacksmith they turn to the new one who dons some armour and takes his hammer and promises to lead anyone willing against the beast, and some villagers take up old heirloom swords, axes or other weapons and follow the smith. If he is more of a fighter he might find the beast and be the first to take it on, thus inspiring the rest of the villagers (or the militia as I named it in my previous comment) to also attack. On the other hand, if the smith plans an ambush or performs an assault where he directs the attack rather than takes the front of it, then I would describe him as a warlord if I were to use D&D classes. In both cases no training or experience is involved, but the smith in both cases might decide to become an adventurer to kill monsters before others have to loose their life.
I hope this illustrates my point better, and I think that we probably agree to a large degree.
When I think more about it: if Bilbo was a first level rouge when he left Bag End, then I see no reason not to describe Frodo as a first level warlord when he left Bag End a number of years later.
‘What is “zero experience”?’
I think that was kind of his point in the previous comment. It isn’t really well established how much experience is or isn’t under a character’s belt when they start adventuring. In my opinion that is only a plus since it allows for believability in having a player who wants to have his character be a 20-something farm hand who just picked up a sword last week, and another who wants to play the old wizard who has spent years studying ancient scrolls, but has had little “real world” practice.