Looking for Warlord Article in Dragon Magazine...

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi,

Can anyone provide a link to or the text substance of the Warlord article that is listed in the previews section of the website as appearing in the January issue of Dragon. I can't find the link. I would also appreciate a link to the warlock pacts article from the December issue.

Thanks in Advance.
Hi,

Can anyone provide a link to or the text substance of the Warlord article that is listed in the previews section of the website as appearing in the January issue of Dragon. I can't find the link. I would also appreciate a link to the warlock pacts article from the December issue.

Thanks in Advance.

The warlord article hasn't shown up yet. We're still waiting for it.

The warlock article is downloadable along with the rest of that issue, but I'd have to look around for a link.
Its not entirely obvious, but many of the things they promised in that preview (back in December, I believe?) have yet to materialize. I seem to remember somethig about rules for epic binders ;).

For better or worse, it seems WotC is focused almost exlusively on the 4e launch at this time, which means any "promised" Dragon articles have been put on the back burner.

Once 4e launches, perhaps the online mags will pick up. Unfortunately by then, they'll be using 4e rules and the 3.5 articles will have been effectively "lost" to us . WotC is looking forward, not back, which is good for them but meanwhile we're out some nifty 3.5 articles.
/\ Art
For better or worse, it seems WotC is focused almost exlusively on the 4e launch at this time, which means any "promised" Dragon articles have been put on the back burner.

Once 4e launches, perhaps the online mags will pick up. Unfortunately by then, they'll be using 4e rules and the 3.5 articles will have been effectively "lost" to us . WotC is looking forward, not back, which is good for them but meanwhile we're out some nifty 3.5 articles.

Of course, given that 99% of the missing articles are previews of 4e you'd think they could put those out on time....;)
Of course, given that 99% of the missing articles are previews of 4e you'd think they could put those out on time....;)

Ditto. That is an amazing gap given that the article was slated for January. I also can't find the warlock pacts article slated for December. I did find a very short article that I had seen last fall. I dont't think they are the same.
Thanks for the info.
Of course, given that 99% of the missing articles are previews of 4e you'd think they could put those out on time....;)

Agreed. It's really just copy and paste after all. Hard at work on 4E they may be - and we all appreciate that, we really do - but why can't some intern be given a pile of articles to post? What, is EVERYONE in the office too busy?

Ah, enough *****ing from me. I don't know the pressure they're under. If they can't sort Dragon out after the launch then we'll all be voting with our feet anyway.
Agreed. It's really just copy and paste after all. Hard at work on 4E they may be - and we all appreciate that, we really do - but why can't some intern be given a pile of articles to post? What, is EVERYONE in the office too busy?

Ah, enough *****ing from me. I don't know the pressure they're under. If they can't sort Dragon out after the launch then we'll all be voting with our feet anyway.

Weren't the Elf and Rogue entries literally cut-and-paste from the PHB? It isn't like they're writing this from scratch. It wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't promised us this, but since they have, the least they can do is Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V.
Warlord article is up now.

I like it.

Though they really have to think who they are presenting this stuff to. The sports references left a bad taste in my mouth.

To quote Gamers (the movie, not "The Gamers", the other movie)...

"Heh,..sports."
"I love the name of the warlord class. I supported using the name instead of the original "marshal" name we'd drafted from 3rd Edition. But some players' first impression on hearing the name "warlord" is that the class must be tougher than all the other characters, the nastiest battlefield hack-and-slasher in the game."

Hey, ROB HEINSOO, you've missed the point completely. People don't dislike the name because they think it *sounds* powerful. 'Warlock' sounds powerful, people don't dislike that. People hate the term 'Warlord' because it is the ONLY core class whose name implies rank.
Thanks to Rob for posting this long awaited and much anticipated article. Warlords look cooler all the time.
"I love the name of the warlord class. I supported using the name instead of the original "marshal" name we'd drafted from 3rd Edition. But some players' first impression on hearing the name "warlord" is that the class must be tougher than all the other characters, the nastiest battlefield hack-and-slasher in the game."

Hey, ROB HEINSOO, you've missed the point completely. People don't dislike the name because they think it *sounds* powerful. 'Warlock' sounds powerful, people don't dislike that. People hate the term 'Warlord' because it is the ONLY core class whose name implies rank.

I think he's just politely walking away from the controversy. However in addition to implying rank the term conjures the image of an high level, perhaps epic, fighter. I think that is what he is getting at. That was certainly my objection when I first heard the name used for the new core class. Over time I have warmed to it as more information has been released. Overall I am just happy to have the information and I am happy a tactics based fighting class in now available.
I am less then impressed, class power that only works if you have somebody to lead does not impress me at all.

Marshall vs. Warlord (both splat classes in the first place) argument makes little sense. Both classes have leadership titles, one of course is gender specific the other was not.

Much like the Warlock, I do not like the new core classes. Reviews of the more core classes that have been released also has not impressed me well.
Plans are always subject to change.
I'm not sure if a martial leader class will appeal to me as a player, but I know it will appeal to several people I play with. I find the concept interesting.
What about the class that just kills stuff, like the fighter. What if you just want to play the guy you call when something needs to die? I'm not here to lead anyone, I'm not concerned with what angle you want to attack from, or who should do what, I have a clean sword and it feels wrong in my hands...what's that class called in 4e?

;)

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

What about the class that just kills stuff, like the fighter. What if you just want to play the guy you call when something needs to die? I'm not here to lead anyone, I'm not concerned with what angle you want to attack from, or who should do what, I have a clean sword and it feels wrong in my hands...what's that class called in 4e?

;)

That would be the fighter.
My objection was also to the presumtion of great power. We all understand that the lowliest spear-wielder is a fighter, that the greenest acolyte is a cleric and that the clumsiest purse-snatcher is a rogue. But how do we reconcile a wet-behind-the-ears platoon corporal with the class "Warlord"? "Marshal" was still a bit pretentious IMO, but better.

Am I the only one who thinks that warlord would seem better placed as a paragon path than as a base class? I guess the problem with that is that the Warlord is cast as a leader while the fighter is a defender. But where else do actual warlords come from than among the ranks of the defenders or noble class? I think that perhaps a better choice for a core, base class leader alternative to the cleric would have probably been the bard.

Of course, I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate for a character to shift roles going from heroic to paragon to epic, but then again, I have seen the full mechanics yet.
My objection was also to the presumtion of great power. We all understand that the lowliest spear-wielder is a fighter, that the greenest acolyte is a cleric and that the clumsiest purse-snatcher is a rogue. But how do we reconcile a wet-behind-the-ears platoon corporal with the class "Warlord"? "Marshal" was still a bit pretentious IMO, but better.

Obviously you missed the 3 or 4 dozen threads about naming the warlord. ;) Do we have to rehash that here?
Hey, ROB HEINSOO, you've missed the point completely. People don't dislike the name because they think it *sounds* powerful. 'Warlock' sounds powerful, people don't dislike that. People hate the term 'Warlord' because it is the ONLY core class whose name implies rank.

Actually no, the name implies nothing. You infer rank because of some real world attachment of that name to someone of a certain rank or stature. It is merely a cultural contrivance.

Many of us prefer Warlord to the other potential names put out there. Give it a rest.
Actually no, the name implies nothing. You infer rank because of some real world attachment of that name to someone of a certain rank or stature. It is merely a cultural contrivance.

Many of us prefer Warlord to the other potential names put out there. Give it a rest.

That's what 'implies' means. Your statement is begging the question.

And I'm sure a number of people like 'Warlord', but a number of people would prefer otherwise, so I could just as readily ask you to give it a rest.
That's what 'implies' means. Your statement is begging the question.

And I'm sure a number of people like 'Warlord', but a number of people would prefer otherwise, so I could just as readily ask you to give it a rest.

The real clinching point is that you can't get many people who don't like "Warlord" behind one alternative name.

After lengthy debate, we keep comming to the point of saying "Warlord may not be the best name but every other name we could think of was worse."
The real clinching point is that you can't get many people who don't like "Warlord" behind one alternative name.

After lengthy debate, we keep comming to the point of saying "Warlord may not be the best name but every other name we could think of was worse."

I think inertia is at work. If they had stuck with their first choice of Marshal, my guess is that most people would want to stick with that name.

I love the concept of the Warlord, but much prefer the name Marshal. There is no chance in heck of it being changed at this point, though. It's too late, and the designer loves the name. Not going to happen (unfortunately).

I've settled on calling it "Warleader", which probably sounds just as sucky as Warlord, but-- Warleader is close enough to Warlord that it is an easy translation when reading it, I won't confuse it with Warlock when writing or reading my own notes, and it's gender neutral.