Poll: What would you rename a D&D 5th edition version of the Warlord (if not Warlord)?

EDIT: Poll ended with 330 votes cast.




POLL INSPIRATION


In a recent D&D Google+ Hangout interview with Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford both designers got to talking about the Warlord of 4th edition (at the 37:37 point) and indicated that the class would definitely have a place in 5th edition, but that perhaps the name "Warlord" was ill-suited.

Mike Mearls: "If you meet a 1st level Warlord what does that mean? And even just like the class name, does 'Warlord' make sense for a guy who is just a beginning person?"
Jeremy Crawford: "Right, I just fell off the turnip truck and I AM A WARLORD."

To that end, the above poll offers a number of alternative class names on which to vote which have been largely culled from numerous threads about the Warlord class. If you feel like suggesting another name that has not been covered here, please make 'Other' one of your three votes and post it in the thread below.
"Captain" or "Marshal".  Both are (historically) pretty generic titles for military leaders.  "Captain", especially, could be appropriate for small units.  Note how Boromir calls Aragorn "my Captain" as he's dying.  That's correct.  "Sergeant" is all right too, but it's a little too specifically a subordinate rank for my taste.  It'd be weird to call my 20th-level character who just helped kill a god a "sergeant".

Some of the options on this list are just off the table, as far as I'm concerned.  A "Champion" is the opposite of a leader - he's a guy who does the fighting for someone more important than him.  And a "Vanguard" is a forward scout or skirmisher.
Personally, I feel that 'knight' is the strongest choice. A knight can lead by example, recklessly charging headlong into combat, or issue commands from behind the line of combat or a top a horse. Indeed, a knight can be a mêlée warrior or a mounted warrior. Historically, they are not restricted to either martial expertise. More importantly, knights have a strong presence in medieval/fantasy literature/settings. You can have knights of good or knights of evil. You can have hedge knights or noble knights. Virtuous knights or wicked knights. As iconic names go, the title offers a lot of characterization and flexibility.
I like Leader the best, because it clearly conveys what the class is and does, but doesn't bring a lot of extra baggage to the table.  Military terms like Captain (while they do fit for many warlords) enforce the soldier background, which shouldn't be required.  Knight (again, while working perfectly for many warlords) also carries too much baggage; a Warlord should no more have to be a knight than a warlord.
Warlord is fine.  If the player doesn't think it's appropriate for his character, his character doesn't have to refer to himself by that title; he can call himself whatever he likes.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Personally, I feel that 'knight' is the strongest choice. A knight can lead by example by recklessly charging headlong into combat, or issue commands from behind the line of conflict or a top a horse. Indeed, a knight can a mounted warrior or a mêlée warrior. Historically, they are not restricted to any combative preference. More importantly, knights have a strong presence in both medieval and fantasy literature and settings. You can have knights of good or knights of evil. You can have hedge knights or noble knights. Virtuous knights or wicked knights. As iconic names go, the title offers a lot of characterization and flexibility.


I think the problem here is that not all martial-leaders are knights, and not all knights are martial-leaders.  In fact, one of the most popular knightly archetypes, the knight errant, is renowned for working alone.
Unless 5e plans to go back to level titles, and deciding that PCs actually refer to themselves by /class names/ in-character, the idea that there's anything wrong with the 1st level 'leader-of-men' type warrior being a 'warlord' is completely facetious.  In 1e, you didn't call yourself a 'Wizard' until 11th level, and the archetypal 'wizards' are old grey bearded men not often seen falling off of turnip trucks.    

Are we going to re-name that class 'Prestidigitator' or 'magic-user' to be less lofty-sounding?  No.

Paladins were the personal knights of Charlemagne, peers of their realm, all.  Knighthood, in turn, was won after much training and some deeds of valor or at least based on high birth and privilege.    

Are Paladins now to be called 'Squires?'  No.


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I would just call it the Warlord or Marshall as the next best option I suppose.

 Not sure if this is ironic or not but remember when people were complaining there was no dex based option for a fighter in 4th ed and to play a ranger instead if you wanted a bow? After all its only a name use your imagination.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Tactician seems something that a 1st level character could be.
Knight is a Background but maybe Champion would be good. 
I like Warlord, but I'm also partial to Marshal and Vanguard (the latter due to Mass Effect's Vanguard class).
Warlord is fine.  If the player doesn't think it's appropriate for his character, his character doesn't have to refer to himself by that title; he can call himself whatever he likes.


+1
I would call it Warlord because there is no good reason to rename it.
I would call it Warlord because there is no good reason to rename it.


Well, there's always the supposed fact that putting anything from 4e in the game will instantly kill the franchise(I'm assuming so, given what I've been reading lately, but what do I know?).
Warlord is fine.  If the player doesn't think it's appropriate for his character, his character doesn't have to refer to himself by that title; he can call himself whatever he likes.



Pretty much this. Changing it's official name accomplishes nothing, aside from ticking off 4E fans even more than they already are.
I like Marshal. 
I like Marshal. 

Too western.  Not 'western civiliztion,' but too Matt Dillon, TV-western.   

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

*looks at poll results*

God, I hope they don't rename it as the Knight class. It's a terrible name for what the Warlord actually does. Besides, wasn't the plan to include every class from every PHB1 ever?
Shirley Late-for-Dinner.


Seriously though, how about slipping in some knightly flavour and calling it the "cavalier" bringing in some of that flavour from 1e and other versions to fill in some gaps and add layers to the class? Just a thought.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

"Captain" or "Marshal".  Both are (historically) pretty generic titles for military leaders.  "Captain", especially, could be appropriate for small units.  Note how Boromir calls Aragorn "my Captain" as he's dying.

If D&D should be pulling from anywhere, it's more consistent if it keeps pulling from the same place.  Of course, that would make Aragorn a multi-class Ranger/Captain, but there's nothing wrong with that.

The metagame is not the game.

 how about slipping in some knightly flavour and calling it the "cavalier" bringing in some of that flavour from 1e and other versions to fill in some gaps and add layers to the class? Just a thought.

That would actually narrow the class quite a bit.

And, the Knight and Cavalier have both been classes, before (Cavalier, 1e UA; Knight 3.5 PHII; both,  Essentials), and might conceivably be brought back, again, later.  The Paladin also already subsumes a lot of that flavor.  And, finally, Knight is the kind of social status that would work for a Background.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

And, finally, Knight is the kind of social status that would work for a Background. 


Is a background, in fact.
Of course, that would make Aragorn a multi-class Ranger/Captain, but there's nothing wrong with that.



His whole character arc in the trilogy is deciding to stop being a ranger and level up as a captain.
And, finally, Knight is the kind of social status that would work for a Background. 


Is a background, in fact.


Wonder if we'll get a Knight version of the silliness 4e had, where you could be 4 levels of Undead.(Vrlyloka Vampire w/ Vampire bloodline and Archlich ED, making you a Half-Vampire Half-Vampire Vampire Lich)
That would actually narrow the class quite a bit.

And, the Knight and Cavalier have both been classes, before (Cavalier, 1e UA; Knight 3.5 PHII; both,  Essentials), and might conceivably be brought back, again, later.  The Paladin also already subsumes a lot of that flavor.  And, finally, Knight is the kind of social status that would work for a Background. 


This. Quoting for truth.
Whatever it is, it shouldn't be a title. It shouldn't be something that a different class could become in the game through roleplay alone, or that an NPC could be called without being that class. If you had an NPC called Captain Gregor, you wouldn't want to have to pause the narrative to explain he's not that kind of Captain. It should be more of a general descriptive word that tells what he does, and not a title. 

And it shouldn't be a base class. Make it a type of fighter fighting style with a ranged reaction maneuver that decreases damage to an ally who was just hit. That covers the martial healing debate in a way that makes sense and allows the 'warlord' to exist in 5e.
How about Boo Boo Shinnykins?  It has no association with anything at all.  Henceforth the Warlord class will be called Boo boo Shinnykins!  

Seriously I wish I could revote.  I'd pick Leader, maybe Battle Leader (if it were a choice).  It's a little dry but associative with no particular culture or military or scale of conflict and influence.  

 
Whatever it is, it shouldn't be a title. It shouldn't be something that a different class could become in the game through roleplay alone, or that an NPC could be called without being that class. If you had an NPC called Captain Gregor, you wouldn't want to have to pause the narrative to explain he's not that kind of Captain.



Why would that be assumed?  for that matter, why would anybody care if he is or isn't?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Warlord
Commander
Boss

C'mon

Eery sterotypial crook and hood refers to the leader as "Boss".
Sometimes with a Da in the front.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I picked
Commander
Tactician
Other

Most of the ones listed were a little to strictly military ranks or otherwise carried too much semantic baggage to easily translate to what a DnD 'warlord' is/was, that being a tactically-oriented, mid-line, leader type, with a preference for martial combat.

Honestly, I feel like it should be a prestige class or a specialty (assuming they improve specialties so they're not just arbitrary feat trees with names). I could also see it being an alternate fighter, but then I think, well, wait, a ranger type could make an excellent Commander/Tactician, or hmm.... couldn't a rogue (taken in a swashbuckling/guerilla/charismatic leader sort of direction) make a good tactician? 

Initially, I had seen DnDN panning out thus:

Primary Classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
Secondary Classes: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Monk, Psion
Tertiary Classes: Gish, Artificer, Ardent, Warlock, other somewhat off-beat classes

I always just assumed they would fold 'warlord' into something else. 
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package. 
Warlord is fine.  If the player doesn't think it's appropriate for his character, his character doesn't have to refer to himself by that title; he can call himself whatever he likes.


+1


+1000
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package. 


Let's not.
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package. 


Let's not.


Why not? I mean think about it. How would you build a Warlord in 5e? First of all, if it's the same concept it won't be allowed spells. Because of that it'd probably end up with expertise dice if the non-caster trend continues. So what makes a Warlord special? What sets it apart from the 5e Fighter that can't be handled by maneuvers? Combat Leader is pretty much it. 

EDIT: Actually, Combat Leader could be handled by a maneuver too, it's just an area of effect version of Danger Sense.  
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package. 

That's more or less what I was thinking. Work it in some other way. I don't know if I'd want to trade maneuvers for tactician abilities as there are lots of iconic 'commander' types who are basically just great soldiers. 

Maybe just take multiple paths to the same place. Have a Background as an 'officer'. Have a Specialty called 'tactician' or 'tactical specialty'.  Have a 'commander' maneuver tree and have a true 'War Lord' as a prestige class/legacy option.  

Then, depending on the character concept, you can sort of dial up or back on how much tactical leadership you want for your base character as the game progresses, with plenty of options at each level. 
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package. 

That's more or less what I was thinking. Work it in some other way. I don't know if I'd want to trade maneuvers for tactician abilities as there are lots of iconic 'commander' types who are basically just great soldiers. 

Maybe just take multiple paths to the same place. Have a Background as an 'officer'. Have a Specialty called 'tactician' or 'tactical specialty'.  Have a 'commander' maneuver tree and have a true 'War Lord' as a prestige class/legacy option.  

Then, depending on the character concept, you can sort of dial up or back on how much tactical leadership you want for your base character as the game progresses, with plenty of options at each level. 

I grok what you're saying. There could be Rogue Warlords and Wizard Warlords. Barbarian Warlords and Monk Warlords. Warlock Warlords! Indeed, the 'Warlord' role isn't class specific. It's versatile enough to juxtapose with any character class.
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package. 

That's more or less what I was thinking. Work it in some other way. I don't know if I'd want to trade maneuvers for tactician abilities as there are lots of iconic 'commander' types who are basically just great soldiers. 

Maybe just take multiple paths to the same place. Have a Background as an 'officer'. Have a Specialty called 'tactician' or 'tactical specialty'.  Have a 'commander' maneuver tree and have a true 'War Lord' as a prestige class/legacy option.  

Then, depending on the character concept, you can sort of dial up or back on how much tactical leadership you want for your base character as the game progresses, with plenty of options at each level. 

I grok what you're saying. There could be Rogue Warlords and Wizard Warlords. Barbarian Warlords and Monk Warlords. Warlock Warlords! Indeed, the 'Warlord' role isn't class specific. It's versatile enough to juxtapose with any character class.



The big problem of making a class through a base class + specialty is that you then limit people.  They have to take that specialty to play the core concept they want to play.  No wiggle room. 
O Captain, my Captain.

Actually, I voted for it going back to its original title: Marshall. 
Chavalier
Damn wish I had voted for captain.  It gets the point across and is general enough to be applied broadly.  Oh well already voted for Marshal for much the same reasons.
One of the "others" is me, voting a second time because it wouldn't let me see the poll results for some reason.
Chavalier



No, that's a Paladin specialty. Not the same thing at all. And it's spelled Chevalier. And its fluff is ALL HORSES ALL THE TIME.

Name-wise? Commander, Warlord, and Lord work, in descending order of preference.

Of course, the complaint that started this poll is spurious to begin with: a level 1 character is assumed to be a "journeyman" in whatever their chosen arena is. If Mearls doesn't get that fact, he shouldn't be writing.