Community

I've never been able to get a good image of the class in my name with the name "warlord" or even "marshal." It's not that I don't understand the concept. A warlord is a character with some martial ability, but who focuses more on giving inspiration or tactical help to others on the battlefield, and may also have skills in diplomacy and leadership off the battlefield.

Okay, fair enough. So we're looking at everything from a crafty combatant who isn't anyone's "leader" but just does a great job pointing out opportunities, to a nobleman, to a military officer.

Here's the problem. When we use the term "warlord," all I can see in my mind is Ghengis Khan or an anti-paladin clad head to toe in blackened armor.  There's a bit of cognizant dissonance to applying the term to a 1st level adolescent prince or a the guy fresh out of officer's training.

I don't have this problem with any other PHB base class (any edition).

One of the issues I have is that the name almost *demands* a certain level of proficiency that is unrealistic (at least pre-4E, and I submit even then) to apply to a 1st level character. Some other iconic classes have a similar issue (wizard, paladin), but you can easily modify them by throwing in an "apprentice" or "squire" to their name.  Even if you had an "apprentice warlord," he would still be high level.

It all comes down to the fact that warlord sounds more like it differs from other classes in degree than in kind. A "warlord" is most fitting as a term for a high-level fighter...or cleric...or wizard...etc.  Would we make a base class and call it "Arch-mage"?  Sounds about the same to me.

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

Who can offer some good ideas?

It's pretty irrelevant; if you don't like the name 'warlord' on your sheet, cross it off and write in what you feel your character would call himself, like you would with any class.

Does it help if you think of a 1st-level Marshal/Warlord as being a Lieutenaint fresh out of officer training? Maybe even a low ranking NCO?

I agree with the OP... but I've never come across a name that really fits... except.. and this just came to me... and it is already a term in 4e... Leader.  It describes the class pretty well in my opinion on a pretty similar level to the others.


Or maybe tactician.... or something similar. 

You could use the word "caudillo", why noy? Is it politically incorrect? (You can see it in wikipedia if you want)

Almost any warlord (here I mean Warlord with a capital W, as in PCs with that class) has training as a soldier and leader of troops. Apart from reskinning the class as a smart guy with good ideas with no formal training (an interesting character concept, but inarguably the exception rather than the rule), it simply is part of collective Warlord lore that the class has been trained to lead. Rare is the warlord who fights from the rear, advising the group's leader and hoping his insight is heeded. Instead, warlords simply do outrank their fellow adventurers, unless they are that exception.

Therefore I disagree with the OP. "Warlord" may not be a perfect name for every adventurer who takes on the class, but to me it's more important that the name be descriptive of the class's abilities, and evocative.

That said, here's some alternatives (I'm paying no attention to whether or not they share the same issues that the OP takes with "Warlord"):

• Tactician
• Captain
• Marshal
• Leader
• Mastermind
• Officer
• Savant

Apr 28, 2012 -- 1:47AM, BendBarsLiftGates wrote:

• Tactician
• Captain
• Marshal
• Leader
• Mastermind
• Officer
• Savant

I like Captain.  In a medieval like setting it makes sense.   

I'm one of those that want the Warlord dead (for my games of course) but I'd transfer a lot of his powers to feats that other classes could take.  Not healing though. 

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:49PM, Salla wrote:

It's pretty irrelevant; if you don't like the name 'warlord' on your sheet, cross it off and write in what you feel your character would call himself, like you would with any class.

That's an irrelevant response.

The proposal has been made that the Warlord has a less than desirable name, and it would be nice for the classes to have names that are evocative and make sense.

Saying, as a response, that one can simply ignore the thing one feels is "bad" is not a useful contribution.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 11:13PM, Luis_Carlos wrote:

You could use the word "caudillo", why noy? Is it politically incorrect? (You can see it in wikipedia if you want)

I know too many people with the last name Caudillo. Including my step siblings, but definitely not limited to them.


I like Captain, and think it should have been the name all along.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

Who can offer some good ideas?

I'd go with "fighter".

No, seriously. A warlord is just a fighter with a healer/leader build. If you try and think about a striker warlord or defender warlord you end up with a something identical to a fighter. They're closer together than paladins and clerics, which were blog worthy for their overlap. 

Warlords be fighters. 

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:01PM, The_Jester wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

Who can offer some good ideas?

I'd go with "fighter".

No, seriously. A warlord is just a fighter with a healer/leader build. If you try and think about a striker warlord or defender warlord you end up with a something identical to a fighter. They're closer together than paladins and clerics, which were blog worthy for their overlap. 

Warlords be fighters. 

It's a cool enough concept that it's worthy of it's own class.

People need to get over the aversion to more classes.

There has been complaints that Clerics and Paladins occupy the same game space.

Keep the Warlord the same, but call him a Paladin. He heals and inspires people. He is a Paladin. Drop the current Paladin. As I recall Charlemagne’s Paladin's were his war leaders.

The problem with the name War Lord is every time I watch CNN there are Warlords with private armies terrorizing civilians. In our modern language Warlord is synonymous with evil

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:17PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:01PM, The_Jester wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

Who can offer some good ideas?

I'd go with "fighter".

No, seriously. A warlord is just a fighter with a healer/leader build. If you try and think about a striker warlord or defender warlord you end up with a something identical to a fighter. They're closer together than paladins and clerics, which were blog worthy for their overlap. 

Warlords be fighters. 

It's a cool enough concept that it's worthy of it's own class.

People need to get over the aversion to more classes.

There's only so much room in the books, and I have less tolerance for one-trick-pony classes that are a single build or hook or mechanics. I dislike classes that are less of a broad niche or archetype and more a reflection of a single character. 

The avenger is really just an offensive paladin. 
The shaman is really a spirit-centric druid.
The invoker is really a crowd-controlling cleric.
The sorcerer is really a book-less wizard.
The ardent is really a leader psion.

My personal thought is if a class cannot occupy more than one 4e combat role without overlapping with another class in flavour or mechanics then it simply does not need to exist. We do not need grid-filler classes. Fewer classes that can do multiple things, each with varied archetypes.

Some work.
I can imagine a swordmage that deals damage and it would be interesting seeing one that augments its allies with magic and serves more of a leader role. It'd overlap a little with the hexblade, but that's really different enough from standard warlocks to be ignorable. 
The artificer could be fun as a tank, buffing himself into being unkillable.

I like the warlord. I liked the marshall in 3e. I dig the martial leader, the general character ordering his allies around and making the rest of the party awesome. I love support characters. But they're a fighter. The flavour is pure fighter. And most of the characters I've seen presented as "textbook warlords" (Roy from OotS, Tanis Half-Elven, etc) were fighters in earlier editions. Warlords are simply a fighter build plain and simple.  

Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:52PM, The_Jester wrote:

There's only so much room in the books, and I have less tolerance for one-trick-pony classes that are a single build or hook or mechanics. I dislike classes that are less of a broad niche or archetype and more a reflection of a single character. 

The avenger is really just an offensive paladin. 
The shaman is really a spirit-centric druid.
The invoker is really a crowd-controlling cleric.
The sorcerer is really a book-less wizard.
The ardent is really a leader psion.

My personal thought is if a class cannot occupy more than one 4e combat role without overlapping with another class in flavour or mechanics then it simply does not need to exist. We do not need grid-filler classes. Fewer classes that can do multiple things, each with varied archetypes.

Some work.
I can imagine a swordmage that deals damage and it would be interesting seeing one that augments its allies with magic and serves more of a leader role. It'd overlap a little with the hexblade, but that's really different enough from standard warlocks to be ignorable. 
The artificer could be fun as a tank, buffing himself into being unkillable.

I like the warlord. I liked the marshall in 3e. I dig the martial leader, the general character ordering his allies around and making the rest of the party awesome. I love support characters. But they're a fighter. The flavour is pure fighter. And most of the characters I've seen presented as "textbook warlords" (Roy from OotS, Tanis Half-Elven, etc) were fighters in earlier editions. Warlords are simply a fighter build plain and simple.  

Other than repeating what I've already said, because you've said nothing to convince me that class "bloat" is a bad thing, rather than a good thing, I'll say that the Shaman is at least as broad as the druid in concept, if not moreso, as is the avenger, which could be a political fanatic, or a demon hunter and who mechanically could be a weapon and close attack using controller and possibly even an enabling/debuff leader (like a mix of warlord esque enabling and bardesque debuffs).

The warlord could also be a controller, at least, without stepping on any toes. This would be done in a similar manner to his leading. That is, the warlord would use an action to have multiple allies hit multiple enemies at once, spread out over the battlefield and use tactical knowledge to pen in, trick and otherwise disadvantage enemies.

And unless you're going to get rid of the paladin, druid, ranger, rogue and really even the cleric, the whole argument gets silly.

Because,

The Cleric is just a leader Magic User.

The Rogue is just a backstabbing Fighting Man.

The Ranger is just a light armored survivalist Fighting Man.

The Druid is just a Nature Magic User.

The Paladin is just a fighter that multiclassed magic user...slightly.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

I agree that a 1st level Warlord is sort of like a military officer fresh out of training.  And that Warlord is kind badass for the weakness that is a 1st level Warlord in 4e.  Military rank, including Captain which is probably the best choice, is tied to the military which doesn't necessarily translate to adventuring.  I think Warlord was a good enough choice, certainly had me wanting to try the character!

I'd suggest Leader in Next, hoping Next drops Roles.

Or Commander, which is a little bit more militaristic and could work in a "command" subsystem in Next.

But I think Warlord is really better off a Fighter Theme, certainly with it's own juice but better able to get the job done himself.  The Warlord could be the charismatic fighter without the chivalry - some would call - handcuff.

I like the word captain.

But if I ever made a warlord, then I would probably refer to him as "morale officer" or "career coach" or something similar.

What about "condottieri"?

And "dux" or "duke"? The background of "martial leader" (or a theme) could be the noble from high society. Noble was a core class in Dragonlance 3rd Ed, wasn´t it?  

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Jim11735 wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

I agree that a 1st level Warlord is sort of like a military officer fresh out of training.  And that Warlord is kind badass for the weakness that is a 1st level Warlord in 4e.  Military rank, including Captain which is probably the best choice, is tied to the military which doesn't necessarily translate to adventuring.  I think Warlord was a good enough choice, certainly had me wanting to try the character!

I'd suggest Leader in Next, hoping Next drops Roles.

Or Commander, which is a little bit more militaristic and could work in a "command" subsystem in Next.

Captain is a pretty broad term, actually. One can be the captain of a band of brigands, for instance. It's practically the default for someone who is in charge, but has no actual rank by which to be known.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:24AM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Jim11735 wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

I agree that a 1st level Warlord is sort of like a military officer fresh out of training.  And that Warlord is kind badass for the weakness that is a 1st level Warlord in 4e.  Military rank, including Captain which is probably the best choice, is tied to the military which doesn't necessarily translate to adventuring.  I think Warlord was a good enough choice, certainly had me wanting to try the character!

I'd suggest Leader in Next, hoping Next drops Roles.

Or Commander, which is a little bit more militaristic and could work in a "command" subsystem in Next.

Captain is a pretty broad term, actually. One can be the captain of a band of brigands, for instance. It's practically the default for someone who is in charge, but has no actual rank by which to be known.

I could get behind Captain.  The question then, is Captain a better choice across 20+ levels than Warlord which is according to the OP, too badass for low level?

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:27AM, Jim11735 wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:24AM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Jim11735 wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

So my proposal is simply that there needs to be a better name to represent this class. I'm not going to argue for its existance, just its name.

I agree that a 1st level Warlord is sort of like a military officer fresh out of training.  And that Warlord is kind badass for the weakness that is a 1st level Warlord in 4e.  Military rank, including Captain which is probably the best choice, is tied to the military which doesn't necessarily translate to adventuring.  I think Warlord was a good enough choice, certainly had me wanting to try the character!

I'd suggest Leader in Next, hoping Next drops Roles.

Or Commander, which is a little bit more militaristic and could work in a "command" subsystem in Next.

Captain is a pretty broad term, actually. One can be the captain of a band of brigands, for instance. It's practically the default for someone who is in charge, but has no actual rank by which to be known.

I could get behind Captain.  The question then, is Captain a better choice across 20+ levels than Warlord which is according to the OP, too badass for low level?

Warlord could be an epic destiny, or high level theme, IMO.

Captain works at every level.

-Motivational Speaker

-Daily Affirmation with Stuart Smally

I do like Captain. 

Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:52PM, The_Jester wrote:

The avenger is really just an offensive paladin. 
The shaman is really a spirit-centric druid.
The invoker is really a crowd-controlling cleric.
The sorcerer is really a book-less wizard.
The ardent is really a leader psion.

The cleric is just a leader wizard
The rogue is just a stealthy fighter

by this excessively reductionist logic, there are only two classes: magicians and muggles.

Or heck, gishes are a thing in D&D, so there's just one class, the Gish, and fighters are just gishes that mostly take weapon abilities while wizards are just gishes that mostly take spell abilities.

And sure, that works on a level, although I'd argue that classless systems like GURPs generally provide for less fundamental character diverstity rather than more.  If you want to have a targeted mechanical framework capable of supporting something like (just to pick one concept out of thin air) a pet class without it gumming up the game, and without it either being useless or broken due to being tacked onto an existing framework that was already supposed to work fine without it, then you need to build those mechanical frameworks into the fundamentals of how a class functions from the ground up.

IE, a make a new class.

So, imo, there should be exactly as many base classes as there are concepts distinct enough to warrant unique mechanical frameworks.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 2:01PM, malisteen wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:52PM, The_Jester wrote:

The avenger is really just an offensive paladin. 
The shaman is really a spirit-centric druid.
The invoker is really a crowd-controlling cleric.
The sorcerer is really a book-less wizard.
The ardent is really a leader psion.

The cleric is just a leader wizard
The rogue is just a stealthy fighter

by this excessively reductionist logic, there are only two classes: magicians and muggles.

Or heck, gishes are a thing in D&D, so there's just one class, the Gish, and fighters are just gishes that mostly take weapon abilities while wizards are just gishes that mostly take spell abilities.

And sure, that works on a level, although I'd argue that classless systems like GURPs generally provide for less fundamental character diverstity rather than more.  If you want to have a targeted mechanical framework capable of supporting something like (just to pick one concept out of thin air) a pet class without it gumming up the game, and without it either being useless or broken due to being tacked onto an existing framework that was already supposed to work fine without it, then you need to build those mechanical frameworks into the fundamentals of how a class functions from the ground up.

IE, a make a new class.

So, imo, there should be exactly as many base classes as there are concepts distinct enough to warrant unique mechanical frameworks.

This.

"So, imo, there should be exactly as many base classes as there are concepts distinct enough to warrant unique mechanical frameworks."

I agree, but feel that this statement is just as much about responsible editing as inclusion.

I like the Avenger and the Shaman as seperate groups, (Avengers wear no armor, Paladins are all about the armor, Shaman is the village healer who seeks guidance from spirits, Druid belongs to a cabal of shapeshifters that live deep in the woods that have their own political motivations)  but Battleminds and Ardent's fell flat and seemed to be there for symmetry. Psychic warrior who can lean towards healer or defender would wrap them both up nicely.

Runepriest and Seeker had awesome fluff, but didn't have much support, Themes for clerics and rangers would have given the fluff without the feeling of abandonment.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 2:01PM, malisteen wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:52PM, The_Jester wrote:

The avenger is really just an offensive paladin. 
The shaman is really a spirit-centric druid.
The invoker is really a crowd-controlling cleric.
The sorcerer is really a book-less wizard.
The ardent is really a leader psion.

The cleric is just a leader wizard
The rogue is just a stealthy fighter

by this excessively reductionist logic, there are only two classes: magicians and muggles.

Or heck, gishes are a thing in D&D, so there's just one class, the Gish, and fighters are just gishes that mostly take weapon abilities while wizards are just gishes that mostly take spell abilities.

And sure, that works on a level, although I'd argue that classless systems like GURPs generally provide for less fundamental character diverstity rather than more.  If you want to have a targeted mechanical framework capable of supporting something like (just to pick one concept out of thin air) a pet class without it gumming up the game, and without it either being useless or broken due to being tacked onto an existing framework that was already supposed to work fine without it, then you need to build those mechanical frameworks into the fundamentals of how a class functions from the ground up.

IE, a make a new class.

So, imo, there should be exactly as many base classes as there are concepts distinct enough to warrant unique mechanical frameworks.

Except what's the limit of a "unique mechanical framework"? Is it a single mechanic? Does the avenger deserve to exist because of it's oath/reroll mechanic? Does the seeker because of its bond?

There NEEDS to be a marriage of mechanic and fluff, and both need to exist and have some uniqueness. If something cannot work as an existing class (say, the runepriest) then maybe there needs to be a new class. 

Classes died in the chance from 3e to 4e. We lost the scout and in doing so the ranger became better. Pretty much every non-core 3e class never got updated, with the exception of the marshall, the spirit shaman and what became the ardent. 
Why are 4e classes different? Why should the battlemind get a free pass when the psychic warrior didn't?

I'm not advocating stripping things down to bare bones, the big three (fighter, rogue, and spell-caster). Anything that's been around for two or more editions should be "in" (warlock is safe). But anything that was introduced in 4e had better justify its existance, just as anything that was only in 2e or 3e had darn well better be something special to warrant inclusion. Both mechanically and flavourfully. 

This is a benefit to the game. There is only so much space in sourcebooks for new material. 3e suffered from a complete lack of support for every non-core class, and 4e tried to fix that by saying "everything is core" but forgot as the number of classes increased there'd eventually not be enough space for everything. If a book has to make a choice between content for the wizard or content for the ardent, it's going to go to the wizard every time. If you limit the number of classes and instead work on making the classes flexible through builds (or archetypes, or paths/prestige classes) then it benefits the game and the players. 

As much as I hate the concept of rolling a bunch of things up into one canopy, I have to agree. There have been some instances of new classes where there shouldn't have been. Not every mechanical concept is so radical that it needs to rewrite the game from the ground up, and sometimes it's better for it. Bunching some classes into offshoot concepts of existing classes not only improves the well of support for those classes, but prevents incidents like the Runepriest and the Seeker, in which lack of support makes other options, both similar and different, that have had a wealth of material to their name more long standing, and thusly more supported in general due to the continued play of such options.

To this though, I do wonder what really defines a mechanic or concept as being worth of its own class? What seperates a Wizard, a Sorcerer, and a Warlock from one another other than flavor? What is required to create a unique feel both in fluff and crunch to justify a whole new class instead of a varied take on an existing class? I think the answer is more difficult to find than the solution to the problem or lack thereof of class bloat...

As for the Warlord's class name, I don't personally see anything wrong with the name Warlord. The idea that a class can incite his allies and spur them into martial battle, but also have the charisma and tactical genius to play political and strategic fields fits the concept of a Warlord to me. Perhaps I'm missing something?...

The problem that I feel exists is that there's overlap between a mechanical term and a setting term.  If a supplement or adventure writer wants to describe an area as ruled over by petty orc warlords he or she then has to make clear that they don't mean that they all have Commander's Strike-type powers.  Most class names are either fairly specific to D&D (fighter) or sufficiently specialised or fantasy-oriented that they can be defined by the D&D mechanics that implement them (wizard, ranger, paladin, druid).  Barbarian has the same problem as warlord (I'd rather they'd called the class the berserker to begin with).  I suppose someone could argue that rogue has the same problem, although it doesn't feel that way.

I think for the warlord, something like centurion or strategos might work.

Jester:  I'm not necessarily arguing for the continued existance of any particular class as such, though in the case of avengers, they're at least as distinct from paladins as rogues are from fighters, and likewise are at least as distinct from rogues as paladins are from fighters.  Arguably moreso, on both counts.  So, apart from 'paladin', 'rogue', and 'fighter' having more legacy value, I don't see any more reason to collapse avenger into rogue or paladin than there is to collapse rogue or paladin into fighter.

Of course, legacy itself has a value, I'm certainly not arguing that we get rid of paladin or rogue.  What I'm mostly saying is that avenger is distinct enough that removing it wouldn't be a matter of 'folding it into' another class so much as dropping it outright.  Maybe it isn't popular or iconic enough a concept to warrant continuing, but a paladin equally adept at being a cluncky, heavy armored, shield weilding protector type as a stealthy, light armored, great weapon using, go it alone mobile striker type would, imo, be too broad to function as a class.  Classes are defined as much by what they don't do at all as by what they do well.  A class without boundries lacks definition.

I'm wary of shoving too many archetypes under the hat of a single class.  Classes that are too broad have to much room to either not do anything especially well (the 3e fighter) or to do too much too well (the big three in 3e).  Or they might do some of the things they're supposed to cover well, but not everything, leaving a bunch of development space wasted by a bloated class that has no business covering half of the archetypes ascribed to it.  Reference how poorly the 4e wizard functions as a necromancer, and yet no other official necromancer will ever exist because the concept was ineptly shoved under the wizards hat, and you can't fix the wizard necromancer - mostly just not at all, since it's concept isn't worked into its class features, but also because even trying would just heap more options onto a class that really doesn't need any more.  Is completely wasting an archetype in that manner really better than having it covered with an undersupported class?  Is having a couple 'orphaned classes twisting in the wind' really worse than having sprawling, bloated classes that don't know what they want to do, with so many options that nobody, not even the game designers can manage them, inevitably leading to trap choices and broken choices?

I agree that there were some classes published in 4e that either should never have been published in the first place (lacking sufficient conceptual space to justify a separate class) or that simply were not sufficiently developed at the time they were released.  Again, I'm not necessarily asking for the continued existance of any particular class.  What I am arguing for is a design philosophy that says in general, more classes that are more specifically defined is a better way to go than fewer classes that are meant to do everything.

As for the warlord in particular, I do feel there's enough distinction from fighter in terms of conceptual space and intended play style to justify a separate class, whether we call it warlord, marshal, captain, tactician, or commander.

May 1, 2012 -- 3:04PM, malisteen wrote:

Jester:  I'm not necessarily arguing for the continued existance of any particular class as such, though in the case of avengers, they're at least as distinct from paladins as rogues are from fighters, and likewise are at least as distinct from rogues as paladins are from fighters.  Arguably moreso, on both counts.  So, apart from 'paladin', 'rogue', and 'fighter' having more legacy value, I don't see any more reason to collapse avenger into rogue or paladin than there is to collapse rogue or paladin into fighter.

The hook of the avenger is that they're holy assassins, the righteous arm of the church. Which isn't a class so much as a background, a role in the game. Adding a little offense to paladins helps define them and seperate them from clerics. The lightly armoured aspect of avengers isn't enough to seperate them from paladins. That's not a class, that's a character. 

Still, the holy rogue is not unqiue to 4e. We had avengers in 3e: they were paladin rogue multiclassed characters, possibly with a prestige class that synergized them. Pathfinder has its Inquisitor class that fills much of the same role; I think it's flavour for that class is a little stronger than the avenger, but still unnecassary. 

But if 5e does have flexible multiclassing like 3e then the avenger is unnecassary. Just play a cleric rogue or a paladin rogue. 

And those paladin rogues were clunky and worked poorly - their key stats never lined up and none of their abilities worked correctly with the equipment that the other half of their abilities assumed they'd be using, and if a prestige class existed to synergize them it only did so after playing half a dozen levels of a schitzophrenic mess of two unrelated classes, neither of which had the gameplay you wanted to begin with.  Like comparing beguilers to wizard/rogue/arcane tricksters.  One's a sneaky, subtle spellcaster, and one's a wizard who delays access to magic jar so he can deal sneak attack with scorching ray.  Multiclassing for theme when the mechanics don't mesh is clunky and likely never results in the character you wanted to play in the first place, especially not from the start of your career.

Again, I'm not arguing specifically in favor of the avenger.  Maybe something like it will appear in 5e and maybe not.  The avenger's play style is pretty closely linked to the mechanics of 4e, there's nothing to say there would be a place for such a class in 5e, or that it would be popular enough to warrant that spot.

But I really, really don't think you're going to succesfully build anything like the variety of character archetypes available in 3e or 4e with a system that only has four classes, and tries to cover everything else with either multiclassing or bolted on themes.

I"m actually quite fond of Warlord - I don't get the negative connotation that others get apparently, it might seem a bit strong at low levels, but I think it fits the character.  Marshall works for me as well.

Captain doesn't work for me though - I keep thinking Captain as in some type of vessel - captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Piccard, Captain Crunch.

Squad leader makes more sense to me than captain, but that sounds too modern.

So I will have to say I'd prefer to stick with Warlord.

Perhaps classes can have a "AKA" section to give you some optional names to call the class.
 

You could call him a Paladin then he would be some sort of fighter with a self-healJ

May 2, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Scottevil912 wrote:

I"m actually quite fond of Warlord - I don't get the negative connotation that others get apparently, it might seem a bit strong at low levels, but I think it fits the character.  Marshall works for me as well.

Captain doesn't work for me though - I keep thinking Captain as in some type of vessel - captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Piccard, Captain Crunch.

Squad leader makes more sense to me than captain, but that sounds too modern.

So I will have to say I'd prefer to stick with Warlord.

Perhaps classes can have a "AKA" section to give you some optional names to call the class.
 

Odd. Captain is a rank that exists in any military, not just navies. A Calvary unit will have a captain, and will an infantry unit, and a unit of archers, etc.

A captain is just a leader of a relatively small group, really.

Like I said, leaders of bands of Brigands have been referred to as Captain.

May 2, 2012 -- 5:40PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Scottevil912 wrote:

I"m actually quite fond of Warlord - I don't get the negative connotation that others get apparently, it might seem a bit strong at low levels, but I think it fits the character.  Marshall works for me as well.

Captain doesn't work for me though - I keep thinking Captain as in some type of vessel - captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Piccard, Captain Crunch.

Squad leader makes more sense to me than captain, but that sounds too modern.

So I will have to say I'd prefer to stick with Warlord.

Perhaps classes can have a "AKA" section to give you some optional names to call the class.
 

Odd. Captain is a rank that exists in any military, not just navies. A Calvary unit will have a captain, and will an infantry unit, and a unit of archers, etc.

A captain is just a leader of a relatively small group, really.

Like I said, leaders of bands of Brigands have been referred to as Captain.

It's not that I don't know it means otherthings, it's that's what pops in my mind first every time, perhaps as a combination of being a Trekkie and living in a coastal town

Call him a Paladin.

May 2, 2012 -- 6:05PM, Scottevil912 wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 5:40PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Scottevil912 wrote:

I"m actually quite fond of Warlord - I don't get the negative connotation that others get apparently, it might seem a bit strong at low levels, but I think it fits the character.  Marshall works for me as well.

Captain doesn't work for me though - I keep thinking Captain as in some type of vessel - captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Piccard, Captain Crunch.

Squad leader makes more sense to me than captain, but that sounds too modern.

So I will have to say I'd prefer to stick with Warlord.

Perhaps classes can have a "AKA" section to give you some optional names to call the class.
 

Odd. Captain is a rank that exists in any military, not just navies. A Calvary unit will have a captain, and will an infantry unit, and a unit of archers, etc.

A captain is just a leader of a relatively small group, really.

Like I said, leaders of bands of Brigands have been referred to as Captain.

It's not that I don't know it means otherthings, it's that's what pops in my mind first every time, perhaps as a combination of being a Trekkie and living in a coastal town

Fair enough.

I'd say, though, in all fairness, that when we have such background induced biases regarding something like this, we should probably recognize them and leave it alone.

Which is why I don't talk about Deva/Aasimar. Because I hate Devas for, really, not much of any reason at all. :P

Seriously. I just hate them. Don't know why.

I have a doubt.... a sergeant (In medieval European usage, a sergeant was simply any attendant or officer with a protective duty) who is "captain" (warlord) of level 7 is weaker that a "captain" who is a optio (= who helps centurion, the second one of a centuria)/lieutenant of level 5.

* What about the word "polemarch" (from ancient Greece)? And archon, hekatontarch or kentarch?

May 6, 2012 -- 4:18AM, NancyButtpeach wrote:

The Warlord works better as a theme.

No, it doesn't.

May 6, 2012 -- 5:04AM, Luis_Carlos wrote:

I have a doubt.... a sergeant (In medieval European usage, a sergeant was simply any attendant or officer with a protective duty) who is "captain" (warlord) of level 7 is weaker that a "captain" who is a optio (= who helps centurion, the second one of a centuria)/lieutenant of level 5.

* What about the word "polemarch" (from ancient Greece)? And archon, hekatontarch or kentarch?

I don't know. Those words aren't really familiar to most people.

May 6, 2012 -- 5:28PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 5:04AM, Luis_Carlos wrote:

I have a doubt.... a sergeant (In medieval European usage, a sergeant was simply any attendant or officer with a protective duty) who is "captain" (warlord) of level 7 is weaker that a "captain" who is a optio (= who helps centurion, the second one of a centuria)/lieutenant of level 5.

* What about the word "polemarch" (from ancient Greece)? And archon, hekatontarch or kentarch?

I don't know. Those words aren't really familiar to most people.

Yeap, but at least archon is cool although it's hard to tell if it would catch on.

If we reaally need to change Warlord personally Captain would be a good choice, although the reasoning that it's too much cool for level 1 is really strange for me I mean the name has  to stick with you fromm level 1 to epic.

May 6, 2012 -- 5:28PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

I don't know. Those words aren't really familiar to most people.

When was the last time you saw someone use the word 'cleric' that wasn't D&D-related?  They don't look like English, which might be a turn-off, but I'd say that the fact they're not familiar is an advantage.

May 6, 2012 -- 4:18AM, NancyButtpeach wrote:

The Warlord works better as a theme.

Healing Fighter or bossy Paladin?

When I hear the term warlord I think of some local despot in Africa or Afghanistan driving around with his convoi of pick-ups and his goons with their AK47s sitting in the beds

Apr 29, 2012 -- 10:54PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Other than repeating what I've already said, because you've said nothing to convince me that class "bloat" is a bad thing, rather than a good thing,

It leads to either undersupported classes or to all classes being supported equally little.

Really, I wish they just would have eratta'ed the swordmage to be a wizard subclass. Oh all this great new power choices suddenly available.

If they keep fighter and warlord sepparte, they can with the same space release either a fighter article that the warlord can not use, a warlord article that the fighter can not use or a fighter and a warlord article that are each only half as long and the respective other can still not use.

If fighter and warlord are subclasses of the same parent class, they can release an article for the parent class and each one can cherry-pick anything from the article they like

May 7, 2012 -- 12:48PM, Mirtek wrote:

When I hear the term warlord I think of some local despot in Africa or Afghanistan driving around with his convoi of pick-ups and his goons with their AK47s sitting in the beds

Apr 29, 2012 -- 10:54PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Other than repeating what I've already said, because you've said nothing to convince me that class "bloat" is a bad thing, rather than a good thing,

It leads to either undersupported classes or to all classes being supported equally little.

Really, I wish they just would have eratta'ed the swordmage to be a wizard subclass. Oh all this great new power choices suddenly available.

No, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to.  There are maybe a handful of 4e classes that are undersupported. Only two (not counting subclasses) shouldn't exist, and I'd even argue that Seekers have a rightful place.

(Runepriests should exist, too, actually. They just shouldn't have been done differently)

Swordmages should not have been a wizard subclass. Swordmages aren't wizards. If they were wizards, they wouldn't be able to work like they do, and that would be a loss.

May 7, 2012 -- 3:22AM, Dewi wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 5:28PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

I don't know. Those words aren't really familiar to most people.

When was the last time you saw someone use the word 'cleric' that wasn't D&D-related?  They don't look like English, which might be a turn-off, but I'd say that the fact they're not familiar is an advantage.

The edition to bring in all the grognards and keep the new kids isn't the place to introduce such unfamiliar terms, if there are familiar alternatives, which there are.

I agree with some of the others on here.Most of these classes are just taking up space for the sake of it.With the roles that 4th introduced the just laid out a blueprint to make more classes then they needed.Hmm lets see we want to have at least 1 striker,controller,defender and leader per source possibly more then 1 for each.So they really just took specialist concepts of already existing classes to make the new ones.


Like someone already said the avenger is just a paladin that wears no armor and has some rogue/assassin abilities.A warlord is a non divine oriented paladin.A well armored individual that uses inspiration to heal and buff his allies and fight in the thick of things.Again they just needed a martial class that could do what the paladin/cleric could do so they made the warlord.


As far as the question at hand goes warlord may sound a bit ominous but it does fit what the class does.A couple of other names that are less agressive would be Doyen or Luminary.     

Do those words mean something along the lines of "battle oriented leader of men?"

I disagree too much on the rest to make a reletively short response, so I'll just leave it at a general statement of disagreement.

* For me the avenger is like the demon hunter of Diablo III or the inquisitor from Pathfinder rpg.

* Warlord/Marshall could be useful for settins with low level of magic, but I can´t imagine it like a (true) "healer" class. It may be a PC who inspires his comrades in arms help about fear effects, neutralize penaltys by injuries (forget the pain!!) and "give" temporal hit points (do last effort!!). I think there is a space for "it": the possible future wargame with armies of miniatures (Why not? I don´t rule out a new real-time-strategy videogame like Dragonshard).

May 8, 2012 -- 9:24PM, TamRad wrote:

I agree with some of the others on here.Most of these classes are just taking up space for the sake of it.With the roles that 4th introduced the just laid out a blueprint to make more classes then they needed.Hmm lets see we want to have at least 1 striker,controller,defender and leader per source possibly more then 1 for each.So they really just took specialist concepts of already existing classes to make the new ones.


Like someone already said the avenger is just a paladin that wears no armor and has some rogue/assassin abilities.A warlord is a non divine oriented paladin.A well armored individual that uses inspiration to heal and buff his allies and fight in the thick of things.Again they just needed a martial class that could do what the paladin/cleric could do so they made the warlord.


As far as the question at hand goes warlord may sound a bit ominous but it does fit what the class does.A couple of other names that are less agressive would be Doyen or Luminary.     

I don't get it why people think the Avengers stole a Paladin concept and ran off with it Paladins are the supposed to be the knights in shinning armor the guys the church sends out pro bono to kill dragons and bring good publicity to the church "See we here at the church of X are nice heroic guys, so join up and you too can become a hero!" while Avengers are the guys they send out in the dead of the night to kill off a council member who worships Asmodeus or the church just hates his guts.

The Avengers don't serve their deities through their shining heroism and good deeds they serve by doing the dirty deeds which need to be done and crop up when you're a major cult, they don't want to be thanked they'd prefer nobody knows they exist.

Let's say you have your standard priest:
his reaction to a Paladin: " Good sir you are a hero and a inspiration I am your number one fan!"
his reaction to a  Avenger: "Church sanctioned assasins in my faith? Nah nah I can't hear you go away blasphemous figment of my imagination!"

And looking at the mechanics I don't really see Avengers as unarmored Paladins they're a distinct class with distinct fluff their only link is they're Divine classes which use swords, maybe.

The argumment that Avengers take away from Paladins is so weird to me since Avengers do something the Paladin was never meant to do it's like a SW game where you have only Jedi but which can fall for Dark Side actions and then you have a new editions which make Sith as a base class which normally have no problem with Dark Side, but since they're both Force Classes you get Jedi players complaining Sith took concepts away from them.

Actually this is a good test I think if a class has both the fluff  and mechanics to play such disparate concepts as Emperor Palaptine and Yoda it can stand to be broken up into more classes.

May 7, 2012 -- 12:48PM, Mirtek wrote:

Really, I wish they just would have eratta'ed the swordmage to be a wizard subclass.

They did the swordmage as a wizard subclass.  It was called the bladesinger, and it was awful.  They tried to cram necromancer into the wizards hat and the result was lackluster, boring, and terrible, providing neither meaningful wizard options nor an evocative option for those who wanted to play the necromancer archetype.  Shaman was infinitely more functional as a pet class than either the beastmaster ranger or the sentinel druid precisely because it was a separate class, alowing everything to be built around the concept.

Bloat of options within a few classes is just as bloaty as a any other form of option bloat, and is more prone to balance issues because of the increased number of combinations.  Classes are defined as much by what they don't do as by what they do.  Separate classes let you do not just separate powers, but also separate class features and skill lists and overall mechanics.  Having a few classes that do everything washes out flavor and distinction, and leaves more exotic character concepts unworkable.

The Fighter fights.  The "warlord" wages war by directing the forces he's with.  Let him be called the Warrior.

May 8, 2012 -- 8:23PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

No, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to.

But it most likely does and will do so again.

 

May 8, 2012 -- 8:23PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Swordmages should not have been a wizard subclass. Swordmages aren't wizards. If they were wizards, they wouldn't be able to work like they do, and that would be a loss.

They would and on top of that being able to select wizard powers while a wizard could select swordmage powers

May 9, 2012 -- 12:34PM, Mirtek wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 8:23PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

No, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to.

But it most likely does and will do so again.

 

May 8, 2012 -- 8:23PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Swordmages should not have been a wizard subclass. Swordmages aren't wizards. If they were wizards, they wouldn't be able to work like they do, and that would be a loss.

They would and on top of that being able to select wizard powers while a wizard could select swordmage powers

Swordmages need different class mechanics, not just different spells. They need more hitpoints, better defenses, skill with real weapons (not just proficiency, but skill), etc. It's shoehorning to make them a wizard subclass.

They were done correctly.

As to that last bit, which I underlined.

That's completely unnecessary. Nothing about that is important to either class. The swordmage doesn't need to cast wizard spells. Maybe rituals, but not combat spells. They're different. A swordmage isn't a guy who split time between learning to fence and learning to cast wizard spells. A swordmage is a guy who spent all his time learning to make his physical weapon and his magic the same weapon, in a fighting art designed from the ground up to involve simultaneous use of magic and melee weaponry with no division between the two.


Now, wizards should stop putting out new material for wizards and fiighters, in 4e, and instead put out new builds, feats, powers, etc for other classes, but the swordmage and arti have gotten support. Just not a huge amount. The seeker and runepriest aren't the victims of class bloat, they're the victims of being classes that tanked. They'd have tanked if they'd been released in a supplement 6 months after the PHB1. They'd have tanked even if 4e only included 12 classes, and they were two of them.

They're largely unsupported because they're widely regarded as wasted space.

The assassin has more support than either of them, because it's a popular class, in spite of it's flaws. It's not a matter of bloat. It's a matter of wotc not bothering to use support to fix borked classes.

Especially the seeker. At least the runepriest got some support in the Kara Tur month.

May 9, 2012 -- 1:36PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Swordmages need different class mechanics, not just different spells. They need more hitpoints, better defenses, skill with real weapons (not just proficiency, but skill), etc. It's shoehorning to make them a wizard subclass.

And being part of the wizard mother-class wouldn't shoehorn them into anything. Bladesingers don't share wizard skills or hitpoints either.

May 9, 2012 -- 1:36PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

The swordmage doesn't need to cast wizard spells.

Bit if he could there would suddenly a much wider selection available and it would be much easier to support mutliple classes with just one article.

Except then the best swordmage dailies wouldn't be swordmage dailies, would they?  There wouldn't be swordmages anymore at all, just wizards with more hit points and better basic attacks.  The fragility that in part defines controllers?  Yeah, wizards wouldn't have that anymore, they'd just be swordmages and then take all the best wizard powers.

Basically, defining features of both classes would be lost, class balance and role distinction would be sacrificed, the game would be blander, and balance more in question.  You'd end up having to try and build all the powers such that wizard powers wouldn't be good for swordmages and swordmage powers wouldn't be good for wizards, at which point you might as well just make them separate classes and save yourself some hassle.

Did the essentials 'subclass' mentality lead to less bloat and fewer orphaned classes?  No!  Binder, Sentinel, Hunter, Bladesinger - there's arguably a greater concentration of pointless, unnecessary, bad, and undersupported 'sub classes' in essentials as there were classes in pre-essentials 4e books.  Subclassing doesn't fix this problem, it arguably makes it worse - because exotic concepts like pet classes don't work as well as subclasses as they do when you devote a whole class to them (compare shaman to beastmaster or sentinel).

The only thing the subclass mentality does is ensure that a few classes with too many internal options already get even more options to add to that bloat, and a thousand redundant wizard and fighter powers is hardly any better then a couple dud classes. 

I don't think the name matters too much.  The Class title isn't the title of your character, it's the general archetype.  Sure the name could be better but Warlord fits.  Your character is one who is in control of combat, a lord of war. 

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

Except then the best swordmage dailies wouldn't be swordmage dailies, would they?

And they would suddenly be completly different just because a single word above the power describtion is switched?

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

  There wouldn't be swordmages anymore at all, just wizards with more hit points and better basic attacks.

Well, the would be "wizard, swordmage" just like whe have "wizard, arcanist" and wizard, mage" and "wizard, bladesinger". 
 

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

The fragility that in part defines controllers?  Yeah, wizards wouldn't have that anymore, they'd just be swordmages and then take all the best wizard powers.

You mean like bladesingers don't have the wizard fragility? Someone who wants implement mastery takesa wizard, someone who wants better defenses takes a swordmage and someone who wants more damage takes the bladesinger.

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

Basically, defining features of both classes would be lost

No, each build would still have it's own defining features.

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

, class balance

No.

 

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

and role distinction would be sacrificed

Good riddance. Thankfully WotC already started this path with making fighter subclasses that are either striker or defender and wizard subclasses that are either controller or striker

 

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

, the game would be blander,

The game would be better. Finally someone wouldn't be forced in a role he dislikes because WotC defined that his favorite class has this role and that role alone

 

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

Did the essentials 'subclass' mentality lead to less bloat and fewer orphaned classes?  

Yes

 

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

No!  Binder, Sentinel, Hunter, Bladesinger - there's arguably a greater concentration of pointless, unnecessary, bad, and undersupported 'sub classes' in essentials

Yet they are not  undersupported as they can take from almost any articles that add to their parent classes 

Hardly.  Binder gets almost no support from warlock feats or abilities, can't select warlock encounters, and any dailies available are objectively better on a warlock.  A binder is completely obsoleted by its parent class, it exists purely as page filler and brings nothing to the game or even to warlocks.  The bladesinger's basically the same.  The blade singer is a terrible version of a concept the swordmage already did much better.  If you're arguing that the bladesinger is better designed than the swordmage, you're wasting your breath, because it's laughably untrue.  Same with any comparison of sentinel to shaman.  The witch and Saair or whatev's?  Complete wastes of space.  Essentials design has blatantly produced more duds than pre-essential design, both by quantity and by concentration.  Trying to shove these concepts under existing classes ruined them.

May 9, 2012 -- 3:06PM, Mirtek wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 1:36PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Swordmages need different class mechanics, not just different spells. They need more hitpoints, better defenses, skill with real weapons (not just proficiency, but skill), etc. It's shoehorning to make them a wizard subclass.

And being part of the wizard mother-class wouldn't shoehorn them into anything. Bladesingers don't share wizard skills or hitpoints either.

May 9, 2012 -- 1:36PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

The swordmage doesn't need to cast wizard spells.

Bit if he could there would suddenly a much wider selection available and it would be much easier to support mutliple classes with just one article.

Except that the powers wouldn't be built for the swordmage, specifically. There is more freedom, in many ways, when the person writing the abillities only has to worry about the class for which it's intended. It's also easier to just give them their own class features, and work their spells and attacks with those class features.

You could say all of that last part about rogues, if you wanted to, but rogues still shouldn't be a wizard subclass.

May 9, 2012 -- 7:59PM, malisteen wrote:

Except then the best swordmage dailies wouldn't be swordmage dailies, would they?  There wouldn't be swordmages anymore at all, just wizards with more hit points and better basic attacks.  The fragility that in part defines controllers?  Yeah, wizards wouldn't have that anymore, they'd just be swordmages and then take all the best wizard powers.

Basically, defining features of both classes would be lost, class balance and role distinction would be sacrificed, the game would be blander, and balance more in question.  You'd end up having to try and build all the powers such that wizard powers wouldn't be good for swordmages and swordmage powers wouldn't be good for wizards, at which point you might as well just make them separate classes and save yourself some hassle.

Did the essentials 'subclass' mentality lead to less bloat and fewer orphaned classes?  No!  Binder, Sentinel, Hunter, Bladesinger - there's arguably a greater concentration of pointless, unnecessary, bad, and undersupported 'sub classes' in essentials as there were classes in pre-essentials 4e books.  Subclassing doesn't fix this problem, it arguably makes it worse - because exotic concepts like pet classes don't work as well as subclasses as they do when you devote a whole class to them (compare shaman to beastmaster or sentinel).

The only thing the subclass mentality does is ensure that a few classes with too many internal options already get even more options to add to that bloat, and a thousand redundant wizard and fighter powers is hardly any better then a couple dud classes. 

Exactly. Compare the bladesinger and swordmage.

Now, the bladesinger could have been awesome. The basic idea of attacking one thing while shooting a spell at another thing is pretty cool.

It would have worked better with it's own daily powers built for the concept, though. Instead it's got wizard encounter powers as dailies, and the class fails completely.

The swordmage on the other hand, works. It works well. It's not in the top three of defenders, but it's fun to play, and a great choice for a defender that wants a bit of extra control.

Bloat, in the sense of abandoned classes that deserve to be abandoned, is much worse with subclasses than it is with full classes, in 4e.

Shamans are a great example. There is no better way to be a pet using character, in 4e. The beastmaster doesn't work because it's trying to live in the same space as the rest of the ranger's options. The sentinal, I'm not that familiar with, but I hear nothing good about it.

Lol Binders are worse controllers than normal warlocks.

May 9, 2012 -- 4:01AM, Bronze_Hero wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 9:24PM, TamRad wrote:

I agree with some of the others on here.Most of these classes are just taking up space for the sake of it.With the roles that 4th introduced the just laid out a blueprint to make more classes then they needed.Hmm lets see we want to have at least 1 striker,controller,defender and leader per source possibly more then 1 for each.So they really just took specialist concepts of already existing classes to make the new ones.


Like someone already said the avenger is just a paladin that wears no armor and has some rogue/assassin abilities.A warlord is a non divine oriented paladin.A well armored individual that uses inspiration to heal and buff his allies and fight in the thick of things.Again they just needed a martial class that could do what the paladin/cleric could do so they made the warlord.


As far as the question at hand goes warlord may sound a bit ominous but it does fit what the class does.A couple of other names that are less agressive would be Doyen or Luminary.     

I don't get it why people think the Avengers stole a Paladin concept and ran off with it Paladins are the supposed to be the knights in shinning armor the guys the church sends out pro bono to kill dragons and bring good publicity to the church "See we here at the church of X are nice heroic guys, so join up and you too can become a hero!" while Avengers are the guys they send out in the dead of the night to kill off a council member who worships Asmodeus or the church just hates his guts.

The Avengers don't serve their deities through their shining heroism and good deeds they serve by doing the dirty deeds which need to be done and crop up when you're a major cult, they don't want to be thanked they'd prefer nobody knows they exist.

Let's say you have your standard priest:
his reaction to a Paladin: " Good sir you are a hero and a inspiration I am your number one fan!"
his reaction to a  Avenger: "Church sanctioned assasins in my faith? Nah nah I can't hear you go away blasphemous figment of my imagination!"

And looking at the mechanics I don't really see Avengers as unarmored Paladins they're a distinct class with distinct fluff their only link is they're Divine classes which use swords, maybe.

The argumment that Avengers take away from Paladins is so weird to me since Avengers do something the Paladin was never meant to do it's like a SW game where you have only Jedi but which can fall for Dark Side actions and then you have a new editions which make Sith as a base class which normally have no problem with Dark Side, but since they're both Force Classes you get Jedi players complaining Sith took concepts away from them.

Actually this is a good test I think if a class has both the fluff  and mechanics to play such disparate concepts as Emperor Palaptine and Yoda it can stand to be broken up into more classes.

Well that paints paladins into a specific stereotype.A village may not always have a goody goody paladin trotting up the path on his majestic white steed and clad in his shiny armor.They may see a paldin from a darker yet not evil god trotting up and a black steed clad in black skull adorned armor.The villager may be then thinking "oh great what the hell is this all about".


I was just saying that with the right alterations and of course solid rules you could take feats,multiclassing etc to have a avenger style character.This aproach could be used with many other core classes to remove alot of the needless riff raff classes from the game.


If we are talking a star wars game and having jedi and sith characters the same could very well apply here.Many Sith were Jedi that were turned to that side.One is a evil/darker mirror version of the good/lighter one.There core mechanic should not differ that greatly from the other.The class could just be called Jedi/Sith and all be built the same basic way.Then have a common power/ability set for both to choose from and then light or dark only powers for each one if you so choose.After that the attitude/belief/aproach etc is primarily a roleplaying thing.There would be no need to seperate them as two entirely different classes.    

I do think we need to change the name Warlord, but mostly because it is WAY too similar with Warlock, and they are probably both going to be in the same book.
Also, the Avenger, for anyone who has read into the lore of the class, is a class that deserves it's own class unless the paladin concept is broadened a lot. The Avenger and the Paladin have 2 things in common: divine magic and melee. They don't share anything else.
If the avenger was to be made a 3.5 class it would probably be like the 3.5 Warlock that has spell-like abilities and a bunch of skills, or better yet, supernatural abilities that cover for skills
My personal idea:
Spoiler: Show

Here are some ranks from the english army during the hundred years war. I don't think that any of them sound right. ( http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Recruiti.htm )

• Serjeant
• Ventenar (or twentier)
• Centenar (or hundreder) 

I am beginning think that warlord is the best name. Even if it doesn't really sound very D&D-ish.

I still think Captain does the job very well.

Well I never cared for the warlord but maybe the next version of it will have a better feel for it within the game.They could just call it the tactician as it seems that is what they are trying to convey with it.The class tries to direct you in combat to regroup,defend and recoup lost vitality/energy etc.Myself,I can not get passed hp meaning amount of damage taken or amount of life.so I am just more inclined to ignore the class entirely unless one of my players really wants to play one.

Commander might work.  A fighter fights; a commander commands.  It is after all the name of one of the signature powers.

The Warlord is possibly my favorite class, but I have always hated that name.  I'd prefer any number of alternatives.  Captain, Commander, Marshal, Tactician . . . almost everything mentioned in this thread would be preferable.

I can't really support combining the Warlord with the Fighter, though.  While the resulting class would be awesome, I want Tyrion and Bronn to be two different characters.

I'll try ten names, tell me what you like;

1.) Centurian
2.) Battle Master
3.) Logician
4.) Tactition
5.) Strategist
6.) Officer
7.) Legate
8.) War Chief
9.) Champion
10.) Harbinger

What do you think of those?

I like Captain more than any of the others.

I like the fact that, while it can hint at military, it generally just means "leader." More than any of the others, it succeeds for me because it doesn't have anything that strongly clashes with the goals I mentioned in the OP.

Hopefully enough people agree that we can get a message to the designers. :-)

I like captain or marshall or tactician.  The one issue that stops captain from being my break away favorite is the popularity of pirates lately might cause people to assume a nautical bent.

Then again, why shouldn't they?  Wouldn't the captain of a ship of seaborn PCs be a warlord?  maybe just give it access to whatever skills are associated with navigation and seamanship and make that one of a handful of default themes.

Yeah, sure, I vote captain.  Though I'm happy with any of them, as long as it still exists as a distinct class.  This isn't a concept I want to see rolled up into fighter, any more than rogue is.

May 23, 2012 -- 5:43AM, malisteen wrote:

I like captain or marshall or tactician.  The one issue that stops captain from being my break away favorite is the popularity of pirates lately might cause people to assume a nautical bent.

Then again, why shouldn't they?  Wouldn't the captain of a ship of seaborn PCs be a warlord?  maybe just give it access to whatever skills are associated with navigation and seamanship and make that one of a handful of default themes.

Yeah, sure, I vote captain.  Though I'm happy with any of them, as long as it still exists as a distinct class.  This isn't a concept I want to see rolled up into fighter, any more than rogue is.

Exactly this.