So "fighter" is what he does.. "magic user" was what he did... and a cleric.. huhhhhhhhhhh
Class names... are supposed to be what?
Its exactly peevish minutia and still attempting to set standards for class nomenclature that just dont and havent existed ever.
But my paladins are totally Charlamagne's companions, my druids are all celtic, my rangers have all been park guides, my bards have all been...ummm...whatever culture bards come from.
O wait, you are right, there isn't much in the way of standards for class names.
Likewise, I think it's a little ridiculous to call the Lead Developer for 5e, ignorant, even in passing, you could say that was a silly comment or something, but ignorant? really? He's the guy behind the curtain.
I called the comment ignorant and stupid. It could have been called well inciteful instead of insightful. Baldface appeals to authority are pretty much unimpressive.
(By the way some of what Mike has done is astounding he was one of the key designers of my favorite edition of D&D and I am rather impressed with elements of the Tome of Battle and similar)
So what you arent name level at level 1... who cares about implied rank... at level 1 you arent a Wizard.. just a feeble apprentice I remember casting barely 1 spell back in the day.... imagine calling that silly initiate ... a Priest?... shrug... or calling the page/squire - a Knight?
Get over the stupid ignorant turnip truck reference.
I think it's a little ridiculous to call the Lead Developer for 5e, ignorant, even in passing, you could say that was a silly comment or something, but ignorant? really? He's the guy behind the curtain.
"Ignorant" is a little ridiculous But so was the "turnip truck" comment, in the first place, since the idea that class names are used in-character has been repudiated by WotC for years.
No other class names are being questioned that way, even though Paladin, Wizard, Druid, Bard and others would have the same sort of issue, were it a valid issue in the first place.
Likewise, I think it's a little ridiculous to call the Lead Developer for 5e, ignorant, even in passing, you could say that was a silly comment or something, but ignorant? really? He's the guy behind the curtain.
I called the comment ignorant and stupid. It could have been called well inciteful instead of insightful. Baldface appeals to authority are pretty much unimpressive.
(By the way some of what Mike has done is astounding he was one of the key designers of my favorite edition of D&D and I am rather impressed with elements of the Tome of Battle and similar)
It wasn't an appeal to authority... I was taking issue with your use of the term 'ignorant' as it would imply that he was somehow incognizant of some game element or of the fan base or some other quantity, perhaps willfully so. My point was, that is very implausible as he sees more of the game/feedback/theory/mechanics/etc. than pretty much anyone else by virtue of his position, and is furthermore mandated to do something with it (other than ignore it).
I'm also not saying that a class title has to match up 1:1 with what a character concept is 'in-game.' But when you're starting from scratch, it's important to have a title that gives you a basic class concept to work from and, in part, be bound by. Likewise, while we uber-nerds who lurk these forums on the reg have an easy time making this distinction, I remember when I first started playing at age 13 and took the titles of the classes quite literally because I had not yet read and digested even a small amount of the ample material available for DnD and was unfamiliar with RPing generally. Why? because I just wanted to play a game I saw my friends enjoying, and that's mostly the point is after all.
My feeling is that warlord implies some things that just aren't there in the 4e conception and probably shouldn't be there moving forward, i.e. commanding large groups of militants at low levels. I wouldn't mind this class-yet-to-be-named eventually achieving that, and perhaps somehow earning the TITLE of Warlord, but as a starting point, it has always felt a bit forced to me and I feel Commander is more flexible and suitable.
That's my opinion and I think I've stated my case pretty clearly at this point so I'm gonna shut up now.
My feeling is that warlord implies some things that just aren't there in the 4e conception and probably shouldn't be there moving forward, i.e. commanding large groups of militants at low levels.
Again, every class would suffer from the 1st-level "turnip truck" syndrome, if it were a valid complaint in the first place. It's not.
Warlord certainly implies leadership (lord) and martial ability (war), and that sums up the class - the full range of the class - very nicely.
Commander implies leadership more strongly than it does martial ability, and still implies some formal/legitimate authority in a heirarchy or chain of command of some sort. But it's not terrible.
Leader implies leadership like crazy, and it's not tied to a level of achievment (you could 'lead' a few other kids playing a game, or band of adventurers, or an army, or an nation). It's not terrible either. It's bland and un-martial compared to warlord though.
Marshal, and all the various other too-specific military ranks, are terrible.
Knight is far too narrow, just awful, and has been used for other classes to which it was more appropriate.
My feeling is that warlord implies some things that just aren't there in the 4e conception and probably shouldn't be there moving forward, i.e. commanding large groups of militants at low levels. .
Commanding large groups is a natural progression as I said they are already discussing plans to have a legacy mod about exactly that and in the real world the same personalities and talents who excelled in one tend to excell in the other. Same stuff different scope.
What shouldnt be there is an attempt to claim class names imply low level anything or that there is some consistancy in class names (which is stupid - ignorant) that somehow invalidates the name used in the only edition for the archetype which didnt suck.
Classic class names in going for what a character did .. well they sounded goofy, gee look he uses magic... hes a "magic user" derrrrrrr. They became called Wizard what was a high rank name of that earlier class on purpose...
On top of that Warlord is pretty much only one that actually carries any fantasy ring to it
Calling them commanders will atleast differentiate them from proper Warlords, for when they suck.. because enabling allies is poorly supported by strictly restricted off turn action economies in next.
Commander sucks less but its a bit like passing up Warrior or Knight and picking fighting dude.
