I know its too long, but I came up with Student of War, I thought it captured their essence without carrying any major connotations. Only problem is paizo has it claimed as a prestige class (discovered upon googling student of war)... (i don't play pathfinder)
I know its too long, but I came up with Student of War, I thought it captured their essence without carrying any major connotations. Only problem is paizo has it claimed as a prestige class (discovered upon googling student of war)... (i don't play p
I choose tactician but wasn't even really satisfied with that. The rest of them seemed to suffer from the turnip cart problem as well. All the warlord like name seem to carry with them an inhereant status and assumption of battlefield supremacy.
That said while I don't really like it I don't really have a better answer. I have been thinking about it since Mearls said it too.
I choose tactician but wasn't even really satisfied with that. The rest of them seemed to suffer from the turnip cart problem as well. All the warlord like name seem to carry with them an inhereant status and assumption of battlefield supremacy.That
Sadly, I think I agree with Erachima. From what I can tell, Heinsoo and Chris Sims were the 4e developers who were most enthusiatic about the warlord. The podcast with Mearls was almost condescending in tone with respect to the story behind the Warlord, and the questions they were asking were answered by Heinsoo in his Design & Development article about the warlord. Mearls appears to be looking for cover to fold the warlord into the fighter or to disband the concept altogether. This is the first time since the process began that I am concerned about the direction of the game and I hope my fears are unfounded.
Sadly, I think I agree with Erachima. From what I can tell, Heinsoo and Chris Sims were the 4e developers who were most enthusiatic about the warlord. The podcast with Mearls was almost condescending in tone with respect to the story behind the War
Sadly, I think I agree with Erachima. From what I can tell, Heinsoo and Chris Sims were the 4e developers who were most enthusiatic about the warlord. The podcast with Mearls was almost condescending in tone with respect to the story behind the Warlord, and the questions they were asking were answered by Heinsoo in his Design & Development article about the warlord. Mearls appears to be looking for cover to fold the warlord into the fighter or to disband the concept altogether. This is the first time since the process began that I am concerned about the direction of the game and I hope my fears are unfounded.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.
I have no doubt that they have an appreciation of 4e. All three major designers -- Mearls, Wyatt, and Crawford -- were developers for 4e. And Rob Schwalb, who is their fourth on the list, was the premier freelancer durign the 4e era. My review of the 4e Design and Development articles in anticipation of my D&D Before series confirms that many of the ideas began in 4e are continuing into the Next playtests. Maybe not enough to satisfy all 4e fans, but it's unmistakeably there.
But the warlord has me concerned because I feel that Heinsoo pushed it into the game over Mearls' objections. I hope I'm wrong though. Time will tell.
I have no doubt that they have an appreciation of 4e. All three major designers -- Mearls, Wyatt, and Crawford -- were developers for 4e. And Rob Schwalb, who is their fourth on the list, was the premier freelancer durign the 4e era. My review of
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.
Cavalier should be a separate class and work as it did in 1e.
As for renaming the Warlord, I would prefer a name that does not denote connections to nobility. No Knight or Marshall both are historical titles given to nobles.
Cavalier should be a separate class and work as it did in 1e. As for renaming the Warlord, I would prefer a name that does not denote connections to nobility. No Knight or Marshall both are historical titles given to nobles.
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.
I'd say more that he's a ranger, and reluctantly takes on a leader PrC. He doesn't do things in actual fights, IMO, that makes sense for a captain/warlord/marshal class.
His whole character arc in the trilogy is deciding to stop being a ranger and level up as a captain.[/quote]I'd say more that he's a ranger, and reluctantly takes on a leader PrC. He doesn't do things in actual fights, IMO, that makes sense for a cap
I choose tactician but wasn't even really satisfied with that. The rest of them seemed to suffer from the turnip cart problem as well. All the warlord like name seem to carry with them an inhereant status and assumption of battlefield supremacy.
That said while I don't really like it I don't really have a better answer. I have been thinking about it since Mearls said it too.
Any first level character has a weak identity. A 1st level fighter is a fellow who is kind of ok with a sword. A 1st level wizard might be able to produce some sparkling light. A 1st level rogue is kind of sneaky. None of them really embody anything. You didn't arrive in your identity until another ten levels later.
It's a ridiculous argument that's only deployed because Mearls doesn't really want the warlord in the game any more. Thinking of characters solely in terms of class and level leads to weird places.
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.
I'd say more that he's a ranger, and reluctantly takes on a leader PrC. He doesn't do things in actual fights, IMO, that makes sense for a captain/warlord/marshal class.
Like this one.
Any first level character has a weak identity. A 1st level fighter is a fellow who is kind of ok with a sword. A 1st level wizard might be able to produce some sparkling light. A 1st level rogue is kind of sneaky. None of them really embody anyth
For those getting upset about the Warlord remember that 4th ed cut 4 (5?) classes from core and anyone who wanted to play a fighter archer basically got told to use a ranger and "pretend" its a fighter lol.
That being said I would reather see a warlord similar to the 4th ed one over a Barbaian or monk but I think they are going to try and have 13 base classes to cover everyhting from 3rd and 4th ed, 14 if they add the assassin from 1st ed.
I think the main problems they are going to have with the warlord class is that if they need to base it on the 4th ed one (even superficially) D&DN lacks the leader role. The other problem is that its class abilities would not be to hard to break down and be added as options to another class like Bard and Fighter, or a multiclass Bard/Fighter. Without powers it will probably resemble the 3.5 Marshall more than the Warlord.
Whats the Warlords "thing" in D&DN? Is it a non magical healer, a self propelled party buffer, something that grants attacks to other members of the party by sacrificing its own action. I'm more or less expecting them to add expertise dice to the class.
For those getting upset about the Warlord remember that 4th ed cut 4 (5?) classes from core and anyone who wanted to play a fighter archer basically got told to use a ranger and "pretend" its a fighter lol. That being said I would reather see a warlo
That being said I would reather see a warlord similar to the 4th ed one over a Barbaian or monk but I think they are going to try and have 13 base classes to cover everyhting from 3rd and 4th ed, 14 if they add the assassin from 1st ed.
Thats one hela lucky number 14 (ie Almost finished read the hobbit to my daughter and they are on the doorstep )... actually the Warlord ought to be considered the 14th as its one of the latest added.
Thats one hela lucky number 14 (ie Almost finished read the hobbit to my daughter and they are on the doorstep )... actually the Warlord ought to be considered the 14th as its one of the latest added.
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.
Sure, if you start with the assumption that any non-caster will be exactly like the Fighter, there's no need for rogues or warlords. But, using expertise would not mean being exactly like the fighter, and, there's no need for the warlord to /just/ get expertise.
The 4e Warlord got a lot of things the 5e fighter doesn't. It's also the only version of the Warlord for 5e to be true to, so it should still get those things. Encounter and daily exploits to manage that can be used tactically or turn a battle, for instance. The Warlord needs to be more than a glorified weed-whacker.
Let's not.[/quote]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. [/q
But, using expertise would not mean being exactly like the fighter
Particularly given the potential to have unique expertise dice progression, class-specific maneuvers, and different available non-class-specific maneuvers.
Plenty of room to have an Expertise class look, feel, and play differently from a Fighter. Just look at the Monk.
And that's just expertise dice, which as you say, don't need to be the sole mechanic in a class.
Particularly given the potential to have unique expertise dice progression, class-specific maneuvers, and different available non-class-specific maneuvers. Plenty of room to have an Expertise class look, feel, and play differently from a Fighter. J
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.
Sure, if you start with the assumption that any non-caster will be exactly like the Fighter, there's no need for rogues or warlords. But, using expertise would not mean being exactly like the fighter, and, there's no need for the warlord to /just/ get expertise.
The 4e Warlord got a lot of things the 5e fighter doesn't. It's also the only version of the Warlord for 5e to be true to, so it should still get those things. Encounter and daily exploits to manage that can be used tactically or turn a battle, for instance. The Warlord needs to be more than a glorified weed-whacker.
You did cut some of my post off, specifically where I asked what separates a Warlord from a Fighter that couldn't be handled by maneuvers. I want to see the spirit of the Warlord continue, but if there isn't enough to separate it from the Fighter I don't think it should be it's own class. The Monk playtest is a good example. Both the Fighter and Monk use expertise dice, but the Monk has things that set it apart (unarmored AC boost, increased damage for unarmed attacks, unarmed attacks are finesse weapons, and ki). If they can manage a way to make the Warlord it's own class that'd be fantastic, but if they can't the Fighter should get its stuff.
Let's not.[/quote]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. [/q
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.
Sure, if you start with the assumption that any non-caster will be exactly like the Fighter, there's no need for rogues or warlords. But, using expertise would not mean being exactly like the fighter, and, there's no need for the warlord to /just/ get expertise.
The 4e Warlord got a lot of things the 5e fighter doesn't. It's also the only version of the Warlord for 5e to be true to, so it should still get those things. Encounter and daily exploits to manage that can be used tactically or turn a battle, for instance. The Warlord needs to be more than a glorified weed-whacker.
You did cut some of my post off, specifically where I asked what separates a Warlord from a Fighter that couldn't be handled by maneuvers.
Pre-planning I think is the key word.
Let's not.[/quote]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. [/q
Sadly, I think I agree with Erachima. From what I can tell, Heinsoo and Chris Sims were the 4e developers who were most enthusiatic about the warlord. The podcast with Mearls was almost condescending in tone with respect to the story behind the Warlord, and the questions they were asking were answered by Heinsoo in his Design & Development article about the warlord. Mearls appears to be looking for cover to fold the warlord into the fighter or to disband the concept altogether. This is the first time since the process began that I am concerned about the direction of the game and I hope my fears are unfounded.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.
Cutting the Warlord - whatever the personal motivation for doing so - would certainly be a ringing "go to hell" to 4e fans. The Warlord is not the only new class 4e introduced, but it is the only one that it introduced in the PH1 - the "every class in a PH1" mandate served to exclude classes from 3.5 and 4e, only, since no other edition had a PH2. "Every class in a Player's Handbook," would have let in the Knight & Scout from 3.5, for instance, and the new 4e classes, restricting it to PH1, specifically, cut no classic D&D classes.
In terms of classes, the Warlord is the only chance 5e has left itself to show some honesty in the declared intent to take the best from each prior ed. Cutting it, or even making it like the horribly failed 'Marshal' from Battlesystem, would throw that chance away.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.[/quote]Cutting the Warlord - whatever the personal motivation for doing so - would certainly be a ringing "go t
Sadly, I think I agree with Erachima. From what I can tell, Heinsoo and Chris Sims were the 4e developers who were most enthusiatic about the warlord. The podcast with Mearls was almost condescending in tone with respect to the story behind the Warlord, and the questions they were asking were answered by Heinsoo in his Design & Development article about the warlord. Mearls appears to be looking for cover to fold the warlord into the fighter or to disband the concept altogether. This is the first time since the process began that I am concerned about the direction of the game and I hope my fears are unfounded.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.
Cutting the Warlord - whatever the personal motivation for doing so - would certainly be a ringing "go to hell" to 4e fans. The Warlord is not the only new class 4e introduced, but it is the only one that it introduced in the PH1 - the "every class in a PH1" mandate served to exclude classes from 3.5 and 4e, only, since no other edition had a PH2. "Every class in a Player's Handbook," would have let in the Knight & Scout from 3.5, for instance, and the new 4e classes, restricting it to PH1, specifically, cut no classic D&D classes.
In terms of classes, the Warlord is the only chance 5e has left itself to show some honesty in the declared intent to take the best from each prior ed. Cutting it, or even making it like the horribly failed 'Marshal' from Battlesystem, would throw that chance away.
Though to many it will be semantics I will say this, they never said that every class in a PHB1 would appear as a class just that they would appear. In fact they've been rather up front with that for some time.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.[/quote]Cutting the Warlord - whatever the personal motivation for doing so - would certainly be a ringing "go t
Sadly, I think I agree with Erachima. From what I can tell, Heinsoo and Chris Sims were the 4e developers who were most enthusiatic about the warlord. The podcast with Mearls was almost condescending in tone with respect to the story behind the Warlord, and the questions they were asking were answered by Heinsoo in his Design & Development article about the warlord. Mearls appears to be looking for cover to fold the warlord into the fighter or to disband the concept altogether. This is the first time since the process began that I am concerned about the direction of the game and I hope my fears are unfounded.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.
Cutting the Warlord - whatever the personal motivation for doing so - would certainly be a ringing "go to hell" to 4e fans. The Warlord is not the only new class 4e introduced, but it is the only one that it introduced in the PH1 - the "every class in a PH1" mandate served to exclude classes from 3.5 and 4e, only, since no other edition had a PH2. "Every class in a Player's Handbook," would have let in the Knight & Scout from 3.5, for instance, and the new 4e classes, restricting it to PH1, specifically, cut no classic D&D classes.
In terms of classes, the Warlord is the only chance 5e has left itself to show some honesty in the declared intent to take the best from each prior ed. Cutting it, or even making it like the horribly failed 'Marshal' from Battlesystem, would throw that chance away.
Though to many it will be semantics I will say this, they never said that every class in a PHB1 would appear as a class just that they would appear. In fact they've been rather up front with that for some time.
Hey, if the Rogue, Monk and Warlord are fighter 'builds' or 'sub-classes' or something, and the Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard are "magic-user" builds, and the Cleric, Druid and Paladin are 'priest' builds, fine. But if every other PH1 class goes through in an incarnation looking like it's definitive earlier-ed versions, and the Warlord is demoted to a Specialization or something, I don't care how much plausible deniability they've tried to secure for themselves, it'll be a clear message that 5e is not really inclusive, and was never meant to be.
But, you're right, WotC has played the weasel card many, many times. It's one of the ways they lost so much of the customer loyalty the D&D brand once had.
Kinda makes you wonder if they have any sort of appreciation of 4E at all. Definitely worries me about the direction of the game as well.[/quote]Cutting the Warlord - whatever the personal motivation for doing so - would certainly be a ringing "go t
I think 4e was a learning experience for WotC. Sure it was a hit with some people, and it brought in a lot of refinements to the rules. However as an edition it IMO fell flat, and apparently that sentiment is shared by the devs for 5e. I think they're taking the mechanical bits that worked and incorporating them, while leaving the fluff, flavor, and soul of 4e out for the hounds.
I think 4e was a learning experience for WotC. Sure it was a hit with some people, and it brought in a lot of refinements to the rules. However as an edition it IMO fell flat, and apparently that sentiment is shared by the devs for 5e. I think they'r
I think 4e was a learning experience for WotC. Sure it was a hit with some people, and it brought in a lot of refinements to the rules. However as an edition it IMO fell flat, and apparently that sentiment is shared by the devs for 5e. I think they're taking the mechanical bits that worked and incorporating them, while leaving the fluff, flavor, and soul of 4e out for the hounds.
There are a lot of mechanical bits that worked, out there getting chewed on, too.
WotC is skating just this side of outright dancing and spitting on 4e's grave, like the edition-warriors have been doing since the announcement of 5e. Just barely. Now that Monte Cook is gone, anyway.
4e could have been a learning experience, if they'd chosen to learn rather than react, but they didn't. If you really look at the rejection of 4e, you see a lot of nerdrage, and the power of the open-source OGL vs the poison-pill GSL. You see the importance of stakeholders (3pps) and that ignoring or working at cross purposes to them is not a good idea. If they're trying to look at the game itself to see 'where we went wrong,' they're looking in the wrong place. In the technical sense, 4e was a better game than D&D ever has been before (that's not a very strong or important claim - /lots/ of games are better than D&D, being a quality game has never been D&D's claim to fame). Knee-jerk re-winding technical improvements is going to accomplish nothing - except to make a game that's not as good as it could have been.
There are a lot of mechanical bits that worked, out there getting chewed on, too. WotC is skating just this side of outright dancing and spitting on 4e's grave, like the edition-warriors have been doing since the announcement of 5e. Just barely. N
I think 4e was a learning experience for WotC. Sure it was a hit with some people, and it brought in a lot of refinements to the rules. However as an edition it IMO fell flat, and apparently that sentiment is shared by the devs for 5e. I think they're taking the mechanical bits that worked and incorporating them, while leaving the fluff, flavor, and soul of 4e out for the hounds.
There are a lot of mechanical bits that worked, out there getting chewed on, too.
WotC is skating just this side of outright dancing and spitting on 4e's grave, like the edition-warriors have been doing since the announcement of 5e. Just barely. Now that Monte Cook is gone, anyway.
4e could have been a learning experience, if they'd chosen to learn rather than react, but they didn't. If you really look at the rejection of 4e, you see a lot of nerdrage, and the power of the open-source OGL vs the poison-pill GSL. You see the importance of stakeholders (3pps) and that ignoring or working at cross purposes to them is not a good idea. If they're trying to look at the game itself to see 'where we went wrong,' they're looking in the wrong place. In the technical sense, 4e was a better game than D&D ever has been before (that's not a very strong or important claim - /lots/ of games are better than D&D, being a quality game has never been D&D's claim to fame). Knee-jerk re-winding technical improvements is going to accomplish nothing - except to make a game that's not as good as it could have been.
While I will agree that most of what you say is true, I must disagree with the last sentence you wrote. Additionally, I don't see what you spoke of in the first and second paragraph as a problem. And, for the most part I wholeheartedly agree with you on the third paragraph. But, D&D is one of the few areas that I would be considered conservative. I feel that 4e diverged too much from it's immediate predecessor, and the silent majority agrees with me.
But 4e had to exist. I honestly don't think that WotC could have hit the mark that would have kept people from leaving for greener pastures. It's what broke the pattern that had been going for so long, and that was a boon.
Yes, they are backpedaling from 4e. They learned how to simplify rules, when it's appropriate to develop a new class, and how to make tactical combat work better. Now they're taking what they've learned and are applying it to what they already knew. And that in my opinion is a very good thing.
But you should absolutely make your voice heard.
There are a lot of mechanical bits that worked, out there getting chewed on, too. WotC is skating just this side of outright dancing and spitting on 4e's grave, like the edition-warriors have been doing since the announcement of 5e. Just barely. N
I ended the poll when the number of votes exceeded 300. It had the whole weekend to live online, but the general trends haven't changed for the past day or two.
Warlord is the winner with 20% of the vote, closely followed by Knight at 18% and Marshal at 15%. These three choices, all of which (interesting enough) have their roots in past D&D editions, were always the clear favourites. The vocal majority on these boards favoured keeping the name Warlord, or defaulting to the Marshal if absolutely necessary, but the Knight cleft those preferences in twain by emerging between them. Make of that what you will.
I ended the poll when the number of votes exceeded 300. It had the whole weekend to live online, but the general trends haven't changed for the past day or two.Warlord is the winner with 20% of the vote, closely followed by Knight at 18% and Marshal
I choose tactician but wasn't even really satisfied with that. The rest of them seemed to suffer from the turnip cart problem as well. All the warlord like name seem to carry with them an inhereant status and assumption of battlefield supremacy.
That said while I don't really like it I don't really have a better answer. I have been thinking about it since Mearls said it too.
Any first level character has a weak identity. A 1st level fighter is a fellow who is kind of ok with a sword. A 1st level wizard might be able to produce some sparkling light. A 1st level rogue is kind of sneaky. None of them really embody anything. You didn't arrive in your identity until another ten levels later.
It's a ridiculous argument that's only deployed because Mearls doesn't really want the warlord in the game any more. Thinking of characters solely in terms of class and level leads to weird places.
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.
I'd say more that he's a ranger, and reluctantly takes on a leader PrC. He doesn't do things in actual fights, IMO, that makes sense for a captain/warlord/marshal class.
Like this one.
What?
Any first level character has a weak identity. A 1st level fighter is a fellow who is kind of ok with a sword. A 1st level wizard might be able to produce some sparkling light. A 1st level rogue is kind of sneaky. None of them really embody anyth
Marshall would be my choice. I think for the everyday player, Marshall has a much more "generic" feel to it than "Warlord". I also think it's a word far less likely to come up in its normal form in a campaign than Warlord.
I definitely think the class should be present, either as a distinct class if we are giving every class it's own distinct entry...or as a subset if we're going the "A few over-arching classes, with subsets based on design".
But the notion of a Melee oriented class who excels primarily at improving the rest of the party through the tactical, inspirational, skillful support .
I see the Warlord as the other side of the bard coin. They both basically should be focused upon the bettering of the party through their force of character. The Warlord is simply more "Fighter" focused and does it through tactics and battle-field command where as the Bard is more "Rogue" focused and does it through inspiration and emotion. Thematically as well, the Warlords support is more physical/tangible in nature where the Bards is more magical.
Marshall would be my choice. I think for the everyday player, Marshall has a much more "generic" feel to it than "Warlord". I also think it's a word far less likely to come up in its normal form in a campaign than Warlord. I definitely think the clas
I think for the everyday player, Marshall has a much more "generic" feel to it than "Warlord".
lolwut? Marshall is a discrete military rank. Warlord is a generic term for people who control a militia. (Well, it usually also implies they've attained de facto control of a region.) Warlord is both more generic and a closer reflection of what a DnD Warlord is likely to become in-world.
lolwut? Marshall is a discrete military rank. Warlord is a generic term for people who control a militia. (Well, it usually also implies they've attained de facto control of a region.) Warlord is both more generic and a closer reflection of what a Dn
I think for the everyday player, Marshall has a much more "generic" feel to it than "Warlord".
lolwut? Marshall is a discrete military rank. Warlord is a generic term for people who control a militia. (Well, it usually also implies they've attained de facto control of a region.) Warlord is both more generic and a closer reflection of what a DnD Warlord is likely to become in-world.
I guess I'd say in my experience gaming, reading fantasy books, and watching fantasy movies...the usage of the word "warlord" is far more common than the term "Marshall". Captain, Seargent, Lieutenant, General, Commander, Corporal, etc are all militia type terms I hear far more than I ever hear "marshall" in those situations. Where as the description of a "warlord" is something I think is someone common.
As I said, just based on experiences
lolwut? Marshall is a discrete military rank. Warlord is a generic term for people who control a militia. (Well, it usually also implies they've attained de facto control of a region.) Warlord is both more generic and a closer reflection of what a Dn
I guess I'd say in my experience gaming, reading fantasy books, and watching fantasy movies...the usage of the word "warlord" is far more common than the term "Marshall". Captain, Seargent, Lieutenant, General, Commander, Corporal, etc are all militia type terms I hear far more than I ever hear "marshall" in those situations. Where as the description of a "warlord" is something I think is someone common.
As I said, just based on experiences
Uh... right. That's why we would use Warlord, because it's a broad familiar concept.
Namewise, Warlord vs. Marshall is like the difference between calling the class "Wizard" and "Bokor".
Uh... right. That's why we would use Warlord, because it's a broad familiar concept.Namewise, Warlord vs. Marshall is like the difference between calling the class "Wizard" and "Bokor".
In 4e the Warlord wasn't really. The class was a combination Control Freak Boss and Cheerleader.
A Warlord leads an army, or at least 20 people. He also FIGHTS and more than often leads by example.
And for that I'd go with Marshal, as in the Grand Marshal of an Army of Knights. Marshal is actually a real medieval title, and it was used for leaders of fighting men.
Warlords are often thugs and goons who gather their troops by fear and intimidation. The biggest, ugliest Orc in the rapacious 'army' of monster men that's burning their way across the lands and who yells, beats and/or kills his minions for failing? That's a Warlord.
The leader of a large group of heroic Knights defending the Realm is a Marshal, he should (not often) be leading with skill, knowledge and tactics to rebuff the oncoming horde of monsters.
And neither of them would ever be part of a hit team of adventurers.
Addendum: If anything the Warlord should be like a Paragon Path/Prestige Class/Kit type of specialty. Something anyone can get once they've got some experience leading men (and I use that term in a generic, gender neutral way.)
In 4e the Warlord wasn't really. The class was a combination Control Freak Boss and Cheerleader.A Warlord leads an army, or at least 20 people. He also FIGHTS and more than often leads by example.And for that I'd go with Marshal, as in the Grand Ma
The Battlesystem 'Marshal' can be seen as a predecessor of the Warlord in the same way that the Black Flame Zealot PrC might be seen as a predecessor of the Avenger. Not really much at all. It was a terrible class, and the name positively carries a stigma. Plus, to American's it says "law enforcement officer" which is way off base, and to other English speakers it says "high ranking military leader," which is not so far off the mark, but still, like Captain or General or Liutenant, suffers from being an actual military rank, which is too narrow for the Warlord concept. The Marshal was a bad class and there were a lot of bad things about it, it's name was perhaps among the worst.
Knight has already been a class in at least two editions of D&D - in Essentials HotFL and in 3.5's PH2 - and neither of those in any way resembled the Warlord. Like Marshal, Captain, and so forth, it suffers from being too specific in meaning, but unlike them, also suffers in not implying leadership, since Knights were defined more by their fealty to a lord than their leadership of others. In any case, fans of either Knight - or of the 1e UA Cavalier - would doubtless be disappointed by a "Knight" that turned out to be a Warlord, with the serial numbers filed off to minimize anti-4e persecution.
Warlord, notwithstanding the current media use of it as an English-language label for certain unpleasant people (an issue 'Cleric' also currently suffers from), is a much less specific term. A Warlord could be any individual leading an armed or warlike band of followers. An Orc Chieftant, a dispossed noble leading the people against a vile tyrant, a vile tyrant usurping the throne by force of arms, a Virginia cavalryman visiting Mars, or a host of other things. An officer in a military heirarchy or a legitimate noble might not like being /called/ a "Warlord" (and class names aren't meant to be used in-character), but would have to admit that the same skills and talents that make a successful Warlord, serve him well in his more narrowly-defined and respectable role.
The Battlesystem 'Marshal' can be seen as a predecessor of the Warlord in the same way that the Black Flame Zealot PrC might be seen as a predecessor of the Avenger. Not really much at all. It was a terrible class, and the name positively carries a
But don't you think the term 'Warlord' carries the same sort of stigma as marshall and knight then? The 'Lord' element implies a very high, if informal, rank, that being, the leader of an army. That's not really how the 4e warlord behaved, if he had a rank, it was most likely sergeant, because of his focus on tactical, as opposed to strategic, combat with a 'squad' (the party of PC's).
I'm actually surprised more people haven't voiced support for more general terms such as Commander or Tactician, as these describe EXACTLY what they do, don't have a lot of implicit historical baggage, and are broadly applicable over a great number of situations, societies, and cultures.
I would leave 'Warlord' as a title to some sort of prestige class based around leadership of larger groups, maybe in the legacy system.
@Tony But don't you think the term 'Warlord' carries the same sort of stigma as marshall and knight then? The 'Lord' element implies a very high, if informal, rank, that being, the leader of an army. That's not really how the 4e warlord behaved, if h
@Tony But don't you think the term 'Warlord' carries the same sort of stigma as marshall and knight then? The 'Lord' element implies a very high, if informal, rank, that being, the leader of an army. That's not really how the 4e warlord behaved, if he had a rank, it was most likely sergeant, because of his focus on tactical, as opposed to strategic, combat with a 'squad' (the party of PC's). I'm actually surprised more people haven't voiced support for more general terms such as Commander or Tactician, as these describe EXACTLY what they do, don't have a lot of implicit historical baggage, and are broadly applicable over a great number of situations, societies, and cultures. I would leave 'Warlord' as a title to some sort of prestige class based around leadership of larger groups, maybe in the legacy system.
The problem with "Commander" is that it carries the risk of being interpreted as the leader of players (not the characters). Look at the warning given in 4e's PHB about the "leader" role. Commander would only exacerbate this. The problem with Tactician is that it is too narrow. The Warlord encompasses a lot of approaches, and tactics is only one of them.
The problem with "Commander" is that it carries the risk of being interpreted as the leader of players (not the characters). Look at the warning given in 4e's PHB about the "leader" role. Commander would only exacerbate this.The problem with Tacticia
knight too closely resembles the Paladin hierarchy. Officer is most correct since Officers can start off low ranked and end up Generals and Admirals, but get to command troops from the very beginning, specializing in leadership. Commander works in a generalized sense, but sounds like a specific rank. Captain works in an ancient setting, or as Captain of the Guard, but doesn't work anywhere near a naval/pirate setting or where other military ranks like Lt. and Colonel are used.
Warlord is probably best left as a Prestige or Secondary subbuild for the Fighter. It could even be a title you attain after a quest of acheiving so many victories while commanding X number of minions.
knight too closely resembles the Paladin hierarchy. Officer is most correct since Officers can start off low ranked and end up Generals and Admirals, but get to command troops from the very beginning, specializing in leadership. Commander works in a
Warlords are often thugs and goons who gather their troops by fear and intimidation. The biggest, ugliest Orc in the rapacious 'army' of monster men that's burning their way across the lands and who yells, beats and/or kills his minions for failing? That's a Warlord.
Yep, or disreputable "leaders" of 3rd world countries; pass, thanks.
Yep, or disreputable "leaders" of 3rd world countries; pass, thanks.
Warlords are often thugs and goons who gather their troops by fear and intimidation. The biggest, ugliest Orc in the rapacious 'army' of monster men that's burning their way across the lands and who yells, beats and/or kills his minions for failing? That's a Warlord.
Yep, or disreputable "leaders" of 3rd world countries; pass, thanks.
honestly I agree with this sentiment, when I think of warlord, I am reminded of the bad guy from Quest for Camelot
Yep, or disreputable "leaders" of 3rd world countries; pass, thanks.[/quote]honestly I agree with this sentiment, when I think of warlord, I am reminded of the bad guy from Quest for Camelot
I can see the reservations about Commander and Tactician, but honestly, those seem very minor to me compared to the issues confronting the vast majority of the other names. The class does, to a certain extent, lead players, at least in combat. How one performs that leadership is an entirely different question, you can lead from behind, lead by example, lead by command, etc. Leadership, especially if the PC's aren't part of some sort of military hierarchy, is a two-way street of confidence. The leader must have confidence in their troops, the troops must have confidence in their leader, if this confidence is broken, then their ability to lead is curtailed, either way, it doesn't mean that the 'leader' will always get to lead. Just make a note of it in the class entry and move on, problem solved. They're not using 'roles' in 5e anyway, so I fail to see how it would somehow compound that minor semantic issue. Besides, anyone with half a brain or the maturity of a 12 year old should be able to comprehend that this game is about cooperative story-telling, not power-tripping on others for imaginary reasons.
For tactician... maybe I'm missing something, but that was pretty much what the 4e warlord was. Not sure about the marshall and other similar class concepts, but, since WotC seems more intent on bringing back the nominal Warlord itself as a class, I think the 4e conception is where we have to start. Sure, there are more elements that could go into it but, those were not really the essence of the class, and thus could be handled by backgrounds, specialties, and prestige classes.
@ GilbertMDH I can see the reservations about Commander and Tactician, but honestly, those seem very minor to me compared to the issues confronting the vast majority of the other names. The class does, to a certain extent, lead players, at least in c
This thread has primarily talked about the Warlord, Knight, and Marshall. No universal praise has been heaped on any one name. Much of this stemmed either from past examples of a named class being 'tainted' by poor game design or that the name simply wasn't appropriate, either because it didn't make sense logically (out-of-line with the literal definition) or that it was too much of a 'rank' rather than a 'class'.
The Commander, Captain, and Tactician have all been considered, but similarly dismissed. Too rank-centric or simply not evocative enough to describe an adventuring character class.
Vanguard has been been bandied around a little, but never seriously, usually because a vanguard precedes a larger force, rather than leading an independent band of adventurers.
Nobody has really said anything about 'Harbinger' (the eighth most popular name according to this vote). Sure, the knee-jerk reaction will be to say "For good reason! It sucked!"
I'm not so sure. It's a strong name, but is it fitting?
It's not a rank, so it doesn't suffer from that downfall. It's not a class from a previous edition of D&D, so no bad history. As definitions go, it's apersonwhogoesaheadandmakesknowntheapproachofanother. There is also something 'portentous' about the name Harbinger. Indeed, they can herald the coming of something else, often times a military force, but can also convey more of a foreboding threat than a physical one. A harbinger of doom (for example). It's not so much of a stretch to say that the Warlord of 4th edition 'foretold' what came to pass during combat with a 'tactician's mind', and consequently changed the tide of battle.
The Harbinger of an army, regardless of size, speaks with authority about the force they represent. They intimately know their host, their strengths/weaknesses, the threat they pose, how much destruction they can bring to bear, and what must be done to accomodate them.
Now apply that knowledge to a band of D&D adventurers. It's a much smaller group. They would know how to coordinate their marital prowess to great effect, very much filling the role of a Warlord in 5th edition.
This thread has primarily talked about the Warlord, Knight, and Marshall. No universal praise has been heaped on any one name. Much of this stemmed either from past examples of a named class being 'tainted' by poor game design or that the name simply
Soo...why isn't the name Captain? Could someone explain to me how any of the other names even come close to being as appropriate for the class? I mean...Marshal? Warlord? Knight?
Seriously. Knight. WTF? How is that even remotely fitting? Cheerleader is more fitting than Knight, for crying out loud.
Soo...why isn't the name Captain? Could someone explain to me how any of the other names even come close to being as appropriate for the class? I mean...Marshal? Warlord? Knight? Seriously. Knight. WTF? How is that even remotely fitting? Cheerleader
Nobody has really said anything about 'Harbinger' (the eighth most popular name according to this vote). ... As definitions go, it's apersonwhogoesaheadandmakesknowntheapproachofanother.
Which would be a scout. It's nto oen of the jobs of the warlord class.
The Harbinger of an army, regardless of size, speaks with authority about the force they represent. They intimately know their host, their strengths/weaknesses, the threat they pose, how much destruction they can bring to bear, and what must be done to accomodate them.
That's not what "harbingers" are. They are heralds. They are the guys who walk so far ahead of the force that when they arrive, they appear to be alone. Then they tell the foe all the horrible things that will happen to them if they don't capitulate. A warlord doesn't do that.
Which would be a scout. It's nto oen of the jobs of the warlord class.That's not what "harbingers" are. They are heralds. They are the guys who walk so far ahead of the force that when they arrive, they appear to be alone. Then they tell the foe
@Tony But don't you think the term 'Warlord' carries the same sort of stigma as marshall and knight then?
Not at all. A belicose clansman with a handful of followers could declare himself a 'warlord,' it's not a formal rank, at all. Knight and Marshal for formal social positions. Also, the warlord has the opposite of the marshal's stigma in D&D history - the warlord was an awesome class, the battlesystem marshal was terrible.
I'm actually surprised more people haven't voiced support for more general terms such as Commander or Tactician
Tactician is too specific - a single warlord build out of six or more. Commander or Leader are more generic, even if Commander is a formal military rank in some services, it's also a generic term for 'one who commands,' right? But, they're not quite as evocative.
Not at all. A belicose clansman with a handful of followers could declare himself a 'warlord,' it's not a formal rank, at all. Knight and Marshal for formal social positions. Also, the warlord has the opposite of the marshal's stigma in D&D histor
About the only one I can stomach is Captain, and that with reservations.
1) It shouldn't strongly imply military connections (not all warlords have military backgrounds)
2) It shouldn't imply level of achievement
3) It shouldn't have a flavor that conflicts with any character concept within the class (I think many nobles without heavy military training should nonetheless be warlords)
Captain minimally works, since it has very broad usage (including non-military) and can encompass any level of achievement. Its flavor doesn't work well for some builds, but it doesn't totally clash with many.
Most of the suggestions fail on at least 2 of those criteria. I'm glad that R&D are hard at work on this.
About the only one I can stomach is Captain, and that with reservations.1) It shouldn't strongly imply military connections (not all warlords have military backgrounds)2) It shouldn't imply level of achievement3) It shouldn't have a flavor that confl
I think that Harbinger is fine in its technical military definition, but the term has a "bad omen" connotation that keeps people from seeing it as a good fit. Maybe that's just me, but I usually think of harbingers in the abstract as being harbingers of something scary. I do think that it's another name that's good enough that if they just picked it, but it sounds a bit sinister to me in a vacuum. (Maybe I'm totally wrong about the connotation, but I think that it's there.)
I think that Harbinger is fine in its technical military definition, but the term has a "bad omen" connotation that keeps people from seeing it as a good fit. Maybe that's just me, but I usually think of harbingers in the abstract as being harbingers
What does what a warlord do have to do with being a feudal fiefholder?
I was thining more along the lines of the Lord from Fire Emblem, but what does anyones background have to do witht heir class?
:nonono:What does what a warlord do have to do with being a feudal fiefholder?[/quote]I was thining more along the lines of the Lord from Fire Emblem, but what does anyones background have to do witht heir class?
I was thining more along the lines of the Lord from Fire Emblem, but what does anyones background have to do witht heir class?
The class name should have something to do with what the class does. "Lord" does no describe a warlord (class) in any fashion. Even "harbinger" is better, and that one's pretty awful.
The class name should have something to do with what the class does. "Lord" does no describe a warlord (class) in any fashion. Even "harbinger" is better, and that one's pretty awful.
Just to note, I did say that 'warlord' was not a formal position.
"The 'Lord' element implies a very high, if informal, rank, that being, the leader of an army."
I suppose anyone could call themself a warlord, even someone on their own ("I command the legions of my imagination!!!"), but someone doing so with only a handful of (non-imaginary) followers wouldn't likely be able to wage much of a 'war,' at least, not as it has been generally defined for a few thousand years now. So, if the 'lord' argument isn't working for you, you might consider this 'war' argument then. War implies scale, just as lord implies hierarchy, both of which to an order of magnitude that typically does (and I would contend, should) elude a 1st level 'warlord.'
Now... I suppose you could argue that one could wage an aysymmetrical war, like an assassin's war, an information war, a narco-war, a 'terroristic' war and so on, with a small group of people, but these are all going pretty far afield of what a nominal warlord in DnD is and does.
Personally, I also kind of like the archaic Athenian 'Strategos,' even though it's wildly innappropriate from both an historical and performative perspective. But the thing I keep coming back to with Commander, is that most of these other names COMMAND.
The exceptions to this are: tactician, champion, harbinger, herald, vanguard, and possibly knight (depending on the incarnation).
Tactician I'd be fine with. Champion is too focal, too front-line-associated, and not necessarily having much to do with planning. It's also a little too broad in the respect that any other class could easily be a 'Champion.' Harbinger is awful imho. Signals to me the 'front of the front' line and is more of a messenger than a troop, and even less of a leader (you would never send your leader to give a portentous message to your enemies cuz they'd kill them. That's why you send a messenger/harbinger in the first place, they are of little overall consequence. Same with Herald, though it is marginally better than Harbinger, since they could blast a horn or something while with their own troops. Vanguard has the same problems as Champion; it doesn't imply any kind of leadership universally, beyond literally being at the head of a formation, which is again, too front-line. Knights are terrible, there is just way too much historico-semantic baggage. Are they blessed by god? Do they take vows of fealty or chastity or martyrdom? are they mounted combatants? do they get a troop of yeomen and a squire? or are they more like Sir Ian McKellan? or Sir Elton John? ... it's just far to squishy a term.
Just to note, I did say that 'warlord' was not a formal position."The 'Lord' element implies a very high, if informal, rank, that being, the leader of an army."I suppose anyone could call themself a warlord, even someone on their own ("I command the
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.
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
As their abilities are were really only relevant at the squad level
Fixed that for you, remember the "legacy" module?
Fingers crossed that it will be more interesting than just a few tables of random followers.
A Warlord should be able to do a prep speach by riding up and down in front of a large group of allies giving every one within a short ear shot during that speach a bonus of temp hit points and it will propogate further than you might expect because enthusiasm is catching. Of course it has a larger impact on his elite squad. An initimidator kind of like Lancelot mignt ride smashing through the enemy undoing anything like that....
Fixed that for you, remember the "legacy" module?[/quote]Fingers crossed that it will be more interesting than just a few tables of random followers.[/quote]A Warlord should be able to do a prep speach by riding up and down in front of a large group
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.
You're right and you're wrong.
At first level, I would contend that you are an Apprentice yes, but an Apprentice WIZARD, as opposed to say, an apprentice blacksmith, or miller, or scribe. Likewise with priest, you ARE an Initiate, but an Initiate of the PRIESTHOOD. Still, I wouldn't mind at all if they had an optional per level 'title' system for each class. I think 2e did that, if I'm not mistaken, and it can be pretty flavourful. They haven't mentioned anything about that though, so we can only take them at their word.
To respond to the 'turnip truck' comment (yours), I've always thought Warlord seemed a bit off as a title and other people did too, that wasn't just Mike Mearls being peevish about minutiae, it really doesn't make a lot of sense and people noticed and voiced that to him/the developers. That should be apparent from even a cursory look at this thread. 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.
You're right and you're wrong. At first level, I would contend that you are an Apprentice yes, but an Apprentice WIZARD, as opposed to say, an apprentice blacksmith, or miller, or scribe. Likewise with priest, you ARE an Initiate, but an Initiate of
In all seriousness, I like the name as it is. No other name really fits as far as I'm concerned. Sergeant or Commander sound like an official title of a soldier of an army and not something that would fit(in my eyes)
I get the aversion to the name if you break down the name into its base components "war" and "lord". So, other characters can't be a lord of war or master of war? Still, the name seems to stick as the leader of a band of warriors. It fits better in my eyes because its a more generic title, where sergeant or commander would be too specific...
In all seriousness, I like the name as it is. No other name really fits as far as I'm concerned. Sergeant or Commander sound like an official title of a soldier of an army and not something that would fit(in my eyes)I get the aversion to the name i
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.
that wasn't just Mike Mearls being peevish about minutiae, it really doesn't make a lot of sense
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.
that wasn't just Mike Mearls being peevish about minutiae, it really doesn't make a lot of sense [/quote]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 p
Your character is a warrior and he has never been to war and probably never will but because you know that makes sense... because you know you might and you were trained to be capable of it.
Your character is a warrior and he has never been to war and probably never will but because you know that makes sense... because you know you might and you were trained to be capable of it.
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.
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 fo
Given these choices, I think I'll stick with Warlord. It might not be perfect, but it works.
I did a brief thesaurus search and came up with:boss,captain,chief,chieftan,commander,conductor,controller, counsellor, dean, dignitary, director, doyen, eminence, exec, forerunner, general, governor, guide, harbinger, head, helmer, herald, lead,
What, no one wants to be of the superintendant class instead?
I wanna be the Skipper. That way I can call the fighter of the group Little Buddy and we can find ways to get off the island.
Or rector...except that one makes me giggle a little just saying it.
I wanna be the Skipper. That way I can call the fighter of the group Little Buddy and we can find ways to get off the island.Or rector...except that one makes me giggle a little just saying it.
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)
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
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.
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.[/quote]"Ignorant" is a little ridiculous But
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.
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
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.
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 rang
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.
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
Well, maybe that's what we should go back to:Fighter!WizardSorcererWarlockIllusionistMagic-UserRogueAssassinBackstabberClericDivine-UserWarlordLeaderBardTalkerDruidNature-userRangerFighter/Nature-userPaladinFighter/Divine-userBarbarianRage-userMonkKi
Class is just a name however its a name that probably should sync with npc impressions. No class breaks impressions like a Warlord. They are seen as any other fighter or warrior so I see Mike's point
Class is just a name however its a name that probably should sync with npc impressions. No class breaks impressions like a Warlord. They are seen as any other fighter or warrior so I see Mike's point
The only person non-D&D folk call a fighter.. is somebody who boxes you know a sports figure, not a soldier.
Thats obviously a bad name for a class. If they mean knight they ought to call it a knight.
The fighter class name is utterly unevocative of fantasy combatants.
The only person non-D&D folk call a fighter.. is somebody who boxes you know a sports figure, not a soldier.Thats obviously a bad name for a class. If they mean knight they ought to call it a knight. The fighter class name is utterly unevocative of
Well, maybe that's what we should go back to:[/quote]Fighting personStudied Magic-UserSkillful PersonHoly PersonMagical PerformerPrimal Magic-UserPsionicistNature-WarriorPrimal WarriorHoly WarriorMartial ArtistInnate Magic-UserPact-Bound Magic-UserCo
Psionicist does that describe what he does? and is that goofy enough.. been looking at this stuff too long. hmmmm Head banger might get confused with the bard.
Well, maybe that's what we should go back to:[/quote]Fighting personStudied Magic-UserSkillful PersonHoly PersonMagical PerformerPrimal Magic-UserPsionicistNature-WarriorPrimal WarriorHoly WarriorMartial ArtistInnate Magic-UserPact-Bound Magic-UserCo
I suppose anyone could call themself a warlord, but someone doing so with only a handful of followers wouldn't likely be able to wage much of a 'war,' at least, not as it has been generally defined for a few thousand years now.
Pizarro conquered the Incan empire with less than 200 soldiers.
He had a technological edge, obviously, and the Incans had come off a horrible and ill-omened civil war and plague, but even so, they fielded 80,000 against him.
Jason sailed to Thessaly with 40 or 50 Argonauts, and his arrival was considered an act of war. But, then, the Argonauts were a "dream team" of legendary heroes.
Player characters are heroes, not realistic ones, but the larger-than-life heroes of fantasy and legend. A warlord with a handful of followers who happen to all be of such a calibre, they could easily 'make war' on a tribe of goblins at low level or just about anything at higher levels.
Pizarro conquered the Incan empire with less than 200 soldiers. He had a technological edge, obviously, and the Incans had come off a horrible and ill-omened civil war and plague, but even so, they fielded 80,000 against him.Jason sailed to Thessaly
Pizarro was also able to walk right in because of the presumption of the Incan King that he posed no threat, his muskets terrified the army and the horses allowed them to be far more mobile... plus they had steel armor and weapons, vs. wood, stone and bronze, AND Afro-Eurasian diseases.... and he still had 150+ men, a third of which was mounted.
Jason is a better case, but still, 40-50 argonauts + direct intercession by Hera (even a higher level cleric can't usually boast that sort of aid).
Etc.
I guess you could cherry-pick some other examples, Beowulf and some of the Celtic origin myths come to mind, but these are fairly exceptional. The meaning of 'warfare' has certainly changed substantially over time, but the small-scale, prestige-based warfare of some cultures (historical and contemporary) are not generally what people associate the term with in our society imho.
Pizarro was also able to walk right in because of the presumption of the Incan King that he posed no threat, his muskets terrified the army and the horses allowed them to be far more mobile... plus they had steel armor and weapons, vs. wood, stone an
The King Arthur has 100 knights on his round table but of them only a few are the hero knights that we know more than the name of these fated champions these are the Lancelots, Galahads, Gawaines and the Parsifals are less than or perhaps approaching a dozen.
This movie creates a bridge between that heroic warlord arthur and the legendary king arthur.
The King Arthur has 100 knights on his round table but of them only a few are the hero knights that we know more than the name of these fated champions these are the Lancelots, Galahads, Gawaines and the Parsifals are less than or perhaps approaching
Change the Fighter's name. I don't want kids playing to get the wrong idea and think it's cool to egt into fights. Change Wizard's name, I don't want kids getting the diea that witchcraft and satanism are cool. Change Assassin's name. Families all over the world have lost their family to assassins, keeping their name as-is is a slap in the face to them.
Change the Fighter's name. I don't want kids playing to get the wrong idea and think it's cool to egt into fights.Change Wizard's name, I don't want kids getting the diea that witchcraft and satanism are cool.Change Assassin's name. Families all over
I'm already on the fence, but no Warlord, no purchase.
Marvellous, not sure why you need to share this unwanted ultimatum.
For the same reasons that numerous people share their "no vancian magic, no purchase" ultimatums.
Marvellous, not sure why you need to share this unwanted ultimatum.[/quote]For the same reasons that numerous people share their "no vancian magic, no purchase" ultimatums.
I'm already on the fence, but no Warlord, no purchase.
Marvellous, not sure why you need to share this unwanted ultimatum.
For the same reasons that numerous people share their "no vancian magic, no purchase" ultimatums.
...Aw, bless...again, the gang mentality comes through (you things just can't help yourselves, can you...?)...
Are people actually saying that if Vancian is not a route to go in D&D they will quit?
Marvellous, not sure why you need to share this unwanted ultimatum.[/quote]For the same reasons that numerous people share their "no vancian magic, no purchase" ultimatums.[/quote]...Aw, bless...again, the gang mentality comes through (you things jus
That's not what "harbingers" are. They are heralds. They are the guys who walk so far ahead of the force that when they arrive, they appear to be alone. Then they tell the foe all the horrible things that will happen to them if they don't capitulate. A warlord doesn't do that.
Now I want a Harbinger class: "You can keep trying to defeat me, viilain. Or you could surrender before my friends arrive in six seconds and kill you."
Though, that's kind of how I play Monks.
Now I want a Harbinger class: "You can keep trying to defeat me, viilain. Or you could surrender before my friends arrive in six seconds and kill you."Though, that's kind of how I play Monks.
I'm already on the fence, but no Warlord, no purchase.
Marvellous, not sure why you need to share this unwanted ultimatum.
For the same reasons that numerous people share their "no vancian magic, no purchase" ultimatums.
...Aw, bless...again, the gang mentality comes through (you things just can't help yourselves, can you...?)...
Are people actually saying that if Vancian is not a route to go in D&D they will quit?
I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but numerous people have stated, in numerous threads since the announcement of Next, that if Next doesn't have Vancian magic, they will not buy it.
If you think before posting, you would have noticed that I didn't posit or support any position, I merely reminded you and the thread of another similar position to the one to which you were responding.
Marvellous, not sure why you need to share this unwanted ultimatum.[/quote]For the same reasons that numerous people share their "no vancian magic, no purchase" ultimatums.[/quote]...Aw, bless...again, the gang mentality comes through (you things jus
Warlord is fine with me. The only problem I can see with the name is that it's very similar to Warlock, but the ramifications don't really go beyond a player saying they target the Warlock instead of the Warlord and then having to clarify, not really a big deal. I hope that either Knight or Cavalier is a class of its own. Seems the thread's way off topic now, though, and people are talking about Vancian magic on a discussion about the Warlord for some reason.
Warlord is fine with me. The only problem I can see with the name is that it's very similar to Warlock, but the ramifications don't really go beyond a player saying they target the Warlock instead of the Warlord and then having to clarify, not really
