|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:22PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
EDIT: Poll ended with 330 votes cast.
POLL INSPIRATION In a recent D&D Google+ Hangout interview with Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford both designers got to talking about the Warlord of 4th edition (at the 37:37 point) and indicated that the class would definitely have a place in 5th edition, but that perhaps the name "Warlord" was ill-suited. Mike Mearls: "If you meet a 1st level Warlord what does that mean? And even just like the class name, does 'Warlord' make sense for a guy who is just a beginning person?"Jeremy Crawford: "Right, I just fell off the turnip truck and I AM A WARLORD."To that end, the above poll offers a number of alternative class names on which to vote which have been largely culled from numerous threads about the Warlord class. If you feel like suggesting another name that has not been covered here, please make 'Other' one of your three votes and post it in the thread below.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:28PM
#2
|
|
|
"Captain" or "Marshal". Both are (historically) pretty generic titles for military leaders. "Captain", especially, could be appropriate for small units. Note how Boromir calls Aragorn "my Captain" as he's dying. That's correct. "Sergeant" is all right too, but it's a little too specifically a subordinate rank for my taste. It'd be weird to call my 20th-level character who just helped kill a god a "sergeant".
Some of the options on this list are just off the table, as far as I'm concerned. A "Champion" is the opposite of a leader - he's a guy who does the fighting for someone more important than him. And a "Vanguard" is a forward scout or skirmisher.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:35PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Personally, I feel that 'knight' is the strongest choice. A knight can lead by example, recklessly charging headlong into combat, or issue commands from behind the line of combat or a top a horse. Indeed, a knight can be a mêlée warrior or a mounted warrior. Historically, they are not restricted to either martial expertise. More importantly, knights have a strong presence in medieval/fantasy literature/settings. You can have knights of good or knights of evil. You can have hedge knights or noble knights. Virtuous knights or wicked knights. As iconic names go, the title offers a lot of characterization and flexibility.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:39PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I like Leader the best, because it clearly conveys what the class is and does, but doesn't bring a lot of extra baggage to the table. Military terms like Captain (while they do fit for many warlords) enforce the soldier background, which shouldn't be required. Knight (again, while working perfectly for many warlords) also carries too much baggage; a Warlord should no more have to be a knight than a warlord.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:39PM
#5
|
|
|
Warlord is fine. If the player doesn't think it's appropriate for his character, his character doesn't have to refer to himself by that title; he can call himself whatever he likes.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:42PM
#6
|
|
|
Personally, I feel that 'knight' is the strongest choice. A knight can lead by example by recklessly charging headlong into combat, or issue commands from behind the line of conflict or a top a horse. Indeed, a knight can a mounted warrior or a mêlée warrior. Historically, they are not restricted to any combative preference. More importantly, knights have a strong presence in both medieval and fantasy literature and settings. You can have knights of good or knights of evil. You can have hedge knights or noble knights. Virtuous knights or wicked knights. As iconic names go, the title offers a lot of characterization and flexibility.
I think the problem here is that not all martial-leaders are knights, and not all knights are martial-leaders. In fact, one of the most popular knightly archetypes, the knight errant, is renowned for working alone.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:43PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Unless 5e plans to go back to level titles, and deciding that PCs actually refer to themselves by /class names/ in-character, the idea that there's anything wrong with the 1st level 'leader-of-men' type warrior being a 'warlord' is completely facetious. In 1e, you didn't call yourself a 'Wizard' until 11th level, and the archetypal 'wizards' are old grey bearded men not often seen falling off of turnip trucks.
Are we going to re-name that class 'Prestidigitator' or 'magic-user' to be less lofty-sounding? No.
Paladins were the personal knights of Charlemagne, peers of their realm, all. Knighthood, in turn, was won after much training and some deeds of valor or at least based on high birth and privilege.
Are Paladins now to be called 'Squires?' No.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 3:46PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I would just call it the Warlord or Marshall as the next best option I suppose.
Not sure if this is ironic or not but remember when people were complaining there was no dex based option for a fighter in 4th ed and to play a ranger instead if you wanted a bow? After all its only a name use your imagination.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 4:54PM
#9
|
|
|
Tactician seems something that a 1st level character could be.
Knight is a Background but maybe Champion would be good.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 5:33PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
I like Warlord, but I'm also partial to Marshal and Vanguard (the latter due to Mass Effect's Vanguard class).
|
|
|
