|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 8:56PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
How about Warlord for the Class, Marshal for the Specialty?
I agree that Warlord NEEDS to be the Class name, since the PHB class name was Warlord. It would be a good olive branch to the 4E players, and just makes more sense overall.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 8:56PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
SWSE?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 12:43AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
SWSE?
Star Wars Saga Edition.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:14AM
#94
|
|
|
Just to Note, Field Marshal is most often the highest rank in an Army. Some nations don't use it, and some nations only maintain one during wartime to keep the military's leash tight when they get bored, and prevent a coup. The equivalent in the U.S. is The General of the Army(5 Star).
As for making the Warlord a Prestige Class, that would defeat much of it's purpose, as we are left, until significantly later levels, with no Warlord. Also, we aren't even sure yet what PrCs will be able to do in 5E. Mind you, I do like the idea of a Field Marshal/Supreme Commander/Tactical Master PrC for flavour, and for characters who may not be Warlords(the class) but are definately Warlords (the social position).
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:42AM
#95
|
|
|
How about Warlord for the Class, Marshal for the Specialty?
I agree that Warlord NEEDS to be the Class name, since the PHB class name was Warlord. It would be a good olive branch to the 4E players, and just makes more sense overall.
I'd prefer Captain, as it has more varied uses, including just someone that leads a group of people, in a very general sense. But, you may be right about the whole PHB thing.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 6:50AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2009
|
So, we're most of us are cool with Warlord as a Class (not Spec. or PrC), and now we're discussing what to call it. Right? Okay, just checking.
So: My initial input was that warlord sounded a little sexist to me where Marshal was gender-neutral. I think naming the class in question has two difficulties, to my sensibilities (bear in mind that most of my posts are written as I think the thoughts, so bear with me):
1. Gender neutrality
2. Not the name of a military rank, which I feel should be reserved for the "Soldier" background or other similar features.
3. Class name changes are not new to D&D. Magic-User & Thief, anyone?
The argument of "warlords can be women" has been made. That's fine. But do we want the class name to be so linked with battle? "War" is right in the name (and not incidentally, like Warlock or Warden- the "war" in "Warlord" means "war"). Part of D&DN design ideal is to make a class something interesting and useful both in and out of combat. Maybe Warlord speaks to that, maybe not. On the grounds of #2 above, even my suggestion of "Marshal" is not a good one.
I think "Warlord" is like "Fighter." The name predominantly speaks to their combat, and the name has stuck. The Fighter will always be named the Fighter. I think the Warlord, if the comments in this thread are a representative sample, is the same way - it's going to be the Warlord.
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:21AM
#97
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Part of D&DN design ideal is to make a class something interesting and useful both in and out of combat.
No, the goal is to give a character something interesting to do in and out of combat. That can be through class, background, speciality, or race.
There's no problem with "warlord" just because it uses "war". Class is primarily about combat for most classes.
There really can't be a debate about what to name the class. The class existed. It's being included in part because it was a class in 4e. So we're going to use the 4e name.
Once upon a time, you could change class names. Fighting Man became Fighter (OD&D > D&D). Thief become Rogue (1e > 2e). Magic-User became Wizard (1e > 2e). But I think the time has passed. Nobody has a serious problem with "Warlord". It's not a sexist title, despite "lord" being in the name. It is as accurate as any of the other options. It has name recognition.
It's not changing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:24AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
What about "Champion?" It's vague enough to be applied to any leader type role in any setting, it's gender neutral. It is less specific than "warlord" is all... doesn't really push my creative drive like warlord does. I like the notion of keeping the warlord pretty much a warrior and having a PrC for folks who don't want a warrior but do want some of the support tools.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:28AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
One cool thing they could do with a Warlord in regards to a prestige class is expanding the scale of his command.
For example, lets say you have a Warlord and that Warlord gets bonuses to small unit tactics. A prestige class with a Warlord prereq could grant bonus followers, or even a unit of followers, and expand his command capabilities to larger groups. Having a high level general capable of leading large bands or even armies is pretty awesome. It is a sweet archetype that is all over history and fiction. MAXIMUS MAXIMUS MAXIMUS!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:29AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2009
|
Part of D&DN design ideal is to make a class something interesting and useful both in and out of combat.
No, the goal is to give a character something interesting to do in and out of combat. That can be through class, background, speciality, or race.
There's no problem with "warlord" just because it uses "war". Class is primarily about combat for most classes.
There really can't be a debate about what to name the class. The class existed. It's being included in part because it was a class in 4e. So we're going to use the 4e name.
Once upon a time, you could change class names. Fighting Man became Fighter (OD&D > D&D). Thief become Rogue (1e > 2e). Magic-User became Wizard (1e > 2e). But I think the time has passed. Nobody has a serious problem with "Warlord". It's not a sexist title, despite "lord" being in the name. It is as accurate as any of the other options. It has name recognition.
It's not changing.
Um... did you read the last part of the post of mine you quoted? The part where I say "The name has stuck [...] it's going to be the Warlord"?
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
|
|
|
