Just a couple of questions

[Simia Saturnalia]

Gandalf, with only two wizard levels?

Heresy! Heresy!

How about Ftr 15/Wiz 5?

 

[TheSeer]

No, but I imagine Ghengis Khan didn't start his adult life as a warlord. He started it like all the rest of the mongols at the time. A nomad warrior. By 3.5e D&D terms, either a fighter or barbarian. By 4e terms, looks like fighter. His father had died when Genghis was 9 (called Temujin - the name Genghis came later). His family deserted him and left him to fend for himself. He grew older, won some fights, gained some respect amongst his peers, joined the army, won more fights, impressed some officers, rose through the ranks, siezed hold on the leadership (maybe a coup?), then finally earned the title of warlord.

A quick google tells me he was 39 years old when he was voted the title of warlord (or the equivalent among his people). That means for 20 years of his adult life he was honing those fighting and leadership skills until he finally earned that title.

Now, he passed on the title of Khan to his son, Ogedei, who was 41 when Genghis died and 43 when he became Khan (I guess these things took time back then). But he had been leading armies and conquering nations as part of Genghis Khan's army all his adult life too.

Cool. I knew some of the things you mentioned but it's always nice to get more information, especially on someone as interesting as Genghis. And yes, it's true that things don't work the same in D&D as in the real world, but it's assumed that most characters have some training and background in their chosen class (I know that the ages of characters varies depending on their class. Perhaps a Warlord won't be a fresh faced 18 year old, but like a Wizard will be older to reflect that background).

 

[TheSeer]

Re: Just a few Questions

Deleted due to duplicate post

 

[DM_Blake]

Cool. I knew some of the things you mentioned but it's always nice to get more information, especially on someone as interesting as Genghis. And yes, it's true that things don't work the same in D&D as in the real world, but it's assumed that most characters have some training and background in their chosen class (I know that the ages of characters varies depending on their class. Perhaps a Warlord won't be a fresh faced 18 year old, but like a Wizard will be older to reflect that background).

And that will be fine, if that warlord could face off against a fresh faced 18 year old fighter who is also level 1 and give him a severe beating because of his years of fighting experience, or at the very least, command his army to give him a severe beating because he is, after all, a warlord - he has an army, right?

I bet you that 39-year-old Genghis Khan would have whooped that fresh faced level 1 fighter and made a laughing stock out of him. And near-60 Genghis might have been a bit long in the tooth to do his own fighting, but he definitely didn't have to.

I'm not trying to attack you.

And as I originally said, I am only a little irked by the name warlord and can easily get over it.

I'm just pointing out why it's not really appropriate for a 1st level adventurer. Fighter is OK. Ranger is OK. Rogue is OK. Wizard is OK. Warlord smacks of someone who has already risen out of the noobishness associated with first level.

 

[DM_Blake]

Here is something fun.

According to 1e, a level 1 fighter was called a veteran. Hardly seems appropriate for a noob either. He goes from there up to warrior, swordsman, then hero at 4th level. Awfully low level to claim to be a hero. From there to swashbuckler, myrmidon, champion, then superhero at level 8.

Level 9 came the title Lord. Now he should have lands to go with the title, and some men to order around a battlefield.

Not quite the same thing as warlord, but on the same page, anyway.

I like how Hero was easier to achieve than swashbuckler or myrmidon or champion.

Edit:

If I were to fix this, I would probably go warrior, swordsman, myrmidon, swashbuckler, veteran, champion, hero, superhero, lord.

 

[pawsplay]

1) First off, all of the furor about Warlord and why WOTC didn't listen to the public about how much the name is disliked and many a poll was started to come up with a new name. People didn’t seem to like the connotation Warlord for a 1st level character and also thought that it was too close to Warlock. But, if you take a look at the poll on the 4th edition info page, you will see that Warlord just slightly edges out all of the other choices, which means that a majority of your peers considers it an OK name. So why the fuss? It's just a metagame name.

Well, first of all, it only tied with Marshal. Considering that Warlord should have novelty going for it, and Marshal was not a particularly popular class, that should tell you something!

Second of all, it has all the wrong connotations (too much power, seems to describe a military hiearchy, associated with war crimes and banditry). For a metagame name, there is nothing more important than picking something that properly describes the concept you are trying to relate.

2) Why the fuss about Dragonborn as a race name?

I didn't like Dragonborn, I didn't like Races of the Dragon, and I suspect the book was not a runaway seller. Thus, I suspect anyone who would name a race after them of being kind of clueless as to what most gamers think of as cool. Secondarily, they will be so different from the other Dragonborn, that any fans of the old Dragonborn will not be very gratified either. So you've thrown away most any hardcore fan you could think of. The people you have left are ones who simply don't care; you could name the race anything, and having "Dragon" in it is a plus for them. You could have called them Dragonkin, or Dragonets, or Erddragons, or anything.

Also, it's the name of a race that a lot of people suspect they are not going to like. No D&D setting to date that I am aware of has had a desert kingdom ruled by draconic creatures.

3) Golden Wyvern Adapt.

Terrible name. First of all, it does not have "flavor." Flavor would imply you could say the name and have a sense of what it means. That is not the case. As a fluff name, it's terrible, since it ties some kind of order to a specify spellcasting feat. As a metagame name, it's terrible, because it ties the feat to a specific magical order. It would be like naming a Feat St. Cuthbert's Boon instead of Extra Smiting.

I suppose someone thought it would be "cooler" than a descriptive name. But it's not. It's harder to remember. And it doesn't even sound "cool" on its own terms. It sounds like something out of World of Synnibarr, or once of the less popular Shadowrun books.

 

[Dlamaerstzus Chelan]

There's a gap in this train of thought somewhere.

Try this...

Gold is precious.
Wyverns are lesser wyrms with a serpentine tail that ends in a poisonous barb, capable of encircling its prey to strike opponents (in terms of 'squares', you strike an 'area' excluding those immediately adjacent to you - think yin & yang).
Adepts have a certain degree of skill.
You are a Gold Wyvern adept.
You can shape spells - which instead of radiating outward from a point of 'impact', instead arc around, to strike at foes, whilst excluding nearby allies.


At least that what i imagine they were 'attempting' to evoke...
..but if it needs explaining....

 

[am181d]

But, if you take a look at the poll on the 4th edition info page, you will see that Warlord just slightly edges out all of the other choices, which means that a majority of your peers considers it an OK name.

Don't really care about the larger argument, but you're using the word "majority" incorrectly here. You mean to say "plurality," I believe. What the poll demonstrates is that the majority think that Warlord *isn't* a good name. (Or, at least, it's not the best name.)

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I thought Warlord lost to Marshall in the one on one poll.

 

[Jinete]

Try this...

Gold is precious.
Wyverns are lesser wyrms with a serpentine tail that ends in a poisonous barb, capable of encircling its prey to strike opponents (in terms of 'squares', you strike an 'area' excluding those immediately adjacent to you - think yin & yang).
Adepts have a certain degree of skill.
You are a Gold Wyvern adept.
You can shape spells - which instead of radiating outward from a point of 'impact', instead arc around, to strike at foes, whilst excluding nearby allies.


At least that what i imagine they were 'attempting' to evoke...
..but if it needs explaining....

Although I am honestly fascinated by your explanation I have two objections
1. In your example Wyverns strike 1 point, excluding everything else, not the other way around
2. Are you serious? I mean c'mon, that's just reaching (pardon the pun)

Actually, even if I were able to go with this explanation, why is the gold part there anyway?