D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll

[Bawylie]

I went with Warlord. I'm not fussed about connotations in a game with Rogues, Witches, Demons, Devils, and Assassins.

 

[pemerton]

Warlord is fine. It's the existing name, after all.

Tolkien, in LotR, describes characters who broadly fit the warlord archetype as captains. I would be happy with captain or battle captain.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree that Captain is exclusively military, exclusively noble, or a modern usage issue.

It refers to a person who people follow, primarily. Captain of industry is a modern usage, but it is 100% in line with what captain has always meant. In LOTR, Boromir calls Agagorn his Captain, but it has nothing to do with military structure or even his lineage. He is acknoledging Aragorn as a person who deserves to be followed, who merits respect. Hawke and The Warden from the Dragon Age series are captains, regardless of any rank or lack of rank, and for most warden origins, you start with no rank or titles, but you still fit the Captain archetype just fine.

Robin Hood isn't a captain because he was a noble, either, or because he gained any high rank in the Crusades. He is a captain because when he speaks, people listen, and when he leads by example, people follow.

Honestly, other than maybe Consul, I don't think there is another name for the class that even comes close.

 

[The Human Target]

Banneret seems kind of prissy to me.

Like a class that gets shoved into lockers a lot.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Banneret
then Warlord
then Marshal

Looking up the British rank of Marshal I hadn't realized it was the highest rank (above general).

Warlord has already grown on me so it's my second.

The negative connotations are comparable to Rogue, Sorceror, Thief or Assassin.

 

[El Mahdi]

Ugh. Why did you feel compelled to tag 50 people?

Out of curiosity, what made you think 50? Do you have 49 alt accounts that all received mentions?

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Yup getting tagged motivated me to compile my warlord argument for my next blog post.

http://breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.ca/2015/10/why-warlord-should-be-in-5e-dungeons.html

mellored and Manbearcat. I quoted you. I hope you don't mind?

Additionally if you need to add anything to the pro side, let me know via pm. I'm tired of talking in a circle and by compiling it, it gives me a place to point when people start arguing.

 

[Ohillion]

I like Marshall as it does indicate a certain amount of appointment. There were a few, other than the obvious inside reference you made, that I simply wouldn't consider out of the oddness of speaking the title (linguistics count!) as well as some that seemed too Latin in nature such as Decanus, Facilis (in French, this could loosely be translated as "One who makes things simple"), and Coordinatus. IMHO, Coordinatus is a commander in the wings that won't step foot on the battlefield and a Consul is a council member that wouldn't enter the adventurers life or has since retired from it.

So I voted for Marshall as the best name for the class. The role the Marshall falls into is one of fighter and commander but not either exclusively. The Marshall, or Marshaller, does just that; calls their soldiers to battle, organizes the formations, and shouts tactics and maneuvers in order to bring about a successful end to the engagement. This requires the Charisma necessary to to build the class. I think it's an easy appointment and with a good background designation, the Marshall could be taken quite seriously as the party leader.

p.s. Speaking of which, and also IMHO, if you want to be taken seriously, remove Lemon Curry as a voting option. It helped to derail the last forum for a few pages of thread. And, if you want constructive input about the topic, removing anything meaningless furthers your goals.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've long held that the correct term for the concept frequently called warlord or marshall is "Fighter".

It's simply the "smart fighter" or "charismatic fighter" archetype. It's a bad idea because it silos away from the fighter abilities that should be part of the fighter's core idea. Every fighter eventually should reach a point when they are no longer just a grunt on the field, but a legitimate leader of men in battle. The concept of a warlord or marshal is simply a fighter that is especially good at that, even at low level. It should be a fighter subclass, plus a few feats available to enhance anyone that wants to take that 'battle leader' sort of role.

I disagree with this so strongly I don't even know where to start. Especially the part I bolded. I think that is completely false. Some fighters should, sure. It should definitely be an option. But not all fighter concepts should ever stop being the guy who stands in front with a shield and takes the hits, or the Lancer (five man band role) or whatever.
And that aside, I don't think that having a class dedicated to influence, leadership, possibly manipulation/diplomacy, and tactics takes anything at all from Fighter. First, because overlap is an ok thing. Second, because the fighter is about combat, and the overlap would 90% be between one Captain subclass (and maybe one or two core class features) and some members of a fighter subclass, and a small number of other fighters at higher levels...that's not much overlap.
By which I mean, about as much overlap as the rogue and the ranger.

Incidentally, I like 'Battle Leader', 'Captain', 'Commander', and 'Marshal'. To master battle is not the same as leading in one, or over others. Commander is the most appropriate modern analogue, but in the middle ages the word Captain would have been preferred as the term applied to the leader of any band of men and was much less of a formal rank. The retention of the usage is seen in the captain of a sports team, particular when the captain is elected or chosen rather than appointed. Marshall is fine as well, although it applies as much to the idea of bringing men to a battle than to leading them in it, it also applies to being the leader (hense the term 'Field Marshal'). Much more than 'Captain' though, I think Marshal implies rank. A leader of bandits could claim to be their captain, and would even be accepted as entitled to the title because it merely means leader and not a rank. I don't think the same idea is true of the word Marshal. A self-titled captain is still a captain. But a self-titled general is pretentious. So Commander and Captain are better than Marshal.

Exactly right.

 

[El Mahdi]

Speaking of which, and also IMHO, if you want to be taken seriously, remove Lemon Curry as a voting option.

It's an ENWorld thing...