Level Up (A5E) What would you call a 'Warlord' class? (+)

[TheSword]

1st level Warlord is a contradiction in terms.

Marshall is probably the most appropriate. Though even that has connotations of rank.

I do like the fact that it’s a play on the word martial, as well.

 

[Aldarc]

1st level Warlord is a contradiction in terms.

Marshall is probably the most appropriate. Though even that has connotations of rank.

I do like the fact that it’s a play on the word martial, as well.

I like that Marshal also serves as a verb, as in one who marshals.

 

[Zardnaar]

Warlord as a class probably has copyright issues.

Commander maybe but it's may have in game problems similar to the old thief.

Any name denoting a high military rank may also be a problem eg level 1 general or Marshall.

 

[Nebulous]

That's my only issue really with the warlord class name, giving it to someone at 1st level who has never see a war or a lord. He's not a master or expert at anything yet. Maybe "Warlord" would be better suited as his 3rd level subclass specialty?

 

[Charlaquin]

Edit: I also don't understand the hate against the class, but I skipped 4e completely, if anyone can point me to why it's so divisive, I would enjoy the read!

There are various reasons. I believe the most prominent one was that the warlord was a healer despite being non-magical. And not an “I can kinda-sorta do some healing sometimes, mostly temp HP or bonus healing on a short rest” healer, like a legit primary heal bot on par with the cleric. As such, it was completely incompatible with an HP-as-meat paradigm. You pretty much had to either accept that HP is abstract, ban the warlord, or deal with them being able to non-magically shout wounds closed.

That’s not the only complaint against the warlord, but it was the biggest and most common, at least at the time. I believe anti-Warlord sentiment is a bit more nuanced these days, with complaints like the name not being a good fit, the implication that the warlord should be the leader of the party, the fictional archetype not standing well on its own, and some complaints about the fiction of inspiring other PCs stepping on their players’ agency (“What if I don’t think my character would find that inspiring?”). Most of these complaints did exist in some form during 4e’s heyday, but at the time they were all dwarfed by the outcry against non-magical healing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've always prefered 'Marshal' and even repeatedly said so in the run-up to 4th edition when they first revealed the Warlord class. I thought having a Warlord and a Warlock to be unwieldy, and didn't think the name Warlord really fit what it was trying to get across.

Yeah, the class archetype has become synonymous to it... but hell... if you were willing to throw out Barbarian as a class name @Morrus, you can throw out Warlord too.

 

[GSHamster]

I'm kind of leaning towards Commander. The biggest issue is that most of the words we reserve for the concept at the height of its power. Warlord, General, Marshal, Strategos, etc.

Commander at least is a low-level rank, lower than Captain. So having a low level Commander doesn't sound so unusual.

Like, if there's a guard patrol, having the officer in charge be a 3rd level Warlord or General seems dissonant, but a 3rd level Commander seems okay to me.

 

[Nebulous]

Marshal: use one 'L' and not two.

actually, it goes both ways. Well, according to Google anyway.


What is the difference between Marshal and Marshall?
(Marshall is, by the way, a long-established spelling variant of marshal. The two l's usually get used for proper nouns, like names and places—and stores—but both common noun and verb uses of marshal are sometimes spelled marshall, especially in British English.) ... It's a noun and a verb, and not an adjective.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm kind of leaning towards Commander. The biggest issue is that most of the words we reserve for the concept at the height of its power. Warlord, General, Marshal, Strategos, etc.

Commander at least is a low-level rank, lower than Captain. So having a low level Commander doesn't sound so unusual.

You have a valid point. My only issue with Commander (and Captain and the like) is that the names imply leadership. And that's what many people have had issue with when it comes to this class... that the character has some sort of command or leadership over the rest of the party. Which isn't necessarily the case.

While Marshal does imply a certain level of authority... it doesn't denote an authority over the people in the party. Marshal, sheriff... they are jobs, not so much roles in the group. And as the others have said verb-wise... marshalling someone just means moving them around... commanding someone means demanding they do what you say. It's not as forceful.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm kind of leaning towards Commander. The biggest issue is that most of the words we reserve for the concept at the height of its power. Warlord, General, Marshal, Strategos, etc.

Yeah, most of them do have those connotations. Warden doesn't, but it didn't get any love in the votes.