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

[Aldarc]

War 101: A General Introduction to Warlordnomics

 

[jmartkdr2]

I fully admit that is true. Although barbarian, monk, and druid all have positive or neutral connotations, and warlocks and assassins are often assumed to be villainous from the outset. I personally have a more negative reaction to the word warlord than I do with the other words, since the word warlord conjures up images of causing lots of harm and misery to innocents either to send a message, for profit, or for fun. It's the same sort of negative visceral reaction I get with the conquest paladin.

And no, I don't know if that was the the reason for the general dislike of the warlord, but I realized that it was my reason for it.


I mean more the lord aspect. Which, well, I didn't actually get to play 1st edition, but it reminds me of the "name" levels from that. And, well, it's kind of pompous. Anyone with the birthright can be a samurai; anyone with the training can be a cavalier or ranger or wizard, but not just anyone can be a lord.

Plus, someone on the LU part of the forums made a joke about a 1st-level warlord being called a warlad.

On the first part: it's worth pointing out that the term "warlord" is almost never used when discussing European histroy. In Europe, they're called nobles or chiefs.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Although barbarian, monk, and druid all have positive or neutral connotations,

Barbarian has entirely negative connotations in English.

 

[Remathilis]

I think people are right that "Warlord" has too many real world negative connotations.

How about "Overseer". That's a nice neutral term.

Overseer to me sounds like a someone whose job is to watch over slaves or prisoners. (Or anyone who would escape if not monitored).

The problem with this exercise is that nearly any title you have is going to either imply authority or rank, which creates some negative connotation. You get the same problem with barbarian (which has some negative connotation of its own, if the orc debate taught us anything) or even rogue (which implies a neer do well, regardless of what the character's relationship with the law is).

However, the alternative is to have nonsensical names like Oathsworn or Warbringer, which conjures no archetype on its own and probably confuses new players, or painfully generic names like "leader", "arcanist", and "expert".

Warlord has the same problem that "witch" had in the thread discussing that; a strong fantasy archetype marred by some unfortunate modern usage. Shaman might be in the same boat, and I'm pretty sure barbarian might be heading that way.

Honestly, I don't think there is any name for this concept that is going to feel right.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Overseer to me sounds like a someone whose job is to watch over slaves or prisoners.

I think that was the point of the joke.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that was the point of the joke.

Hard to tell. There have been some truly awful names suggested in earnest over the years for the warlord.

 

[Morrus]

Mastermind?
Advisor?
Custodian?
Attendant?
Aide?
Counsel?
Mentor?

 

[Garthanos]

Battle = War .... Master = Lord

 

[Remathilis]

Mastermind?
Advisor?
Custodian?
Attendant?
Aide?
Counsel?
Mentor?

I like Mastermind, it at least feels like a fantasy archetype and not a entry level or intern position title.

Though custodian might work if polearm master works with mop and bucket attacks.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I like Mastermind, it at least feels like a fantasy archetype and not a entry level or intern position title.

Though custodian might work if polearm master works with mop and bucket attacks.

Mastermind is already a rogue subclass.