This is the single worst thread I’ve ever started, tbh, with the other related poll thread a close second, but he jokes are pretty good.
For future reference, if the 3rd word of your OP is "hate," you just might be starting a thread you'll regret later.
If you go all the way back to the coining of the word (as "war-lord"), it was in contrast to the idea of landed gentry in the 19th century having immemorial legal rights to their land - when, in essence, they're ancestors had mostly just seized it by violence at some point. Which, ironically, is much like an old-school D&D character reaching name level, building his keep & attracting followers.
So you're saying Warlord should just be the level title for name level in some classes, then?
Not the purpose for which it was coined, but certainly how it's used - and adventuring parties neatly dovetail with that definition.
Yep - which runs headfirst into the problem of whether a PC should be in position of telling other PCs what to do and expecting them to do it; because that's exactly what a leader-of-warriors Warlord does: it gives orders that are to be followed.
Yep - which runs headfirst into the problem of whether a PC should be in position of telling other PCs what to do and expecting them to do it; because that's exactly what a leader-of-warriors Warlord does: it gives orders that are to be followed.
This is the crux of the issue with ANY leader-type class: regardless of its name its base function is to tell other PCs what to do. Nobody tells my PC what to do, and trying to do so too many times is likely to get you a sword in the eye (or in the back, depending what I'm playing).
Which is why I hope we don't again see a Warlord, or anything remotely similar, ever.
