Classic warriors: Warlords or Fighters?

[Relique Hunter]

Conan?

 

[Cam Banks]

I'd lean towards Tanis being a ranger with a little warlord multiclassing.

I'd buy fighter with warlord training, or vice versa. Tanis never tracked a thing in the books. I am also firmly in the camp that says you don't need to be a ranger to use a bow. I suppose he could steal a couple of archery exploits from ranger if he needed to, though.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[keterys]

Well, we're talking 4e terms...

So your fighter is your in your face heavy armor tank, and your ranger is your light mobile fighter type. Rangers don't need to track.

But, yes, fighters can certainly use bows. It's true he didn't dual wield so that's one strike against ranger, but I still thought of him as more of a mobile striker who mixed up bow and melee than a defender.

So, maybe warlord with heavy multiclassing into other areas to dilute the warlordiness

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's true he didn't dual wield so that's one strike against ranger

Makes no sense!

IMO, Tanis is a fighter. Unless/until they come up with a better light fighter class.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that we'll find that most of the literary heroes start as fighters and end as warlords. The D&D ones because of the whole "followers and stronghold at name level" and the others because it's a natural progression and one of the prototypical forms of the monomyth (boy-warrior-king).

I think this would me more productive if we tried to find characters which totally fit within one or the other:

Warlord: Fights, but very rarely on his own. Usually has allies. Comes up with battle tactics which are effective. Content to let someone else be the front man.

Fighter: Fights solo or as part of a group. The only plan he's likely to have is to interpose himself between foes and his party members.

 

[keterys]

IMO, Tanis is a fighter. Unless/until they come up with a better light fighter class.

I suppose he doesn't lose too much by not using heavy armor, cause he has a high Dex. That's a plus, right?

But... what he has that makes him a fighter, rather than any other class... that escapes me.

Maybe we just need some class that isn't made yet. Til then, warlord is looking best of the bunch. Fits his theme, gives them a mechanical reason to follow him too, and fits the 'fights, but not quite the same way' problem.

 

[nnanji]

I haven't read the more recent stuff, but Catti-brie was more of a stay in the back shooting her bow with the occasional cool melee thing, wasn't she? But certainly no defender?

Anyhow, I'd figured ranger was easy for her.

Agreed. Her idea of protecting someone was to shoot whatever was attacking them. Total striker. Bruennor was her defender, and he was more often defending her than he was ruling the dwarves. I'd say that makes him a fighter with some warlord multiclassing.

 

[hong]

I wonder how many times I'd have to run "Cattie-Brie" through the Google translator before I got "Pussy Cheese".

 

[Cam Banks]

I wonder how many times I'd have to run "Cattie-Brie" through the Google translator before I got "Pussy Cheese".

Or vice versa!

Secrets of the Icewind Dales revealed. That and "Crysal-Tirith" not being at all like any other placename ever. Missing a T.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[D.Shaffer]

Warlord: Fights, but very rarely on his own. Usually has allies. Comes up with battle tactics which are effective. Content to let someone else be the front man.

Hmm, King Arthur maybe? Sure, he's got that magic sword and did some fighting by his lonesome in his younger days, but most of the stories are about his knights or with him leading battles. He's more well known for being a leader then a fighter in his own right, these days.

You could probably make a decent argument that Robin Hood, another legendary character, was a Warlord-Ranger mix depending on which version you use.