Exclusive Bruce Cordell interview

[Mouseferatu]

Warlords are NPCs or PCs with armies, not PCs on dungeoneering expeditions.

I actually agree. I love what I've heard of the concept of the warlord class, but I hate the name. I'd much rather they'd gone with "marshal."

 

[rounser]

I'd much rather they'd gone with "marshal."

Not too enamored of that one either, it's too military IMO. Something like "champion" I'd be cool with, it fits the fantasy hero theme without being a misnomer like "warlord" is, and therefore doesn't mess with suspension of disbelief in the same way warlord and marshal do for me.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not too enamored of that one either, it's too military IMO. Something like "champion" I'd be cool with, it fits the fantasy hero theme without being a misnomer like "warlord" is, and therefore doesn't mess with suspension of disbelief in the same way warlord and marshal do for me.

Well, the description of the class suggests that it could be military. (Or at least militant or militaristic.)

But yeah, while I like marshal, I'm not married to the term. I agree that "warlord" really ought to be reserved for a true military leader of tribes or nations, though.

 

[rounser]

Well, the description of the class suggests that it could be military. (Or at least militant or militaristic.)

Sure, but I don't think it fits in the same way a class called Sergeant, General, Legionairre, Sapper or Major wouldn't fit D&D as a core class name. Adventuring parties aren't armies, they're heroes (duh)...or villains, or just plain adventurers, somewhere in-between. Knights are often heroes, so that fits. Use of the terms Marshal and Warlord seem phony without troops, and the other PCs aren't that...and a dungeoneering expedition isn't a military operation - it's a heroic one (or anti-heroic one).

Warlock on the other hand, now that's a cool D&D class name that hits all the right notes. Hope that makes the cut.

 

[Rechan]

The problem with the class is that no word really captures it that fits.

"Strategist" or "Tactician" are just sort've academic and do not conjure the mental image of being in the middle of the fight coordinating. Cavalier is an armored fighter. Commander/Marshal/Officer/Captain is a military position. Warmaster doesn't fit because no 1st level character is a "master" at anything. Herald is too Bardish and soft; heralds don't fight, they run around announcing things. Noble brings to mind a caste system or aristocracy. They're not knights, because they serve no cause and have no chivalric code.

The best thing that I could come up with is Battlesmith or Warmaker.

And to gank something from a poster on the WotC boards, while we're arguing over semantics:

A paladin is one of Charlemagne's 12 knights. So unless you're one of those 12, you're out of luck. A wizard is a man who has magical powers. Sorry, no women. A cleric is a priest or minister of a Christian church. X-tian's only. A rogue is a dishonest or unprincipled man. They're not all dishonest. Most just disarm traps and unlock doors. A monk is a member of a religious community of men. Again with the gender thing. And they don't have to be religious. A ranger is a person who wanders over a particular area or domain. So they can never leave their park? Wow, that's fun. A druid is an ancient Celtic soothsayer or magician. So he's arcance instead of divine, but hey, who's counting. And there's nothing about changing shapes.

Ultimately, Warlord to me is the sexiest option.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I do very much hope monks are in the PHB. The Asian flavor could be ditched.
[/QUOTE]

The only real way to make Monks western, would be to either make them the Cloistered Cleric Variant from Unearthed Arcana, or making them experts with ranks in Know-religion and Prof-Book binding and Craft-Calligraphy, for example.

Now if they would just make them brawlers, that might work. Dump the mystical garbage, and make them decent at using their fists.

But what I really hope is that they will finally make unarmed fighting a realistic, and achieveable fighting style for non monks(or whatever you call them) I am sick of high level fighters who cannot punch their way out of a paper bag.

 

[rounser]

A paladin is one of Charlemagne's 12 knights. So unless you're one of those 12, you're out of luck.

Never liked "paladin". Code for "holy knight", as we all know, but see below.

A wizard is a man who has magical powers. Sorry, no women.

Magic-user was nice and non-gender-specific, but most of the magic-user terms aren't. Pity it's even more dry and unfantastic than "fighter" is, so had to get changed when they were shaking things up with 2E. It's like actor versus actress. Wizard leaves no doubt what the class represents, even if it is gender specific, so it is a good name. Witch, the flip gender version of either wizard or warlock (depending on who you ask), can be considered offensive, so it's never mentioned.

A cleric is a priest or minister of a Christian church. X-tian's only.

Another stupid class name, code for "priest". "Priest" is at least intelligible, even if it throws up problems of what the heck hero archetype is a priest, anyway? That's probably why Gygax used "cleric", because like "paladin" it's a dusty term with not much meaning any more, ripe for redefinition. Not so "warlord". There's warlords in the world today.

A rogue is a dishonest or unprincipled man. They're not all dishonest. Most just disarm traps and unlock doors.

Cypher for "thief". Rogue may be inappropriate, but less so than thief. Conan and the Grey Mouser, with their archetypal examples of thief abilities, are much better described by the term "rogue" with perfect accuracy than they are by "thief".

A monk is a member of a religious community of men. Again with the gender thing. And they don't have to be religious.

"Mystic" is an alternative, but again not a good one. "Martial Artist" just sounds too modern. Jury's still out on this one.

A ranger is a person who wanders over a particular area or domain. So they can never leave their park? Wow, that's fun.

Tolkien.

A druid is an ancient Celtic soothsayer or magician. So he's arcance instead of divine, but hey, who's counting. And there's nothing about changing shapes.

I was under the impression that the druids were definitely religious (pagans had gods you know), but there's a lot of overlap between magic and worship. The clear line delineated between divine and arcane magic is a D&Dism. Consider Conan's nemesis whose name escapes me at the moment, the one with all the snakes and temple and magic and stuff. Xandar Thrull? Something like that.

Ultimately, Warlord to me is the sexiest option.

Not feeling it at all. Has me reconsidering the judgement of the designers. I think they need to go back to the thesaurus.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not feeling it at all. Has me reconsidering the judgement of the designers - not sure I can trust them with big decisions if they can't get details like this straight.

Uh... Much as I don't care for the name "warlord," this seems more than a little extreme to me. And it's hardly the first minor detail that I've disliked, based entirely on personal taste, in any edition.

(Also, for the record, I like the names "paladin" and "cleric" more than I would "holy knight" and "priest.")

 

[rounser]

Uh... Much as I don't care for the name "warlord," this seems more than a little extreme to me. And it's hardly the first minor detail that I've disliked, based entirely on personal taste, in any edition.

Double weapons, tanglefoot bags and sunrods are easier to ignore than the name of an entire class. If they renamed "fighter" to a misnomer like "guerilla", would you care? Would it affect your ability to buy into the game world? It's a stumbling point, but it'll be constantly there in the game because it's a core class, in the PHB. If warforged are in there as a race in the PHB, and class names like duskblade and stuff, then, well, I really hope they're not. It may be an overreaction, but if this stuff is in the PHB, it's sort of mapped out the tone of the game for everyone in a way that isn't exactly cool IMO. D&D's tone and feel are important to me - it's one of the main things it has going for it, and the PHB is not the place to compromise it. Leave that for supplements.

(Also, for the record, I like the names "paladin" and "cleric" more than I would "holy knight" and "priest.")

Me too - neither knight or priest fit, but we know what paladin and cleric are code for, in terms of what they represent archetypically. As I said, Gygax took two obsolete terms and remapped their meanings. WOTC can't do this with "warlord", because it's meaning is well-known, and still in use.

Maybe they should take a leaf from Gygax's book, come to think of it.

 

[Rechan]

I disagree about monks not fitting D&D. Monks come from the same sort of tradition where psionics are based in fantasy: indo-chinese ascetics. Breathing fire, morphing the body with the thoughts of the mind. The Monk in the PHB is a cleric or a psion who's directed thier power into the body, developing the energies therein, rather than outwards. The martial arts is just a side-effect for mental focus.

And before someone says "Indo-chinese crap isn't fantasy", turn to Rakshasa and Naga in the MM. Indian monster. The Gold Dragon has a fu manchu, based on the Chinese dragons which are good. The werefox from the 2e MM was practically the Kitsune. I'd dare say that Elementals are almost a Shinto-based phenomena.

If the game doesn't crumble because we have Genies, Sphinx, Mummies (Middle Eastern monsters), the Golem (Which, aside from the Frankenstein monster, is a creature of Jewish folklore; the word Golem is Yiddish), Couatl (A creature inspired and associated with an Aztec God), then I think a little flavor from the Orient isn't going to seem utterly out of place in such a mythologically diverse fantasy genre.