Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 9000474" data-attributes="member: 59816">Yeah, but back then you really were a Lord of your own castle, surrounded by NPCs. It was the highest level that some races could ever get to, and implied that you were one of the most important people in the land. (Unironically).Yeah, it's strange. Though AFAICT, it's not the name "Warlord" that causes that reaction in people, it's the usual 4e hate for using the term "Leader" for that whole character role. The problem lies (and it lies in a LOT of 4e hate) is that (while ALL D&D rulesets do this) 4e used words as inspiration for fluff, but did not intend them to be taken totally literally.Yup. Myself, I'm not fond of the name Warlord. Not because of some strange fear that players will use it as an excuse to misbehave, nor entirely because it's too lofty, but because in my head it's too... Genghis Kahn. Too despotic. It's not a dealbreaker, though! In fact, I think they probably should make a really good support fighter subclass and call it Warlord just to make people happy. (As happy as they can be, I mean, obviously we'll all be on here arguing over why it didn't get to be a full class, naturally.)</blockquote>