I just realized what bugs me about Warlords . . .

[Scarbonac]

Could also be due to religious propaganda well publicized Code of Conduct psychotic gleam in eye and twitching swordarm.

Cheers, -- N

FIFY.

 

[Gloombunny]

When I hear "champion", I think of how ancient armies would often send their best warrior out for single combat with the enemy's best warrior while the rest of both armies watched.

Which would be a fighter thing.

 

[rounser]

When I hear "champion", I think of how ancient armies would often send their best warrior out for single combat with the enemy's best warrior while the rest of both armies watched.

Which would be a fighter thing.

It's a fair cop, but at least the champion can fit in an adventuring party and an army. And even in the role you've defined there, that's a leading role. It also scales to level - a 1st level champion can still be a champion, they're just a very minor, local one. Maybe just some guy who champions the party's cause.

Warlord is a strictly "army or politics only" role, so it's definitely the weakest link IMO. Nothing by that name belongs in an adventuring party without extensive extracurricular activities...

...which don't make sense until high level when you've got lands and legions under your belt. And happen to have a constant habit of fighting wars with them. And a 1st level warlord just doesn't make sense; it's like a 1st level archmage, or 1st level president, as others have pointed out.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Funny, we just called them "most likely to be hit be friendly fire", when I was in.

I realized commisars who threw their weight around tended to end up dieing heroically for the Emperor, even if the enemy was a suspiciously long way away at the time.

Or you could just salute them near the wrong areas frequently

 

[Gloombunny]

It's a fair cop, but at least the champion can fit in an adventuring party and an army. And even in the role you've defined there, that's a leading role.

It's not a "leading role", though, it's a "best warrior around" role. The army's champion was usually not the guy in charge.

It also scales to level - a 1st level champion can still be a champion, they're just a very minor, local one. Maybe just some guy who champions the party's cause.

Championing a cause sounds more like paladin. I dunno.

Sigh. We're gonna end up stuck with warlord just 'cuz no one can agree on which of the many better names to use. (Well, and also 'cuz WotC already made their decision. There's always that.)

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't like Champion.

The word champion always has the connotations of "toughest guy around", the person who has beaten all others at something. Remember, we use terms like "Boxing Champ" or "Olympic Champion" all the time these days.

If anything, "Champion" is something that is far worse to call a 1st level character than "Warlord".

Also, "Champion" completely lacks the important connotations of leadership.

I don't like Tactitian, simply because it implies the person tells others how to fight, and doesn't imply actual leadership skills or combat prowess, which the class name should imply.

I think Warlord is fine.

 

[Exen Trik]

Bah! I've been browsing through thesaurusi for the last hour and a half, looking for a better term to use than warlord. Everything ends up being a partial match, either too specific, too broad, or more suggesting of something that it isn't. Let me list some of what I think are the better ones, and what is good or not so good about them:

Guardian
+ Has both martial and teamwork themes
- Too defensive, not really indicative of a leader role

Knight
+ Suggests being charismatic, some mechanics were actually taken from the old Knight class
- Too specific, steps on the paladins toes thematically

Soldier
+ A martial type team player, but not specifically of any rank or ability.
- Again too specific a connotation, and doesn't play up the charismatic angle

Vanguard
+ A term for a leading military force, and a leader of ideas or movements
- Still comes across as a defender or striker, and has some political connotations

Warrior
+ General enough to cover any abilities the class may have
- Too general to be related to any abilities the class may have


Overall, I'd say vanguard is my favorite even if it stretches the definition a little. I'd really have to see the class itself to know what works best though.

 

[Korgoth]

Bah! I've been browsing through thesaurusi for the last hour and a half, looking for a better term to use than warlord. Everything ends up being a partial match, either too specific, too broad, or more suggesting of something that it isn't. Let me list some of what I think are the better ones, and what is good or not so good about them:

What about Officer? Even an NCO is still an Officer (just not with a commission)... so the term describes a sergeant as well as a captain.

 

[Gloombunny]

What about Officer? Even an NCO is still an Officer (just not with a commission)... so the term describes a sergeant as well as a captain.

It still means someone with a rank in an army, though. Not every character of this class is going to be that.

I still like "marshal". :/

 

[Hussar]

"Bantam"?

You would really name a character class after a chicken? (Yes, I know the other meaning too.) And think that's better than warlord?

Heh, how about Master Sergeant?

Actually, as a non-joke, how about Master-At-Arms? He's the guy who keeps discipline, makes sure weapons are in good order and the like.