I just realized what bugs me about Warlords . . .

[Blothar]

Right, because obviously Druids and Bards are very Middle Ages.

Notice that I said more inspired in the middle ages not completely, it is obvious that wizards, bard, druids the monsters handbook has nothing to do with the middle ages, but many weapons, armor, titles, backgrounds (towns w/ castles) etc. are very medieval.

That being said I see warlord as being a cumbersome name for a core PC class. Just recently I came upon a passage in The Orc King that mentions two orc warlords discussing strategy with their chieftain. It is obvious that Salvatore is not invoking the class just the title, so when something like this keeps coming up in novels it might be a little confusing.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If the "warlord" class represents tactical combat expertise, shouldn't it be a talent tree or collection of talent trees in conjunction with feats? I thought there's no need to have a proliferation of related classes: Fighter (alternatively, Warrior) ought to be able "build" a character using the talents and feats to reflect his focus, background, and role (including the creation of rangers, paladins, cavaliers, barbarian warriors, fighting skalds, etc.).

 

[Plane Sailing]

If the "warlord" class represents tactical combat expertise,

But what is to say it does represent that? The current safe assumption is that the 'leadership' role includes some combination of inspiring others and possible 'healing' (or pre-healing via temp hp); it certainly seems to be primarily about group buffing effects (in addition to the other stuff you want to do as a character, of course - they've made that clear).

The fighter on the other hand seems to be all about expertise with weapons.

Cheers

 

[Imp]

Ok, I'll get to the point: People dislike particular names for being too specific, or outside of a trope or whatever else they may argue, but let's be honest: D&D invents its own tropes. There's no reason to have Ancient Celtic classes mixed into Western Medieval lore, except for the fact that Gary liked Celts and, apparently, didn't like Romans. I think that whatever previous conceptions people bring to the table when they start D&D are going to be paved over by the great steamroller that is the game itself; not wanting to be picking on Druids, but when you think of Druids in a D&D context, which comes first to mind: polymorphing into a bear or a golden sickle?

When the time comes, we'll get used to refer to Warlords as Warlords and some beautiful day, we are going to read on the news about feuding warlords somewhere in Africa and immediately think of them using the Shout of Courage ability or whatever at one another, before thinking of them as ruthless men commanding armed militias...

I differ – I'm not particularly offended by the name "Warlord." I'm just trying to save myself the pounding headache of having to deal with Warforged Warlock/Warlords down the line. "Warlord" is the weaker link so I am going after that. I still can't believe nobody at WOTC saw this coming. So as far as I'm concerned anything better than or equal to "Warlord" is good enough for me. "Centurion" would be just fine, and I agree that D&D could redefine the term as game jargon, to an extent. "Vanguard" also works pretty well for this purpose as most people have a pretty vague idea of what the word specifically means, plus, like Centurion, it sounds cool. I've been championing "Champion", which has its strengths and weaknesses as we've discussed, but is still >= Warlord. I just don't want this game to give me more headaches than it has to.

(Also suppose somebody doesn't have the greatest handwriting.)

 

[Odhanan]

I wouldn't even like Commander...it indicates someone with a lot of experience; something first level characters just ain't!

Some of the new character titles seem a mite "wargamish" (forgive me). It's like they're trying to say "Look, you don't have to grind away to be a cool Warlord; you can start off as one!"

JediSoth

I agree. What I like about names like "fighter" or "cleric" or "warlock" (which ironically means a "breaker of oath") is that they represent basic archetypes that can be any level. Warlord evokes to me a commander, some type of fighter leader who would thus be mid-to-high level. This is not generic enough.

 

[HelloChristian]

I think that Warlords should be called. "Master Warlord of the Dragon's Tail Cut." It's an awesome name that's full of WIN!1.

Seriously, I can imagine a first level warlord. With the first bit of gold he gets, he hires a few lvl1 warriors or eager commoners to follow him around as assistants. It might be a rather small and pathetic warband, but it's something.

 

[Gentlegamer]

But what is to say it does represent that? The current safe assumption is that the 'leadership' role includes some combination of inspiring others and possible 'healing' (or pre-healing via temp hp); it certainly seems to be primarily about group buffing effects (in addition to the other stuff you want to do as a character, of course - they've made that clear).

I'm just going with gist of what others have said.

The fighter on the other hand seems to be all about expertise with weapons.

The Fighter ought to be the base upon which talents and feats are used to create the other "fighting" classes.

I'm viewing the matter from a "minimalist" perspective, where the fewer base classes, the better. I'd say Warrior, Wizard, and Rogue are enough base classes upon which to lay talents and feats (and multi-classing . . . that is, if a Warrior wants magic abilities, multi-class with Wizard, and vice versa) to create any archetype or specific build a player or DM desires.

 

[Gloombunny]

Seriously, I can imagine a first level warlord. With the first bit of gold he gets, he hires a few lvl1 warriors or eager commoners to follow him around as assistants. It might be a rather small and pathetic warband, but it's something.

That would be a gang leader, not a warlord.

Anyway, Imp has the right of it. The real, pressing problem with the name "warlord" is that it's just way too similar to "warlock" and "warforged", and the only sensible solution to that undesirable similarity is to change "warlord" to some other name.

 

[Nifft]

That would be a gang leader, not a warlord.

They're not all that dissimilar by my understanding.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I like Warden much better than Warlord.