I just realized what bugs me about Warlords . . .

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Caveat: I know nothing about the 3.5 Warlord, so please correct me if I am mistaken (which is partially why I'm posting this here. ).

Double caveat: I think we are all in agreement that the 4e Warlord may have little in common with his 3.5 counterpart anyway.


I'm having a hard time envisioning, from a purely flavor-text/story perpsective, a first-level Warlord. Seems like a contradiction in terms, somewhat. When I think "Warlord", I think of a huge, grizzled old general who has fought in numerous wars and earned his stripes, so to speak.

Now I am aware that 4e characters are "heroes from the start" and all that, but come on, people--first level is first level. What if I'm running a 1st level human character who is 21 years old? Can I make him a "Warlord"?

What's next? A 1st level "Master General"? A 1st level "Ancient Mage"? You get the idea.

What am I missing?

A 1st-level "warlord" is simply a 2nd Lieutenant. Well trained, and their troops hope they're competent.

By the same token, I don't think a 1st-level wizard really earns that title. The appropriate word would be "apprentice" or maybe "journeyman".

 

[BBQ]

Well, the Marshal class (as seen in the Miniature's Handbook) is likely what the Warlord class has evolved from. I think "warlord" is perfectly okay, but if you're scrambling for alternatives, I'd just stick with Marshal.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

1) There's a 3.5 warlord?

[Blush] I thought there was in one of the "Complete" books. Shows how much I've been following 3.5 stuff.

 

[Nebulous]

Well, if warlord is here to stay (and I DO like the name a lot, just not the low level connotations), then maybe we can assume for the sake of argument that you are more of a warlord in heart and mind, rather than tactical experience. After all, your abilities aren't going to be gathering a host of followers anytime soon.

 

[Zaruthustran]

What's next? A 1st level "Master General"? A 1st level "Ancient Mage"? You get the idea.

What am I missing?

You're missing that it's just a name. Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard... these are all fairly generic terms that nonetheless convey a class's basic function/role.

Sure, you can think that Warlord carries experiential baggage that's unreasonable for a 1st level character. But what about the years of military training for a Fighter? Or the decades of study for a Wizard or Cleric? My point being, that you can take *any* class name and come up with reasons for the name conveying too much experience at first level. Warlord isn't any different.

Fundamentally, to me all the term "Warlord" means is "guy who tells warriors what to do". That's perfectly acceptable at first level. Just look at the 20 year old ROTC Lieutenant commanding 20 year old infantrymen. Or, heck, a quarterback and a group of football players. Same thing as a 1st level Warlord commanding a party of 1st level fighter, wizard, and rogue. Put any group of people together and set them on a task, and *someone* has to be the guy who calls the shots.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

There's plenty of 1st level warlords in real life. They're called 2nd lieutenants (or ensigns in the navy).

Which navy?

The Royal Navy? (United Kingdom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_navy

The People's Liberation Army Navy? (China)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy

The Israeli Sea Corps? (Israel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Navy

The Deutsche Marine? (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_navy


Sorry for the mini-rant, but my "American ethnocentrism radar" just went off.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

You're missing that it's just a name. Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard... these are all fairly generic terms that nonetheless convey a class's basic function/role.

Sure, you can think that Warlord carries baggage. But what about the years of military training for a Fighter? Or the decades of study for a Wizard or Cleric? My point being, that you can take *any* class name and come up with reasons for the name conveying too much experience at first level. Warlord isn't any different.

Of course it is. "Fighter" and "Wizard" are simply far more generic than "Warlord".

How about this: "Emperor" as a base class. Are you okay with that?

 

[Exen Trik]

The "war" part of warlord is fine, it's the "lord" part that doesn't fit - it sounds more like a prestige class. And things like "tactician" "marshal" and "commander" don't really fit, they're all too specific.

I think they should just go with "warrior", I mean they aren't using the npc classes anyway, as far as I know.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

A class name is supposed to evoke some sense of images that you want your PC to aspire too, and is not supposed to be an accurate description of the character at first level.

Did you actually read what you just wrote? I'm sure the designers of D&D (any version of it, from 1974 to the present) would be astonished at the suggestion that class names are NOT an accurate description of a character at first level.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Which navy?

The Royal Navy? (United Kingdom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_navy

The People's Liberation Army Navy? (China)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy

The Israeli Sea Corps? (Israel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Navy

The Deutsche Marine? (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_navy


Sorry for the mini-rant, but my "American ethnocentrism radar" just went off.

)-1. IMO, it's not American ethnocentrism (I'm a Canadian, actually) but Army/Marine-centrism. A DnD adventuring party is probably more like an Army or Marine unit than a Naval unit.