Let Warlord be Warlord

[TwinBahamut]

If the powers are appropriate to something with that name, then perhaps those powers need changing, because the archetype which supports that name doesn't support dungeoneering, adventuring hero types, IMO.

I hope this isn't another "BYO menagerie" character class, and that's the only kind of powers that would make it make sense...unless the warlord's "army" is the other PCs, which is a whole other can of worms.

It sounds appropriate to the minatures game, IMO. Or a high level D&D PC with lands and armies. Or a villain.

But needing to hire a "warlord" doesn't make adventuring party tavern conversation sense in the same way that needing to hire a "wizard" does.

The battlefield is a long way from the dungeon, swashbuckling, monster hunting and villain-foiling. It's Conan as a king in his retirement years, in command of legions of troops, not when he's first improvising weapons and killing giant snakes.

Herald is an idea, and I'd prefer it to warlord (less annoying connotations) but strictly speaking I don't think you'd find them down a dungeon either. They're much more at home in a warlord's court, maybe.

Even assuming all you say about the warlord's abilities is true, why should D&D be limited to the dungeon? It has been moving away from that paradigm for a long time. Because 4E is introducing social encounter rules, more wilderness encounter rules, is removing the assumption of so many battles per day, and is overall widening the rules up to accept styles of play other than dungeon delving, I think having a class that isn't perfectly suited to a dungeon adventure is just fine.

Also, I think it doesn't matter if hiring a "warlord" makes sense in an adventurer's tavern. If you need to hire the guy, you hire him because he is skilled (at whatever it is warlords do), and that skillset is useful. Or maybe he is hiring everyone else. Either way, the Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard assumtpion is fading quickly, so I don't think parties needing to "hire" certain character roles will make much sense (if it ever did).

 

[TwinBahamut]

Still voting for Myrmidon. That was used for the "professional soldier" kit back in 2e, so it's already in the game.

I would like Myrmidon, if it wasn't for the fact that I have seen it in too many videogames... I can't help but think of golden dragon-men and skiled, agile swordfighters when I hear that word these days.

 

[Scribble]

Gandalf was a wizard. Merlin was a wizard. A first level PC is a... wizard.

I also heard fuzzy wuzzy wuz a bear...

just sayin.

 

[kibbitz]

Anyway, still prefer warlord. Been thinking of alternatives, but haven't managed to find any though... more info on their actual abilities would help... A LOT.

I would like Myrmidon, if it wasn't for the fact that I have seen it in too many videogames... I can't help but think of golden dragon-men and skiled, agile swordfighters when I hear that word these days.

Don't remember the former, but for the latter, anywhere besides Fire Emblem?

 

[JohnSnow]

Still voting for Myrmidon. That was used for the "professional soldier" kit back in 2e, so it's already in the game.

To be fair, so is Warlord.

As a Prestige class.

In a D&D Rulebook (The Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide, to be exact).

 

[hong]

The fact is, regardless of what problems I or other people have with warlord, noone has been able to come up with a universally accepted alternative. I like either captain or commander, but other DUMB, SILLY people don't. Those people like herald, marshal, tactician, myrmidon or something else, but this is because they are DUMB AND SILLY. So it looks like we're stuck with warlord.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Well, the good news is that it's 'Warlord,' not 'Emerald Frost Warlord' or 'Dragon's Tail Cut Warlord.' (just having fun!)

Seriously, no one is complaining that 'Warlord' is the lamest, most horrible name ever (or at least their isn't a consensus in that regard.)

Probably the best thing WotC could do is reference some of the popular options in the Warlord's fluff, but still leave the class name Warlord.
ex: 'Depending on his culture and training, a warlord may be referred to as a captain, commander, marshall, or myrmidon.'

 

[hong]

Guild Wars calls it a paragon....

 

[Reaper Steve]

Guild Wars calls it a paragon....

But 'paragon' in 4E means levels 11-20 (or 10-19.)
I doubt they'll have that double duty.

 

[rounser]

Even assuming all you say about the warlord's abilities is true, why should D&D be limited to the dungeon? It has been moving away from that paradigm for a long time. Because 4E is introducing social encounter rules, more wilderness encounter rules, is removing the assumption of so many battles per day, and is overall widening the rules up to accept styles of play other than dungeon delving, I think having a class that isn't perfectly suited to a dungeon adventure is just fine.

Absolutely, I think one of D&D's biggest opportunities for making the game more fun is in developing models for playing the game outside of the dungeon environment. It's possible to run city and wilderness adventures, it's just that they're not as clear cut an environment to prepare for as a dungeon.

(A lot of historical problems with use of these environments stem from having no walls and too much space in the wilderness, and too many characters and buildings in urban environments. These make them difficult to model in D&D as an "adventure gameboard" in the same way a dungeon can be.)

But, that said, unless WOTC has pulled a rabbit out of the hat, I think it's safe to assume the status quo situation - that the dungeon is still the easiest D&D environment to model.

The warlord doesn't fit an adventuring party in either of those environments, either, though. In the wilderness, where's his or her army? In the city, where is it then? What the heck is this war-oriented, battlefield archetype doing with a bunch of (anti)heroic adventurers out seeking adventure?

A D&D party is not a mobile war or army, nor does it declare war unless it has an army handy. It may be able to take on entire armies singlehandedly at high level, but that's neither here nor there.