Let Warlord be Warlord

[Odhanan]

What does the Warlord do, as in, actual facts we have?

Because if it's a leader of fighting men, someone that inspires others or anything like that, it could just as well be named 'Knight' and I would like the name more, for one.

 

[delericho]

I didn't have a problem with the Warlord name until the Warlock was also confirmed for the PHB. One or the other really should be renamed, and the Warlock has precedence.

 

[Beckett]

One, 'Marshal' is winning the poll, and two, the poll did not include the alternative I have just now come up with, but which is clearly superior: Herald.

Once more people are made aware of "Herald" as an alternative, I think it will have appeal. And even if they have the poor taste to not realize its superiority, I am going to use it going forward.

I've started playing Lord of the Rings Online. One of the classes is the Captain, which is how I view the Warlord. The Captain is a pretty tough fighter in his own right, but in a group he has several potent buffs. He can even heal people after a fight.

In addition, the Captain is a "pet" class; he gains an NPC to fight on his side. In the case of the Captain, at 10th level he can summon a Herald to carry his banner and fight.

So, Herald fails for me, as that's what I'd call the Warlord's servant.

 

[Stone Dog]

Herald is pretty sexy.

Really? A herald is basically only a human PA. Their job is to go somewhere and announce important things that somebody else is doing. They aren't bards. They aren't even MCs. The only real benifit is that it is a government job with no heavy lifting.

Not defending Warlord here and I don't have any better ideas, but herald is honestly the dullest option I've yet heard. Might as well be a postman.

 

[kettite]

Well, considering how many Bardic Colleges, Thieves' Guilds, and Wizards' towers there are, I don't feel that calling it "just a designation for the meta-game" is at all accurate. I think as a practical matter the class names get used all the time in-game. Characters often need to communicate what they can do to other characters, and using the class name is a fast way of doing that.

I believe that you are introducing meta-game concepts in-game by having references to class names connote any meaning in game beyond real world usage. So, accepting that statement, it would indeed be weird for a low-level warlord to state "I am a warlord." in game, because warlord is used in real life to connote a very powerful and skilled individual.

However, if you accept improper usage of such terms as "dungeon" to bear meanings they would not ordinarily have out of game, why not this?

Also, while there may be Thieves' Guilds in D&D games, there hasn't been a thief class in a couple editions. Does this mean that if a character stated in-game "I am Lidda, the thief.", that NPCs would have no idea what the character meant because that particular term doesn't connote what it used to in the rule-set? Would the character have to state "I am Lidda, the rogue." in order to communicate what she can do to listeners in-game?

To combine the two concepts in one example: Player A's character states in-game "I am going to the dungeon to adventure!" All in-game listeners would reply "That's an odd place to have an adventure, as a dungeon is a keep, the main tower of a castle which formed the final defensive position the garrison could retreat to when outer fortifications were overcome." This does not happen, because meta-game usage of the term "dungeon" has changed the use of the term in-game. So listeners understand a dungeon to refer to underground labyrinths containing various types of enemies and puzzles. Therefore, under the 4E ruleset, the term 'warlord' will no longer solely refer to a person with power who has de facto military control of a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority. It will in-game refer to whatever it is the warlord character class abilities connote.

I cannot believe that I devoted time and effort to constructing this counter-argument. Oh my sweet God, I am wasting my life.

 

[MerricB]

One of the reasons I like it so much is that it clearly communicates to me what the class is about: fighting and giving orders.

Tactician sounds like working out strategy and not fighting.

Marshal would be fine, but doesn't have the same ring to it.

Knight doesn't have the connotations of leadership.

Cheers!

 

[Kobu]

One of the reasons I like it so much is that it clearly communicates to me what the class is about: fighting and giving orders.

Warlord don't necessarily fight. They command.

Tactician sounds like working out strategy and not fighting.

You're mixing up strategy and tactics, two very different concepts.

Knight doesn't have the connotations of leadership.

Whaaa?

 

[rounser]

If WotC thinks the powers of the class make Warlord a good name for the class, I am inclined to go with their decision.

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 certainly sounds appropriate for D&D.

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.

 

[Klaus]

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

 

[TwinBahamut]

Herald is pretty sexy.

The name Herald is terrible.

I mean, other than the fact that heralds just announce other important people, and don't do anything themselves, they are useless. Well, they also serve as sports commentators in tournaments, but seriously, it is about as lame of a class title as "announcer" would be.

As I have said elsewhere, Warlord is fine.