Li Shenron said:No one agrees on the name, maybe because no one agrees on the concept? How about getting rid of class entirely and make space for the Druid?![]()
I foresee that if WotC did that, 90% of the people up in arms over the warlord would spontaneously combust from incandescent nerd rage.TwinBahamut said:Also, I actually rather like using the term Paladin to apply to a class like the Warlord. It works well. However, I don't forsee any change in the meaning of Paladin for D&D any time soon, because Paladins as holy warriors is so iconic in the game now. Oh well.
I wouldn't mind. Paladin has a good name and a dodgy concept which overlaps with that of the cleric. Maybe you should do a poll.I foresee that if WotC did that, 90% of the people up in arms over the warlord would spontaneously combust from incandescent nerd rage.
Fifth Element said:Hold on, a professional soldier without having a military association?
How can you be a professional soldier without being associated with the military?
TwinBahamut said:Commander isn't bad. It is simple, and conveys all the important points, without too much bad baggage.
Gargoyle said:Knight is a word that I'm warming up to for the class. Knight has its own connotations, but I think it could be a great way to describe the abilities of the warlord, and it just seems like a better class name. I can envision D&D characters talking about knights the same way they speak of wizards, fighters, rogues, and clerics...not warlords so much.
Shortman McLeod said:The problem, of course, is that at some point someone is going to look at your first level Commander and ask, "He's the 'commander' of what, exactly?"

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.