Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 3935726" data-attributes="member: 18832">I will once again assert that the name of a rules element does not, and in most cases should not, correspond to its name in the setting.Fighters don't learn &quot;Power Attack&quot; in-character. Rogues don't learn &quot;Open Lock&quot; in-character. They learn to make powerful, yet less-accurate attacks, or they learn to open locks of various types, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that these characters think of these things as discrete, capitalised phenomena from which they must pick and choose.After all, the reason it's funny when the Order of the Stick makes in-character reference to game mechanics is because that's not how it bloody well works!Likewise with class names, including the warlord. It would be ridiculous to refer to characters of the fighter class as &quot;fighters&quot; only, as opposed to &quot;warriors&quot; or &quot;mercenaries&quot; or &quot;soldiers&quot; or &quot;knights&quot; or whatever other in-character term would be appropriate to a given fighter character. The same applies to rogues (thieves, scouts), clerics (priests, templars), wizards (mages, witches, sorcerers), bards (troubadours, minstrels, lorekeepers) . . . any class you can name.If you honestly play a game where fighters are referred to as &quot;fighters&quot; in-character, then I have to say I'm shocked and somewhat appalled, because it's a terribly stupid term for that purpose.So the name of the warlord class doesn't matter one damn bit. Your own warlord PC will probably be called something which reflects his background and experiences; when I played a member of the armsman class in a d20 Wheel of Time campaign, I referred to him as a &quot;cavalryman&quot; because that's what his military experience was, or a &quot;mercenary&quot; because that's what he did now, or a &quot;captain&quot; when he entered the service of a border noblewoman and led her household guard. Calling him an &quot;armsman&quot; would have been really silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mhacdebhandia, post: 3935726, member: 18832"] I will once again assert that the name of a rules element does not, and in most cases [b]should not[/b], correspond to its name in the setting. Fighters don't learn "Power Attack" in-character. Rogues don't learn "Open Lock" in-character. They learn to make powerful, yet less-accurate attacks, or they learn to open locks of various types, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that these characters think of these things as discrete, capitalised phenomena from which they must pick and choose. After all, the reason it's funny when the Order of the Stick makes in-character reference to game mechanics is because that's [b]not[/b] how it bloody well works! Likewise with class names, including the warlord. It would be ridiculous to refer to characters of the fighter class as "fighters" only, as opposed to "warriors" or "mercenaries" or "soldiers" or "knights" or whatever other in-character term would be appropriate to a given fighter character. The same applies to rogues (thieves, scouts), clerics (priests, templars), wizards (mages, witches, sorcerers), bards (troubadours, minstrels, lorekeepers) . . . any class you can name. If you honestly play a game where fighters are referred to as "fighters" in-character, then I have to say I'm shocked and somewhat appalled, because it's a terribly stupid term for that purpose. So the name of the warlord [b]class[/b] doesn't matter one damn bit. Your own warlord PC will probably be called something which reflects his background and experiences; when I played a member of the armsman class in a d20 Wheel of Time campaign, I referred to him as a "cavalryman" because that's what his military experience was, or a "mercenary" because that's what he did now, or a "captain" when he entered the service of a border noblewoman and led her household guard. Calling him an "armsman" would have been really silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification