Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 3936146" data-attributes="member: 7635">First of all, Warlord has an archetype to me. Its someone who a decent warrior but a master at command and control. We'd call him a general in the modern world (or an admiral, etc) but "warlord" is more evocative of a time of swords and sorcery. What's he doing in a D&D party? The same damn thing a man of the cloth, a weak-bodied book-learner, and a pseudo-eastern mystic is doing: not making any sense but being a fun archetype to play. And he can be versatile: a orc chieftain, a dwarven captain, a halfling sheriff, a human border guard commander. To use the military analogy: West Point trains officers, not simple grunt soldiers. A D&D warlord is simply a recently graduated West Point officer: trained but not tested, and adventuring is a strong way to earn you stripes. And really, all D&D class names are terrible. Each is divorced from their cultural or historical reference (bard, druid, monk, barbarian, paladin, cleric) or just a simple descriptor of profession or aptitude (fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, beguiler, scout). Some are names for the sake of needing a name (duskblade, sorcerer, hexblade, warmage). Getting hung up on Warlord seems minor when 3.5 graced us with class names like "Spellthief" and "Favored Soul" Least Warlord SOUNDS like its trying to fit in with fighter, wizard, and ranger...</blockquote>