New name for Warlord

[BadMojo]

I actually like Tactician. It's probably too bland, but I like it a lot more than Warlord. I agree with those that say Warlord sounds inappropriate for low level characters and also carries some pretty heavy real world negative connotations.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think Commander is best. 'One who commands.' If we look at D&D minis, that's the term they use for someone who leads a group.

Captain implies he has a boat or something.
Warlord implies he's going to conquer people.
Marshal has the problem of being a homonym.

Yeah, exactly. Plus, "tactician" and "strategist" (while cool names, particularly tactician) don't really cover the kind of "just by being there" morale-based boosts that the class will almost give. Also, "cavalier" and "noble" suggest more of a specific character concept than a generic set of skills that a lot of different types of characters could possess. "Herald" doesn't really make sense. I'd kind of thought about "leader", too, but it's obviously bland, and would get confused with the character role of leader.

"Commander" really looks like the best bet.

 

[A'koss]

Warlord is a great name... but maybe not so much for a core class. It sounds more like a Prestige Class and feels almost pretentious alongside the "fighter", "rogue" or "ranger"...

Personally, I would have rather had the fighter become the "warrior" and the warlord become something else - marshall, cavalier or what have you...

 

[Korgoth]

Prediction: at least 99% of "warlords" will not wage war or be lords.

Stupid, stupid name.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Yeah, I don't like Warlord, but the alternatives are worse.

I like Champion, but I think that name is being reserved for 'Champion of X, Y, or Z.'

Commander or Captain implies that the character is in charge of the group. I know he fills a leader role, but I bet WotC is trying to make it so that a character can fill that role without automatically being the 'in charge player.'

Maybe Fighters should be fighters and Warlords should be Warriors. The difference being that a fighter concentrates on personal fighting skill, while a warrior is one that learns to fight and think as part of a group.

I think that would work:
Fighter
Warrior
Ranger
Paladin

 

[Rechan]

Leader is a bad choice because there is the Role called Leader.

Champion implies a Cause. Crusader (See: Champion, besides Clerics or Paladins are more crusaders than the marshal class). Cavalier is associated with Cavalry, and a warlord isn't always on a horse. I personally hate Centurian, because that is a purely Roman thing.

 

[Aaron L]

Warlord is fine. Marshal would be fine, too.


Seriously, I'm not understanding any of these arguments that "Warlord" implies anything other than someone who is... a lord of war?

I mean, certainly not as much as Warlock implies "male wich." But I have no problem with Warlock, either.

 

[blargney the second]

Warlord's fine.

Btw for those of you who think in needs minions: what if it comes with Leadership for free? Much ado about nothing...

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'd go for Knight.

Edit: But only if he had a special jumping ability that say, moved him one square orthogonally, then one square diagonally..

 

[Teflon Billy]

I'd have gone with Veteran.