New name for Warlord

[Lord Zack]

A 1st level Vetern wouldn't make any sense, though. Just as a 1st level Warlord wouldn't. I like Leader, even though that is the name of the role too. But in my opinion the role ought to be named support, rather than leader.

 

[Guest 54618]

First of all; where are all these cries for change that the OP mentions? I haven't seen any of that.

Personally, I think I'd need to see what the concept actually is before suggesting another name. Warlord sounds fine to me, but if people are really that much against it, let's just call them "freedom fries" or something.

 

[Glyfair]

Marshall sounds too modern for D&D.

Actually, it sounds very D&D to me. One of the most D&Dish fantasy novels was Deed of Paksenarrion and the paladins (and probably clerics) were called marshals.

 

[F4NBOY]

We already have "Paladin", "cleric", "Bard", "Monk", lots of titles for base classes. I like Warlord, just another one.

And in the end, it's just a game term. Its whole point is to define all those class abilities and give the players the idea what it is all about, and not to determine the character concept.

Edit: oh and even characters with Jedi class doesn't need to be jedi at all. It's just a pack of class abilities with a name on it, pretty much like warlord. All those options inside are the things a Warlord should have.

And "Walord" is sexy

I welcome the 4E Warlords!

 

[Rechan]

A 1st level Vetern wouldn't make any sense, though. Just as a 1st level Warlord wouldn't. I like Leader, even though that is the name of the role too. But in my opinion the role ought to be named support, rather than leader.

Being called "support" leaves a bitter taste in players' mouthes. It implies that they're not heroes, they're sidekicks that give a boost. The Healer is "support". Support doesn't get glory.

 

[BryonD]

Yes. But only 30% of the replies are in favor of the Warlord. The remainder 70% are opposed to it. They just can't decide on the alternative.

Actually, 70% (now down to 64%) have simply said that their first choice is something other than warlord. That does not mean that they are opposed.

And if this is how the poll is being read then everything else is even more opposed.

 

[reanjr]

Warlord is good. Commander and Herald are also good choices. Pretty much every other option is terrible.

Battlesmith - one who forges battles? This is cheesy and dumb...

Cavalier - horseman, has nothing to do with leadership except the wealthy could afford to be cavaliers and so they tended to hold higher positions than many other combatants.

Centurion - Not unless the party is 100 strong; otherwise this would be sound stupid.

Commander - probably the best moniker for what it has been suggested is the Warlord's role. Not very flavorful, though.

Herald - I like this one. It makes me think of the Warlord as the person who speaks for the party and marches in the van.

Marshal - marshals tend to horses or organize ceremonies. They have no place on the battlefield.

Noble - I am so sick of classnames that imply social status.

Strategist - Don't think it really hits what the class is for. To me, this is the role of the entire party. Whenever the players stop to discuss their plan of action they're all acting as strategists.

Tactician - I'd have to know more about how they function in combat to determine whether this is a good one or not. The name makes me think of someone who would grant bonuses to the rest of the party through positioning.

Warmaster - q.v. Battlesmith

Warmonger - Mercenary? Weapons Dealer? Either way, it's an occupation, not a class.

 

[Lord Zack]

That's true. "Leader" definetly sounds more glorious than "support".

 

[reanjr]

Actually, it sounds very D&D to me. One of the most D&Dish fantasy novels was Deed of Paksenarrion and the paladins (and probably clerics) were called marshals.

The term marshal in that context would be an anachronism to Medieval Europe.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The term marshal in that context would be an anachronism to Medieval Europe.

Good thing D&D's not set in Medieval Europe.

Seriously, there's comes a point where you have just have to accept that what a word in means in English (or whatever language you're gaming in) is the same thing it means in Common.

However, from dictionary.com:

Word History: Hard-riding marshals of the Wild West in pursuit of criminals reemphasize the relationship of the word marshal with horses. The Germanic ancestor of our word marshal is a compound made up of *marhaz, "horse" (related to the source of our word mare), and *skalkaz, "servant," meaning as a whole literally "horse servant," hence "groom." The Frankish descendant of this Germanic word, *marahskalk, came to designate a high royal official and also a high military commander—not surprising given the importance of the horse in medieval warfare. Along with many other Frankish words, *marahskalk was borrowed into Old French by about 800; some centuries later, when the Normans established a French-speaking official class in England, the Old French word came with them. In English, marshal is first recorded in 1218, as a surname (still surviving in the spelling Marshall); its first appearance as a common noun was in 1258, in the sense "high officer of the royal court." The word was also applied to this high royal official's deputies, who were officers of courts of law, and it continued to designate various officials involved with courts of law and law enforcement, including the horseback-riding marshals we are familiar with in the United States.

So clearly, even as far back as Medieval Europe, "marshal"--or the foreign language terms from which "marshal" descends--were used to indicate military rank.