New name for Warlord

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

I agree with these

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

That's a bit pedantic. If you want to stand on literal interpretations, Warlord doesn't make much sense either ('cause the D&D character isn't one). Or would you prefer Decurion? Corporal? Sergeant?

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

Agreed -- not bad, but a bit dry.

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.

Maybe, but (to be pedantic) a herald was typically a low level flunky who announced for the leader, not the leader himself. But if warlord = martial bard then herald makes some sense.

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

I thikn you'll find that Marshal has a long and glorious history as a significant military rank.

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.

Agree with you on the remainder.

 

[DarthDiablo]

MAN-AT-ARMS. Take that Skeletor!

 

[reanjr]

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.

Yes, but I was supporting a previous post's comment that the word sounded too modern. Most people I game with avoid using particularly modern terms to refer to things in D&D. For instance, I would not expect a character to describe a recently "doppleganged" king as having "jumped the shark".

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.

I'll accept that as the case, but its usage still sounds really modern to me

 

[Gargoyle]

I don't think I like "warlord" because of the evil connotations, but I can get over that...I've pretty much done so with "warlock". I'd prefer marshal...I don't think that having the terms marshal and martial will be too confusing.

Of course if the warlord killed the bard and took his stuff, I'd almost wish they'd just call him a bard. I don't see anything wrong with bards that kick butt.

One alternative that they could consider is simply making up a name that sounds cool. It is D&D after all, and it doesn't need to be a word from any real language. And if the class doesn't seem to fit any real words....then it's time to coin something new that fits that class.

Edit: typos...

 

[Rechan]

Man, Battlesmith was my idea and I don't think it's cheesy and dumb. It brings to mind, for me, a crafter of battle tactics and someone who sculpts the situation to his favor. Fighting is an art and a science. It makes as much sense as a Lord of War, because he's... lording over war? A noble of fighting? What?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes, but I was supporting a previous post's comment that the word sounded too modern. Most people I game with avoid using particularly modern terms to refer to things in D&D. For instance, I would not expect a character to describe a recently "doppleganged" king as having "jumped the shark".

That, I'll agree with. I wasn't advocating going to the extreme of using modern slang.

I'll accept that as the case, but its usage still sounds really modern to me

See, that I don't get. I mean, if you feel that way, so be it. But to me, there's nothing even remotely "modern" about the term marshal, either literally (as evidenced above) or connotatively.

 

[Reaper Steve]

One alternative that they could consider is simply making up a name that sounds cool. It is D&D after all, and it doesn't need to be a word from any real language. And if the class doesn't seem to fit any real words....then it's time to coin something new that fits that class.

Actually, I think that's the crux of the problem. (My speculation is that) WotC is trying to make D&D more accessible to the masses, and part of the method for doing so is using game terms that people are already familiar with. That is why a wizard will be a wizard, not a warlock, mage, arcanist, etc. The most common term is wizard, so it's the one. Second is sorcerer, so that will stay (instead of warlock.)

The problem with the new martial leader class is that there isn't a generic term available that readily expresses the role and class. Compunding that problem is none of the specific terms fit, either. I think it will be up to the player whether his character, regardless of class and role, is a barbarian, noble, or knight (to name a few.) I suspect those titles will be reserved for roleplaying/background...as they should IMO.

So, I think WotC doesn't want to invent a name that has no real world context and at the same time avoid those common names that have lots of baggage or perceived military rank, like Captain, Commander.

So what are they left with? Well, as I stated above, I like Warrior and I think it would be easy enough to explain the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior. But honestly, Warlord sounds cooler, even if it doesn't do any better job of stating what it actually is. And while there is some baggage and assumed rank with the title, it's all very generic. It's not as easy to pigeon-hole a Warlord as it is the others. (In other words, I think that my vision of a warlord is more different than yours, while our visions of Captains are probably more similar.)

All that said, I still think it should be 'Warrior.' While no as cool sounding, it's cool none the less and gets highest marks for remaining generic and avoiding having implied rank, social standing, or exclusive skills (i.e, my wizard may consider himself a Tactician.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

OK, I've got it...

Skirmish Lord

Thinking about it, I've realised warlord is fine. It sounds cool, which is a lot more important than having the right meaning. When Gary was looking for a word for a linked series of scenarios he chose campaign. At the time it didn't mean 'a linked series of scenarios' but now it does. Likewise warlord will come to mean a dude who buffs and heals in skirmish level conflicts. Even though it doesn't atm.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I can't believe somebody thought "marshal" was a modern word. I'd have thought that people who play a game that features so many details inspired by medieval warfare would occasionally read a book or two on medieval warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Marshal

 

[Shalimar]

Battle Lord would work as well, it doesn't imply rank, only skill and a leadership in battle.