Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[rounser]

He wasn't badass because he had a fancy title and political authority.

Applies to the "warlord" title as well, which implies he's a lord of something as if it meant something.

And at least Leonidas has an army to help make that title make a shred of sense. Low level "warlords" won't.

 

[Zaruthustran]

We've got the claim a page back that the warlord isn't shouting out inspiration or tactics, but rather using his blade in a tricky way that means others can thwack better. I'm saying which is it, because if it's both then that's even less of a coherent archetype than either individually would be.

Ah, I see. I don't see why it can't be both or either. It all depends on the particular power, and of course the player's RP.

The coherent bit is this: the warlord is a class that makes his allies fight better.

 

[rounser]

the warlord is a class that makes his allies fight better.

That's an idea for a package of crunch abilities, but not an archetype. There's also a mismatch between the concept and the name.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Applies to the "warlord" title as well, which implies he's a lord of something as if it meant something.

And at least Leonidas has an army to help make that title make a shred of sense. Low level "warlords" won't.

Sure, warlord as a title. I thought we were talking about warlord as a class?

Low level warlords (the class) will be unlikely to have an army, but they're very likely to have a party.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Especially the bit when he went all White Raven on the French and their candyasses shortly afterward. Again, "Warlord as sergeant" or "Warlord as White Raven"? If it's both, I think we can go with "Warlord as incoherent".

How about "either", like a rogue can be a thief or a hired killer (or a bunch of other things) without being incoherent.

I think we're leaning toward a King character class. 1st level King is more ridiculous than 1st level Warlord, but not by much.

Other than Aragorn and Obould, none of my previous examples were kings.

 

[Zaruthustran]

That's an idea for a package of crunch abilities, but not an archetype.

You're welcome to hold that opinion. I disagree.

There's also a mismatch between the concept and the name.

Yeah, well, the class name "wizard" implies an old guy wearing a pointy hat who resides in a tower and tends an arcane laboratory and extensive library. "Cleric" implies a peaceful ordained minister in an established church who spends his time poring over ancient texts and preaching to a flock.

Meh. Class names are not a big deal.

 

[rounser]

Sure, warlord as a title. I thought we were talking about warlord as a class?

You used that argument in an attempt to dismiss "king". I'm just pointing out that it dismisses "warlord" as well.

Low level warlords (the class) will be unlikely to have an army, but they're very likely to have a party.

Which is why the term doesn't make sense, because the other PCs are not an army. Nor is the warlord their lord, nor are they a military outfit or nation that declares war etc.

 

[rounser]

Meh. Class names are not a big deal.

Maybe not to you, but classes and the flavour they convey are very important to the game.

This one is a particularly bad one, perhaps even worse one yet. It's a word still in use with a specific meaning, and carries connotations that don't apply.

The archetype they're trying to staple to it is weak as well, and seems to infringe on the independence of other characters.

 

[Zaruthustran]

You used that argument in an attempt to dismiss "king". I'm just pointing out that it dismisses "warlord" as well.

"King" means "leader of a kingdom". All "warlord" implies is a combat leader of a group of warriors (in D&D, that'd be the party). King is a capital T Title. Warlord is just a descriptive term. There's a difference, there.

Which is why the term doesn't make sense, because the other PCs are not an army. Nor is the warlord their lord, nor are they a military outfit or nation that declares war etc.

? The other PCs are a group of people who fight, together. The warlord makes them fight better.

 

[rounser]

"King" means "leader of a kingdom". All "warlord" implies is a combat leader of a group of warriors (in D&D, that'd be the party). King is a capital T Title. Warlord is just a descriptive term. There's a difference, there.

Not so.

war·lord (wôr'lôrd') Pronunciation Key
n. A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it.

noun
supreme military leader exercising civil power in a region especially one accountable to nobody when the central government is weak

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
ˈwarlord noun

a very powerful military leader

And I haven't excluded any definitions to make my point.

? The other PCs are a group of people who fight, together. The warlord makes them fight better.

Only, it shouldn't be named that, and it shouldn't be a core class, because that archetype belongs on the military battlefield where there's a hierarchy and underlings to order around, or in the war room or engaged in political skullduggery...not in a company of heroes.