soldier instead of warlord

[RandomCitizenX]

And the bard will be coming, but as an arcane based leader class from what the devs have said. Really I think that the Warlord is basically the Marhall class from minitures handbook with some tweaks. Get bonus if you listen to his spiel. If you choose not to take his advise, no bonus. Only real way I can see them making the martial leader class workable.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

I almost didn't come back to this thread after a poster at Wizards wanted to stick pins in a Voodoo doll of me because I had this thread started there too. I don't care enough about the name to start using Voodoo on those who disagree with me!

I wanted to mention that Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying 1st edition had a soldier option (along with merc, marine, and militiaman). I liked that the soldier seemed to belong to a more organized training background than the "fighters" (militiaman, merc, and marine).

Soldiers have been around forever (well at least since civilization has been waging war) and to a large degree they have always had to have a good grasp of tactics and leadership. The have to march in line, fight with other soldiers (sometimes at very close quarters), and follow orders.

They also have to have a certain level of esprit 'd corps to overcome the fear and depravation and horror they face daily on the battlefield. Lots of willpower and personal conviction. Or anger and a desire for vengeance. Either way, the readiness to kill and the training to do so in an organized melee.

A 1st level soldier would have left whatever guild or army trained them in tactics and become an adventurer. Good grasp of tactics and leadership already learned.

 

[Reaper Steve]

How about Warrior instead of Soldier?
It still coneys the concept without dictating by name that it must be a military class.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

How about Warrior instead of Soldier?
It still coneys the concept without dictating by name that it must be a military class.

But a warrior is not a martial leader. Like fighter, it's someone who fights, not someone who leads and coordinates a fight. Warlord's better for that, I think.

 

[The Merciful]

In your game then house rule the name and change it. Problem solved!

Seriously, why are people so hung up on names? Just CHANGE THEM. There are no adverse issues that arise from changing a name you don't like to something else...

Maybe they care about their hobby, in which case they might want it to prosper. That means they might not wish D&D be the game know as the the game with silly names. Just speculating...

Anyway, "just change it" is rather weak retort on a discussion forum.

On topic: I like "soldier". No rank implied or such, but a profession. One that differs from "fighter". Also simple and clear.

 

[ptolemy18]

I know there have been many threads about the warlord as a class. Rather then jump in the middle I figured why not start another one? I'd prefer the class to be named the soldier.

Like fighter, soldier is a job and not so much a description. They take orders and they give orders. To me, soldier implies slightly more organization and disciple than a fighter.

Good idea. I like "soldier" better than "warlord" too.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Warlord's okay, IMHO, but I see the potential "too many warlos" issue.

Soldier...no. It has, in general, connotations of being more of a grunt than anything else.

I'd think Officer or Noble would be better names.

Brad

 

[ruemere]

Since the class seems to employ bardic-like abilities to control the battlefield (a martial controller, so to speak):

Warleader
Warmonger

Battleleader
Battlemonger

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[The Merciful]

Herald?
Standard bearer?

 

[kibbitz]

Odd situation. I like Warlord more than most, if not all of the suggestions here, and definitely more than soldier, but it occurs to me that I don't even know enough about the class to know if Warlord is even a decent fit?