D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Don Durito]

Look, let's face it, Warlord as a name is just a non-starter. Far too entrenched opposition. So, I'm more than willing to compromise on the name if that means that I actually GET any development on the class - UA or whatever. March/Mark works and is sufficiently esoteric that it doesn't trigger edition warring. Not seeing the problem.

Yeah, there's Hipparch, as well as Polemarch and a bunch of others. At least, that's what turned up in my wikipedia search. It gets the job done, and, once defined by D&D, gets to fall in line with things like paladin (which are only tenuously related to the real life peer of Charlemagne) or druid (with virtually no relationship whatsoever to the real life druids) or any other class name which is largely defined within the game rather than by its real life counterpart.

No one's actually going to be fooled. If people hate the Warlord (for whatever reason) they're still going to hate it if it obviously reappears under a different name.

 

[Don Durito]

Honestly. 4E is a long time ago now. A lot of aspects of 4E that were supposed deal breakers are right there in 5e (such as daily refresh abilities for martial classes - and just about everyone having magic). Other aspects of 4E have crept in over the course of 5E.

The fact that a small amount of people really hate the Warlord is not a reason not to do it. These people are inconsequential.

There may be other reasons not to do it (such as not fitting in so well with 5E tactical options as a whole, and even there not being much evidence of a really great demand for it) - but haters are irrelevant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly as modern, tenuous, and inappropriate an objection, yes.

Much more modern, tenuous, and inappropriate an objection, compared to warlord, actually.

Warlord has never been broadly used in Modern English in a positive light. Modern English is being used as a proper noun, here, rather than referring to the English spoken in today's society.

Naming a heroic class (or one with simply neutral moral implications) Warlord would be like renaming the Wizard "Warlock", and burdening it with confusing negative connotations that have nothing to do with the class being described.

Warlock works for the Warlock, because the idea is that Warlocks have transgressed to gain their power. They have formed pacts that sensible and morally upright people would at least look down upon. That makes the name entirely appropriate. In pop culture, Warlock is pretty much never used to refer to someone who is unambiguously Good. If it were, it would be weird. Maybe in a way that's interesting and tells a good story, but weird nonetheless.

The Marshall-Captain-Mark-Leader-Person is not intended to have a negative connotation. Their name should therefor be neutral in terms of ethical assumptions about someone labeled by the name of the class, in the popular conception of someone reading the book.

And as for John Carter, I hate to break it to you, but those stories aren't all that popular anymore. I'd be willing to bet actual cash money that at least twice as many potential DnD players think of real world warlords, and historical military tyrants they resemble, as think of a John Carter story, when they hear the term "warlord".


It's not about editions, Tony. I love 4e, and want the class brought back in a satisfying manner. The name is bad, though. It needs a new name.

 

[Azzy]

March is also a somewhat esoteric noble rank. I believe Mark (sp) was used as well. Minor rank like a landed knight iirc.

It's better known as "marquess" or "marquis" and isn't that esoteric.

 

[Don Durito]

If they leave it until 6th edition they can appeal to the nostalgia value by bringing back the Warlord as a 'classic' class.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Vanguard could be an appropriate name. Not attached to the past nor to the modern use of term. No need for an exotic name. It evokes the idea of being leading the assault, but not leading the group.

 

[Azzy]

Vanguard could be an appropriate name. Not attached to the past nor to the modern use of term. No need for an exotic name. It evokes the idea of being leading the assault, but not leading the group.

Look, I don't care if it's callled "coffeve", just as long as it happens.

 

[Weiley31]

Eh I still prefer the Banneret as a name if Warlord isn't used.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Look, I don't care if it's callled "coffeve", just as long as it happens.

I'm sure the mundane-support-class is the next class to come after the psion.

I'm alone in my team, waiting for an Invoker, a Warden or Executioner!

 

[Sacrosanct]

If they leave it until 6th edition they can appeal to the nostalgia value by bringing back the Warlord as a 'classic' class.

I know this is tongue in cheek, but you may be more right than you know. Why? Because of what we know of 5e design scope:

• slow release
• keep it simple (avoid introducing new mechanics)
• don’t create new classes unless they bring something unique or are setting core

And since we know there already exists functionality to replicate a warlord via class/subclass/skill/feat combos (Maybe not to peoples preferences, but it does exist), there seems little urgency to create a stand alone warlord in 5e

personally, I don’t mind if there is a warlord class, but knowing how 5e is going, and what’s already out there, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. It’s not like the artificer or psion which are core identity to Eberron or dark sun respectively.