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

[Azzy]

Yes, we will.

And some may even occasionally be funny.

 

[Garthanos]

Definitely an improvement on the current fighter.

I like it, but I do think some of the maneuver prereqs are heavy handed and it also lacks the level gating (or higher use cost) on maneuvers that allow them to bigger and more awesome at higher levels

 

[Garthanos]

What's the history?

Yeah I changed my mind on Marshal because of history.

 

[Hussar]

Just in case anyone hasn't read the book nor seen any of the movies.

Spoiler

"Nothing happened."

Y'know some joker'd roll up one named Ides....
...or April.

What's the history?

Numerous Greek ranks end in arch or March.

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 esoteric enough that it doesn’t trigger people but still fantasy sounding enough.

Kinda like how paladin was back in the day.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Numerous Greek ranks end in arch or March.

"It's all Greek to me."
-William Shakespeare

 

[Tony Vargas]

Numerous Greek ranks end in arch or March.

...oh, like "Hipparch." OK.

I was thinking the whole marching in spring thing, also quite the stretch.

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 esoteric enough that it doesn’t trigger people but still fantasy sounding enough. Kinda like how paladin was back in the day.

Heh.
I can't accept that it's anymore potentially 'triggering' than Cleric or, if it came back into use for some sub-class, Crusader.
I get that edition-war-faux-PTSD can be triggered by any 4e reference, and that the improbable spectre of class balance ruining D&D again is a source of existential terror...

...it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heh.
I can't accept that it's anymore potentially 'triggering' than Cleric or, if it came back into use for some sub-class, Crusader.

Seriously? Cleric has never been a term with pretty much entirely negative popular connotations. The only context in which it's even a bad thing is "Radical [IRL faith] Cleric", and even then, those guys get countered by moderate clerics.

Warlord has exactly one real world usage, in the modern day, and it's basically, "violent psychopath who has taken over a region by force and made himself a ruler of his territory, or is trying to do so, usually giving himself some military rank as a title". There are no moderate warlords. No good guy warlords at all outside of some fairly unknown speculative fiction works. It isn't a word that has any reasonably well known positive connotations.

Why are you so stuck on the name? Would you really be upset if the class appeared in 5e under a different name? One that isn't shared with real world mass murderers?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only context in which it's even a bad thing is "Radical [IRL faith] Cleric",

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

 

[Don Durito]

Call them Extra-Diplomatic Faciliators intead.

 

[Hussar]

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.