Warlord is a stupid name. Call them Captains.

[Empath Negative]

That's really all I have to sat about that.

A warlord who warlords over like six guys... yeah, not a warlord.


Captain sounds more appropriate.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Captain sounds more appropriate.

Captain is cool but Warlord doesn't bother me that much. What I would like though is the fighter to kill the warlord and take some of his stuff. Fighters should motivate their allies and get to do cool stuff. I suppose themes are a good way of achieving this, although I prefer pathfinder's archetype mechanic more to make adjustments to some class features, leaving themes to be more... themey rather than a vehicle for dispensing feats.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Argyle King]

A warlord who warlords over like six guys... yeah, not a warlord.

The same could be said about Captain. Even Captain Crunch has a boat (which I assume has a crew.)

 

[the Jester]

Eh, captains either need their own boat or need to be in a military organization.

I could live with marshal, but I think warlord is just fine, personally.

 

[RangerWickett]

Commander?

Tactician?

Marshal?

Vanguard? (If he's in the front)

Or, I dunno, don't make a class based around being a lazy bum and making everyone else do stuff. Let that be some sort of option anyone can take to complement their class powers.

Swing a sword and stab stuff.
Cast spells and alter reality.
Heal and protect with the power of god.
Sneak and ambush with deft precision.
"You do it."

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[Morrus]

"Captain" has far too much real world connotation for me. I'd prefer not to have my medieval fantasy game use terms which are in common use today, especially those which imply a very specific rank and power level. Is that character a Captain when he's a 1st level peasant and also when he's leading an army of thousands? Is he ever a Private, a Sergeant, or a General?

Warlord isn't great, I agree. I can't think of a better term; it needs to be generic and not linked specifically to rank. A character's rank in a a roleplaying game (peasant, private, captain, constable, vizier, king, general) is not a class function.

 

[nightwyrm]

Perhaps Tactician or Strategist might be a better name but I'm not too upset with Warlord.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think "Commander" would be most appropriate, especially with all the shouting they do.

 

[HeinorNY]

What about "Fighter", with a military theme?

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think Captain is even worse than Warlord. I like Tactician.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Um ... no. I like "warlord."

 

[TwinBahamut]

This is the argument that will never die, no matter how many times you try to kill it. Please, just let it die... Even if it will come back from the dead in a few weeks, at least we will have peace...

Also, since no once can agree on anything better than Warlord, it will have to do.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I like captain or even chief better than warlord. Captain quite literally means leader. Fighter is a small aircraft equipped with air-to-air missiles.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd prefer to see the 'Tactician' adopted as a Fighter theme.

If you were 'de-rankify' Warlord, you'd simply call it a 'warrior' which is basically what a fighter is. A fighter with strong Charisma and Intelligence abilities, perhaps, but a Fighter nevertheless.

 

[pemerton]

I don't mind Warlord, but wouldn't mind Captain either. To me, it has a Tolkien-esque ring to it - in the movies, at least, Faramir is described as "a young captain of Gondor", and in the books I think Tolkien refers to a meeting of the captains when they plan the strategy for their assault on Mordor. REH also talks about mercenary captains in the Conan stories, doesn't he?

Commander?

Tactician?

Marshal?

Vanguard? (If he's in the front)

Tactician is very unevocative, in my view. And doesn't capture the full spectrum (eg what about inspiring rather than tactical warlords?).

Marshal does nothing for me either - it suggests a public official of some sort. You can be captain of a mercenary company, but if you are marshal of a host I think that implies you've been invested with authority rather than just assumed it.

Or, I dunno, don't make a class based around being a lazy bum and making everyone else do stuff. Let that be some sort of option anyone can take to complement their class powers.

Swing a sword and stab stuff.
Cast spells and alter reality.
Heal and protect with the power of god.
Sneak and ambush with deft precision.
"You do it."

One of these things is not like the other.

Heretic! I've not seen one played, but at the conceptual level I'm a big fan of the "lazy warlord" - I especially like the "Princess Warlord" version of it, where in the fiction the PC is a noncombatant. It allows D&D - a fairly combat-focused game as far as action resolution is concerned - to make space for non-combatant protagonists.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd prefer to see the 'Tactician' adopted as a Fighter theme.

If you were 'de-rankify' Warlord, you'd simply call it a 'warrior' which is basically what a fighter is. A fighter with strong Charisma and Intelligence abilities, perhaps, but a Fighter nevertheless.

But what about the Brash and Inspiring Warlords - they don't use clever tactics necessary, at least not any more so than, say a Ranger or Barbarian.

I would agree that Warlord isn't really perfect. But then, Fighter isn't such a great class name either - aren't Paladings and Rangers not also Fighters? Or Barbarians? Or Monks? Heck, even a Rogue - you can't tell me backstabbing and sneak attack is not fighting!

 

[TrippyHippy]

But what about the Brash and Inspiring Warlords - they don't use clever tactics necessary, at least not any more so than, say a Ranger or Barbarian.

Then Charisma would be their predominant Ability rather than Intelligence.

I would agree that Warlord isn't really perfect. But then, Fighter isn't such a great class name either - aren't Paladings and Rangers not also Fighters? Or Barbarians? Or Monks? Heck, even a Rogue - you can't tell me backstabbing and sneak attack is not fighting!

Rogues ought to be defined by skills rather than combat style, while I think the Barbarian and Monk could be integrated as Fighting styles. Paladins are different in emphasis to fighters insofar that they are paragons rather than combat specialists per se, and Rangers likewise have fighting as a secondary aspect after hunting, travelling and survival.

There has always bEen a case for renaming Fighters as Warriors, in the same way Magic Users were renamed as Wizards a while back.

 

[rkwoodard]

Roman ?

The problem is that the title is either too tied to well known rank or is not evocative. Maybe we look at Roman titles ?

Centurion? They did lead usually 60-80 men (sometimes more) but at least it sounds cooler.

Tribune?

Legate?

Ok, Maybe Warlord is the best compromise.

RK

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then Charisma would be their predominant Ability rather than Intelligence.

Well, Warlords have Strength as primary ability in 4E, and Intelligence or Charisma as Secondary (and later expansions also had one for Wisdom). My point is the name Tactician doesn't really sound like what the Warlord did encompas. That may not be a bad thing, but I really loved my Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord!

There has always been a case for renaming Fighters as Warriors, in the same way Magic Users were renamed as Wizards a while back.

I don't see a big difference between fighter and warrior. But then, I didn't see a big difference between Wizard, Sorceror or Warlock. They all seem to describe someone using magic, and everything else is highly setting or system dependent.

 

[Minigiant]

Me like Talky Man
Level 10 Talky Man