Mishihari Lord
First Post
Um ... no. I like "warlord."
Tactician is very unevocative, in my view. And doesn't capture the full spectrum (eg what about inspiring rather than tactical warlords?).Commander?
Tactician?
Marshal?
Vanguard? (If he's in the front)
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.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.
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'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.
Then Charisma would be their predominant Ability rather than Intelligence.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.
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.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!
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!Then Charisma would be their predominant Ability rather than Intelligence.
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.There has always been a case for renaming Fighters as Warriors, in the same way Magic Users were renamed as Wizards a while back.