Warlord or Soldier?

[Kobu]

I can pretty much guarantee that any officer named class is going to get a lot of hate. The only one that I think can beat out warlord is marshal because of the "a dev said it" mindset fighting against itself.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Who says that a warrior is trained for a group?

I do!

I think that if D&D explained the class this way, it would be easily distinguished from a fighter and carry less baggage than Warlord or Soldier.

 

[Kobu]

As I've mentioned in other threads, the correct answer is "Commander". As in "one who commands", as opposed to "one who fights" or "one who wizars". While there's a military connotation to "Commander", it's far more generic than either Warlord or Soldier.

Commander doesn't seem to be actively hated as much as other options, but I think none of the leader classes should actually be "commanding" anyone. This is the same issue I have with warlord. Commander doesn't have all the other baggage that warlord has, so I prefer it, but it still fundamentally gives the impression that this is the boss of the party.

 

[Kobu]

Warlord, despite a certain amount perceived baggage with the name, is an evocative fantasy arch-type. Soldier is most definitely not. To begin with, it is far to modern sounding, which is why it is an option in d20 modern and Star Wars, but not D&D.

The notion of soldiering goes back at least to Roman times. The word itself is hundreds of years old. Soldiers in fantasy are all over the place--The Black Company, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, A Song of Ice and Fire, The Wheel of Time. All chock full of soldiers. How can you say it isn't a fantasy archetype?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

From OD&D through 3e, I agree.
But in 4E I would rather see a Fighter and a Warrior rather than Fighter and Warlord (as it stands) or Warrior and Warlord (as I extrapolate your post.)

Fighter- highly-skilled individual combatant (like a boxer)
Warrior- trained to fight with a group (like a soldier, not not necessarily just a soldier)

It is a slightly unusual usage of warrior, most historical writing would make a distinction between soldiers and warriors with warriors being the highly trained fighters, but inclined to fight as individuals on the battlefield and soldiers being indifferently trained but fighting in highly cohesive formations.

That said I would find marshal or knight as perfectably acceptable alternatives, and preferable, to warlord as class name. In this poll I voted soldier. In fact I would go for any military name without current common usage, how about hoplite, gallowglass?

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Warlord wins. Go warlord go!

It's interesting; people keep complaining loudly about how bad Warlord and other WotC names are, but when put to test, those names tend to win. It's almost as if the designers at Wizards might have actually thought about this, considering the alternatives and maybe doing internal polls, instead of just pulling names out of their hat...

Or, in other words, the kvetching about the names is quickly supplanting "anime" and "videogames" as the current outrage-of-the-moment among the fans.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well while I was comtemplating my reply other people had chimed in with suggestions. I would also prefer commander to warlord but would have a stronger preference for marshal of the current suggestions

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

alternative

Ah, Warlord.

The name everyone hates just a little bit less than every single alternative.

How about Bard?

<ducks!>

 

[Mercule]

Soldiers are lackies. Warlord at least sounds like a "leader".

Marshal and Knight are both better.

 

[Snapdragyn]

A soldier is part of an army. A warlord could command a large army or just a small raiding band - such as a typical adventuring party.

Warlord.