Warlord or Soldier?

[Wormwood]

Ah, Warlord.

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

 

[Reaper Steve]

Warrior.

 

[Rechan]

Warrior.

In all honesty I think Fighter should be Warrior.

 

[Wormwood]

In all honesty I think Fighter should be Warrior.

Yep.

Too bad the folks who brought us the "Fighting-Man" couldn't have given the term about three more seconds of thought.

 

[Reaper Steve]

In all honesty I think Fighter should be Warrior.

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)

 

[Rechan]

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.)

Well no, I wasn't considering Warrior and Warlord together.

I agree that SOMETHING has to be done about the Warlord/Warlock issue.

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

Who says that a warrior is trained for a group?

 

[grimslade]

Warlord has some problems but most of the alternatives have their own baggage.
Personally, I prefer Captain it seems to sum up a leader but the military rank issue makes a 1st level Captain hard to take. Same problem with Sergeant or Lieutenant.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It really depends on how the class ends up being structured.

"Officer" sounds more appropriate than "Soldier," from what we've heard so far.

 

[am181d]

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.

 

[Gadget]

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. Second, it is a bit bland and does not have as strong a connotation in a Fantasy setting as it does in more modern settings, and while one could make the same argument for the also bland Fighter, I would prefer a more fantasy or archaic sounding name. While WOTC has proven themselves capable of going overboard on the flowery names of late (coughDragon's Tail strikecough), I also dislike the bland and un-fantasy sounding tactician, expert, aristocrat, etc. If alternatives must be sought, I would be for the, IMHO, more appropriate Marshall, Champion, Captian, warrior, etc.