Warlord vs. Tactician

[Black Knight Irios]

I'm still on the Warlords' side!

I wouldn't want a tactician in my party, he'd probably run off scared, when put in a real battle.

 

[pawsplay]

Become a Tactician... in just three months! Your future begins today!

 

[Erik Mona]

A tactician does not strike me as someone on the front line chopping up monsters. A warlord does.

D&D is a game about chopping up monsters, so warlord wins for me.

--Erik

 

[Remathilis]

Sigh...

Warlord. I doubt I could play a class named tactician...

 

[morbiczer]

I think warlord is pretty bad (will there be warladies too?), but tactitian is even worse.

From the options I've read so far, I like Commander best.

 

[Lackhand]

Odysseus is more tactician than warlord! He also chops monsters up. Maybe not as much as warlords do, but then, they have some help.

that said, I don't support Tactician as the name for the class which could also be called Warlord. I do support it being in the game via some other route though!

 

[Felon]

From the options I've read so far, I like Commander best.

The problem with commander is denotes giving orders. Not merely providing tactical inspiration or insight, but actually bossing fellow player characters around. I think the designers want something that is a little more in tune with modern, less autocratic notions of leadership--i.e. empowering others rather than doing the thinking for them.

 

[Moorcrys]

I think tactician is a poor name for this class... tacticians don't rally allies on the battlefield. The name is not evocative for what it seems WOTC is looking for, imho.

I went with marshal on the last, similarly themed post, and I stick with my opinion. But frankly, I don't mind Warlord that much either, other than its similarity to the name Warlock.