I like that Marshal also serves as a verb, as in one who marshals.1st level Warlord is a contradiction in terms.
Marshall is probably the most appropriate. Though even that has connotations of rank.
I do like the fact that it’s a play on the word martial, as well.
There are various reasons. I believe the most prominent one was that the warlord was a healer despite being non-magical. And not an “I can kinda-sorta do some healing sometimes, mostly temp HP or bonus healing on a short rest” healer, like a legit primary heal bot on par with the cleric. As such, it was completely incompatible with an HP-as-meat paradigm. You pretty much had to either accept that HP is abstract, ban the warlord, or deal with them being able to non-magically shout wounds closed.Edit: I also don't understand the hate against the class, but I skipped 4e completely, if anyone can point me to why it's so divisive, I would enjoy the read!
actually, it goes both ways. Well, according to Google anyway.Marshal: use one 'L' and not two.
You have a valid point. My only issue with Commander (and Captain and the like) is that the names imply leadership. And that's what many people have had issue with when it comes to this class... that the character has some sort of command or leadership over the rest of the party. Which isn't necessarily the case.I'm kind of leaning towards Commander. The biggest issue is that most of the words we reserve for the concept at the height of its power. Warlord, General, Marshal, Strategos, etc.
Commander at least is a low-level rank, lower than Captain. So having a low level Commander doesn't sound so unusual.
I'm kind of leaning towards Commander. The biggest issue is that most of the words we reserve for the concept at the height of its power. Warlord, General, Marshal, Strategos, etc.