Level Up (A5E) What would you call a 'Warlord' class? (+)

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I voted for commander because it's generic. Not all commanders are great tacticians, not all have the rank of captain (could be higher or lower), and so forth. It's more generic than warlord, in fact.

 

[Faolyn]

Agreed with all this, but voted Tactician.

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!

I didn't play 4e. My initial dislike--I've grown to accept the LU version, although I have no idea if I'll ever play one--is in large part because of the name. It strongly suggests one player in charge commanding the other players, their minions. It doesn't feel like the type of character that plays well in a team.

Edit: Also, as others have mentioned, the name has some unpleasant connotations of mass-murdering peasants and conscripting child soldiers.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm seeing a number of comments that certain name options imply rank and that's a problem - but isn't that the point of the class? They're officers?

If the class's core ability is "giving orders", then the name's going to imply rank. You can't really get around that any more than you can come up with a good re-name for wizards that doesn't imply the ability to cast spells.

It's the point, but then you're left with a 1st-level warlord, which is kind of silly.

 

[Remathilis]

Warlord has the strongest archetype support. Warlord to me implies a warrior who is adept at leadership and tactics, but not necessarily a military or law-enforcement role. A warlord could be a barbarian chieftain, a criminal cartel leader, an officer in in the army, or a royal commanding their subjects to battle. Most of those other names are too specific (marshal, warden, general or sheriff seems too job/rank-oriented) or general (terms like leader or tactician are too broad to support a class archetype).

Warlord isn't perfect, but it feels far more in line with classes like barbarian, druid, warlock or monk. If not it, I'd probably go with marshal or warden.

 

[Remathilis]

Edit: Also, as others have mentioned, the name has some unpleasant connotations of mass-murdering peasants and conscripting child soldiers.

I'm sure there would be some who conjure that image, but I don't see it as any more problematic than assassin, barbarian, monk, warlock, or druid. The fantasy archetype is strong enough to overcome modern usage of the term. See also: witch, samurai, knight.

 

[Davies]

Edit: Also, as others have mentioned, the name has some unpleasant connotations of mass-murdering peasants and conscripting child soldiers.

Thank you.

 

[Tonguez]

Marshal got my vote because they are marshalling the troops
I did like Tactician but its a bit on the nose

I think Warlord has too much baggage, implication

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah, most of them do have those connotations. Warden doesn't, but it didn't get any love in the votes.

Warden has the most connotations - a Warden protects something, they dont necessarily command troops on a battlefield. There also the association with Gaols

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's simple, really.

Combine the past of D&D with the present and you have the only good name.

Not WARlord.
Not WARden.

WARDUKE.

 

[Scribe]

I didn't play 4e. My initial dislike--I've grown to accept the LU version, although I have no idea if I'll ever play one--is in large part because of the name. It strongly suggests one player in charge commanding the other players, their minions. It doesn't feel like the type of character that plays well in a team.

Edit: Also, as others have mentioned, the name has some unpleasant connotations of mass-murdering peasants and conscripting child soldiers.

Yeah, this is why I think Tactician is better. Someone who focuses more on the thinking side, and working with a team, or even by themselves, without all the rest of the baggage as folks are saying.

I also would like any 'martial healing' to be temp HP, not actual healing, but thats just a personal issue.