Warlord is a stupid name. Call them Captains.


log in or register to remove this ad

Captain sounds more appropriate.

Captain is cool but Warlord doesn't bother me that much. What I would like though is the fighter to kill the warlord and take some of his stuff. Fighters should motivate their allies and get to do cool stuff. I suppose themes are a good way of achieving this, although I prefer pathfinder's archetype mechanic more to make adjustments to some class features, leaving themes to be more... themey rather than a vehicle for dispensing feats.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 


the Jester

Legend
Eh, captains either need their own boat or need to be in a military organization.

I could live with marshal, but I think warlord is just fine, personally.
 

Commander?

Tactician?

Marshal?

Vanguard? (If he's in the front)

Or, I dunno, don't make a class based around being a lazy bum and making everyone else do stuff. Let that be some sort of option anyone can take to complement their class powers.

Swing a sword and stab stuff.
Cast spells and alter reality.
Heal and protect with the power of god.
Sneak and ambush with deft precision.
"You do it."

One of these things is not like the other.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
"Captain" has far too much real world connotation for me. I'd prefer not to have my medieval fantasy game use terms which are in common use today, especially those which imply a very specific rank and power level. Is that character a Captain when he's a 1st level peasant and also when he's leading an army of thousands? Is he ever a Private, a Sergeant, or a General?

Warlord isn't great, I agree. I can't think of a better term; it needs to be generic and not linked specifically to rank. A character's rank in a a roleplaying game (peasant, private, captain, constable, vizier, king, general) is not a class function.
 





Remove ads

Top