D&D 5E (2014) Best Name For A “Leader” Class?

[Esker]

I want to put together a party consisting of Harold the Herald, Marshall the Marshal, Ward the Warden, and Mark the Mark.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even the thread to homebrew a marshal martial leader class, based on the result of this thread, says "Warlord" twice in the title, rather than using 'marshal' or 'leader class,' at all.

You just literally can’t give it a rest

 

[Esker]

Edit: I just to reiterate how Sorry I am for this post, and I'll take it down if it's too much Trouble.

Board game puns are such a trivial pursuit. Which I point out only to show that you don't have a monopoly...

 

[TwoSix]

Board game puns are such a trivial pursuit. Which I point out only to show that you don't have a monopoly...

Making board game puns is just part of the game of life, but I don’t want to make the puns too parcheesi.

 

[TwoSix]

I want to put together a party consisting of Harold the Herald, Marshall the Marshal, Ward the Warden, and Mark the Mark.

Or Warren, the Warforged Warlock|Warlord/Warden of 4e fame.

 

[Salthorae]

I personally hate “warlord” even more than I love the class itself.

what is your favorite?

Marshal is my main vote.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I chose Captain, because while it always denotes leadership it often means a very low level of leadership (outside of a naval context). Getting picked team captain is about the highest rank of leader appropriate to a first level character. I don't like it, per se, but I've yet to hear or think of anything I dislike less.

Commander is somewhat similar to captain, but seems more strictly a matter of military rank, hence not quite as good as Captain.

Banneret implies knighthood. Good name for a level 3 subclass, but not the place to start. Still it does have a nice position of implying medievalish leadership with a lot of ambiguity as to the scale, so it would be my number two or three choice.

Warlord is a truly absurd thing to call a low level character, especially one who is not evil aligned since in real life it has an exclusively negative connotation. And yes, it is badass, but it only gets that way by being difficult to attain. I also don't want there to be a God-Emperor class.

To me Marshal primarily means either a type of police officer or the highest possible army rank. Cool things for a character to become, but not a base class. And be it law officer, uber-general, or the grand marshal of a parade, it implies authority one is appointed to. Unless the class comes with a patron lord it doesn't seem right.

Herald, Warden, and Sentinel are all cool fantasy sounding things, but none of them particularly have to do with leadership. A herald is, in fact, an implicitly subservient person.

I don't even know what this Mark business is about. The only meaning I can find in my OED that seems to jive is that it can be a rank amongst freemasons. In any case it is a word with fifty or so different meanings, so it probably is best to go for something a little more clear.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You just literally can’t give it a rest

This is 5e, we must push through 6-8 encounters before we can give it a long rest ...

I chose Captain, because while it always denotes leadership it often means a very low level of leadership (outside of a naval context). Commander is somewhat similar to captain, but seems more strictly a matter of military rank, hence not quite as good as Captain.

Captain certainly denotes rank, though it can be civilian (captain of a ship) rather than military. Either way, that implies legitimate authority. (And how much authority is relative, in a fleet action a captain's following orders every moment, detached he's the highest authority available.)

To me Marshal primarily means either a type of police officer or the highest possible army rank.

Both of which imply a legitimate authority out of place with D&D player characters.

Banneret implies knighthood. Good name for a level 3 subclass

Good or not, it's taken, sure. PDK would've been even better as a PrC.

Warlord is a truly absurd thing to call a low level character, especially one who is not evil aligned since in real life it has an exclusively negative connotation. And yes, it is badass, but it only gets that way by being difficult to attain.

Sorcerer, Warlock, Thief, and Assassin all carry comparably negative connotations, and 'warlord,' since it doesn't imply legitimate authority is actually something anyone with a band of followers and a territory could claim, to the literal definition. But, then, few D&D classes adhere to the literal definition, in the first place.

Really, there is no expectation that any other class must justify it's name based on literal meaning or connotation.

Herald, Warden, and Sentinel are all cool fantasy sounding things, but none of them particularly have to do with leadership. A herald is, in fact, an implicitly subservient person.

In that sense, Herald wouldn't be all bad as a support class, (in 4e, "Leader" was code for 'support,' broader than the traditional band-aid cleric, but focused on helping allies, not aggrandizing itself).

Warden has been a class, before, and Sentinel has been a sub-class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

and the wheel turns again, and nothing new ever happens.

 

[Wiseblood]

What does a “leader” class do? Leader was game jargon from 4e. IIRC it provided bonuses also called buffs. Maybe a little “battlefield control”.

It is my suspicion that the role was called leader as a placeholder.

Defining what a “leader class” does would help because it does not lead.

Barbarian = not a member of civilization
Monk = a member of a religious community ( ostensibly a Shaolin Monk mythologized)
Cleric = priest
Wizard = a man who has magical powers
Fighter = one who fights

Some of the newer classes deviated from this paradigm in favor of cool sounding names. If you do that you can call it anything.