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

[Garthanos]

A couple descriptions of Warlord Flavor which shows there is very much no need at all to be seeing it as commands (even a relatively normal warlord flavor aside from a handful of moves most work better visualized like this first example)

This one isnt mine...synopsis

D&D 4E - Warlord Flavor (One favorite of mine)

Though i sort of came up with the princess build warlord it's flavor is actually not really my favorite of the bunch. This was written by someone else and I glopped on to it but managed to fail my - record attribution roll properly, I think that is an academic fail on my part for sure. A...

www.enworld.org

This one is and more a dynamic build up as I expressed it here on Enworld not really the concept

The Non Combatant Prince(ss) or How to Abuse a Warlord

Actually ... the idea is to explore ways to create fully contributing non-combatants Princess Verdicia, level 1 Half-Elf, Warlord Commanding Presence: Inspiring Presence Noble Scion Benefit: Religion Background: Noble Scion (Noble Scion Benefit) FINAL ABILITY SCORES Str 10, Con 13, Dex 8, Int...

www.enworld.org

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, at that point the mechanics are reinforcing the idea that this character is the leader, so I assume that’s something to which the group has bought in.

Personally, if one member of the party is going to be seen as the leader, that’s something that should arise organically through play and shouldn’t be tied to any particular class.

I seldom come into a thread and tell someone they have a bad idea. To each their own and everything, but “leader” class? That’s a terrible idea.

IME, most “leader” themed class characters aren’t the leader of the group. It’s a theoretical worry that doesn’t play out IRL.

 

[Fenris-77]

Also, as much as this may rub some peoples rhubarb the wrong way, there isn't actually anything wrong with a party having a leader. There's a range there, from the commander of a mercenary company down to what is normally called the party caller, but it's not inherently a bad thing. Parties of adventurers don't have to be radical democracies. I wouldn't necessarily want to play every game with someone 'in charge' but it's a fine idea for the right story.

 

[Hriston]

From the responses I’ve read, the core concept of the class being named here seems to be someone who gives commands to his/her fellow party members which result in buffs including hit point restoration. That seems kind of narrow to me, and I’m not sure how it’s too different from a bard, but I might suggest the name adjutant, which means “helper”. I still think torchbearer is a better term because it has meanings related to inspirational guidance as well as signaling on the battlefield, and widens the concept to one of being an adviser rather than strictly a commander.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

From the responses I’ve read, the core concept of the class being named here seems to be someone who gives commands to his/her fellow party members which result in buffs including hit point restoration. That seems kind of narrow to me, and I’m not sure how it’s too different from a bard, but I might suggest the name adjutant, which means “helper”. I still think torchbearer is a better term because it has meanings related to inspirational guidance as well as signaling on the battlefield, and widens the concept to one of being an adviser rather than strictly a commander.

Here’s the thing. Boromir is a Captain, but he isn’t the leader of the Fellowship. Hell, Legolas is a Prince.
Sure, the guy who is the leader is also someone I’d stat as a Captain in a dnd conversion, but there are at least two other “guy in charge of stuff” characters that listen to Aragorn’s directions.

likewise, a character like Boromir or Aragorn wouldn’t have to take command of the party in a dnd game. They just have the ability to lead people, to inspire and challenge to be greater.

Probably wants for an archetype that gets followers, tbh, but the class certainly doesn’t need to tell other PCs what to do.

 

[Fenris-77]

I do think people are too caught up in the etymology of the various names.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do think people are too caught up in the etymology of the various names.

Yep, that’s why I liked Herald and Warden, but those got shot down by a lot of folks because they’ve been names before.

 

[Fenris-77]

The rule that matters is the rule of cool. The names of the classes dont define the relationships between party members, they define, to a point, what the class is. A captain is no more the leader of the party than a cleric is priest to any particular party member. Both scenarios are possible, but not necessary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IME, most “leader” themed class characters aren’t the leader of the group. It’s a theoretical worry that doesn’t play out IRL.

Exactly like concerns over the name of the Martial (source label) Leader (role label) Warlord (class label). As has been pointed out pretty nearly the whole run of D&D, characters don't necessarily take their class name as a job title or descriptor in-character (I suspect level-/Titles/ may have gotten used in 1e, at times, I know I went with 'em a few times, though it was funny the way your magic-user changed specialties - Theurgy & Thaumaturgy, FREX, very different outlooks - or the Cleric changed religions if you took those literally, too).

The stronger point is that a position of legitimate or granted authority, like a Captain, Commander, Marshal, or the like, and the quality of Leadership that helps others work together and put in their best performances are quite separate things. When we say "but any class could be The Leader," we mean any class (or level) could be put in charge arbitrarily, or be making decisions and giving orders. But the skills & talents of leadership needn't come with that, and needn't be exercised from such a position, a second-in-command or trusted follower could be the one exercising such skills, an Aaron to the chosen leader's Moses, as it were, heck sergeant who bucks up his lieutenant in a tough spot could be exercising leadership not just on behalf of his leader, but /on/ his leader. The actual leader still needs to come up with good decisions, goals & objectives, but the leadership can come from elsewhere.

And, for better or worse, focused, exceptional, high-impact, but non-supernatural skills & talents like that, in D&D are modeled by a whole 'nuther class separate from the Fighter. From the Thief and Ranger, back in the day, through Cavaliers, Bandits, Experts, Knights, Duelists, Scouts, &c, on to the Warlord in 4e.

Here’s the thing. Boromir is a Captain, but he isn’t the leader of the Fellowship. Hell, Legolas is a Prince.
Sure, the guy who is the leader is also someone I’d stat as a Captain in a dnd conversion

As inclined as I'd be to give a lot of Tolkien characters some levels in Warlord, the Fellowship was openly led by Gandalf until the bridge, and, even then, he gave them a last command before falling into the abyss.