Tony Vargas
Legend
There's always someone waiting for a nasty argument on the internet, sure. And, it was kinda obvious: 'Healer' (not to mention Cleric, Band-Aid, and heal-bot) was not cutting it as the D&Dism for support contributions, so they tried to come up with something... the Fighter had, in the prior edition, been raptly described as 'anchoring' the party and the 'natural party leader' - with absolutely no mechanical support, of course, not even so much as a ribbon, and that had caused no controversy (not that the fighter lacked for controversy about how bad it "SUX" back then). So, they went with Leader, but, anticipated whingeing over the conflation with 'party leader,' and immediately, right in the role description, pointed out that it didn't mean party leader. It's just a little broader and less lame than healer.Either way, the whole 'leader' concept is just a nasty argument looking for places to happen. Tactician as a name, without any reference whatsoever to leading anything, kind of gets around this;
So, no one should be saying "Leader," if you describe Cleric, Druid, and/or Bard as 'support' that seems to go over OK, maybe use that? It's not like the formal role is coming back, nor like the Warlord should be limited to it, even if it were.
It meaningfully benefits from INT? Has some abilities that don't involving hitting things harder and/or more often? And, really, how does 5e model "specialized training" beyond skills? Classes & sub-classes.though my next question would be, what would make a Tactician different from a Fighter with some specialized training?