log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Best Name For A “Leader” Class?

Best name?

  • Herald

    Votes: 7 7.1%
  • Banneret

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • Captain

    Votes: 17 17.2%
  • Warlord

    Votes: 25 25.3%
  • Marshal

    Votes: 37 37.4%
  • Mark

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other - let us know!

    Votes: 12 12.1%
  • Commander

    Votes: 18 18.2%
  • Warden

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • Sentinel

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    99

Zardnaar

Legend
Individual players choose their classes. You don't want 'mint' you don't choose 'mint.' Try some pepper or garlic salt.
Or both, if the optional multi-seasoning rules are allowed.
If it's you and DM sure. The campaign is the pot though so everyone else gets mint regardless if they want it.

They did some very simple calculations.

Do we make more money including or excluding the warlord. The proof is the phb. They knew what people hated.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If it's you and DM sure. The campaign is the pot though so everyone else gets mint regardless if they want it.
Sorry, no. If no one at a table reaches for the mint, it might as well not be there.

You're not talking about people objecting to something they don't want, themselves, you're talking about people insisting they have the right to tell everyone else what they can and can't play. Not just at their table, but globally.

At best, that's gatekeeping.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Sorry, no. If no one at a table reaches for the mint, it might as well not be there.

You're not talking about people objecting to something they don't want, themselves, you're talking about people insisting they have the right to tell everyone else what they can and can't play. Not just at their table, but globally.

At best, that's gatekeeping.
Take it up with WotC. Want a warlord play 4E.
 




Just a personal thing for me, but I couldn't care less what the class is called. I just don't hang a lot of importance on it.
Nor should anyone - which is why it doesn't need to change.
Campaigning to change the name is making the name of classes more important than has ever actually (or, given how squirrelly some of the names are if you look at 'em too hard, ever should have) been the case.

Enough different concepts get build out of the base classes that the name the class has may or may not end up being that descriptive of the final product. Cleric, for example, describes the fluff of the mechanics, but more times than not, doesn't describe the character in play. Not all Rogues are rogues. I use the Bard class to build all sorts of concepts, many of which aren't remotely connected to strumming a lute.
Nod. But, unlike Cleric, Rogue and Bard are evocative, and Rogue a bit edgy, while Bard evokes the period, at least somewhat.

. That being the case, I'd rather have a cool class name than a really accurately descriptive one. If you take out the anachronistic phrase "small unit tactics", and replace it with "knows how to organize men in battle", most of names suggested here work just fine.
All the familiar military-rank examples end up feelling anachronistic, too, though.

And, of course, the class already has a name: Warlord.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
Warlords a crap name for a silly concept.

The class concept is flawed as well, really only makes sense in 4E. Martial leader, cheerleader that heals.

Vs a charismatic or intelligent fighter.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Warlords a crap name for a silly concept.

The class concept is flawed as well, really only makes sense in 4E. Martial leader, cheerleader that heals.

Vs a charismatic or intelligent fighter.
eh, you’ve been proven wrong by the many, many, viable 3pp and homebrew versions of the concept for 5e. 🤷‍♂️
 

TBF, Zard, the concept is common in genre, and even IRL. To assert that 5e, the version of the game striving to be so inclusive of players & playstyles, can't handle it is pretty damning.
 
Last edited:

ClaytonCross

Kinder reader Inflection wanted
Personally, “Leader” is not a class, background, or character choice, its a player job which means no matter how you build your character you don't get to lead the party unless the party agrees to it. Trying to force the position on your party buy selecting a class or background results in another player doing the same thing and a generally toxic experience, in my opinion. Just as two players power gaming damage or two players fighting over other player rolls like treasure or quartermaster. I don't want an argument every time we need to make a decision because one player decided they were in charge because they made a "leader" despite the party not wanting to follow there lead or agreeing with their choice. Even if you have to "Faces" in the group who want to fight over who does the talking and comes back to the group to make a group decision, you can easily see them fighting to talk over each other. Instead, players nominate treasure, quartermaster, face, leader etc from the characters who show up based on how role playing leads them AND these rolls can change. So if you like being the party treasure but then the group finds out you enjoyed holding the gold because you were spending it... well your not party treasure any more because the party votes to give it to some else (this has happened at tables I have been at). The same with quarter master, and one player hording all the magic items and not wanting to share them out when the group calls for it, or Leader when the party no longer wants to fallow your lead.

So aren't you setting up failure and anger if a player believes by character design they have the RIGHT to lead the party? A likely out come is that the party rejects them and they become jaded and toxic to the group feeling their choices are being ignored/disrespected. If the party nominates their leader even to change it later as feels appropriate, it could be any character of any class. It is possible that the player who wants to lead becomes the leader, but that doesn't make it a static requirement and in being chosen the party doesn't feel like they are being forced into submission of one players will. Its completely possible and even likely that a player that requests to be leader but excepts that they can be removed from the position at the parties will, is selected and stays leader the whole campaign. The second you make that choice a character choice and attempt to remove the option from the party many players will reject them as leader on principle.

Alternatively, I would be in favor of Player Roll, perks for characters. If the GM wanted to give the Face, Quartermaster, Treasurer, and Leader and in game ability that would transfer with the role... I would support that.

Leader = Inspiring Leader feat?
Quartermaster = double carry weight/encumberance, +1 attunement slot?
Treasurer = 10% discount any items they buy?
Face = Advantage and -50% gold on xanthar's carousing down time checks?
Scribe = Receives a copy of all GM handouts and something good like one ASI/Feat of their choice, because this is by far the hardest player job and the most work. Giving a good bonus for it might help with the pain.

All would be recorded and lost if the job was moved to a new player.
 
Last edited:


I'd go for Commander, myself. Of the list, it's the most generic, as opposed to some others which refer to specific ranks. Warden and Sentinel are more generic, too, but, to me, don't say "leader" as much as "defender".
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I'd go for Commander, myself. Of the list, it's the most generic, as opposed to some others which refer to specific ranks. Warden and Sentinel are more generic, too, but, to me, don't say "leader" as much as "defender".
I agree about the Warden and Sentinel hitting the defender scheme better.
 




Personally, “Leader” is not a class
It was the name of the support-oriented formal Role in 4e, "healer" being narrow and having proven unpopular.
its a player job
What, like 'Caller?' IMX, most groups have no leader among the players - you might have stronger personalities or more vocal players who speak up more often when the DM asks "what do you do?"

So aren't you setting up failure and anger if a player believes by character design they have the RIGHT to lead the party?
How much have you seen that with players choosing the Noble background?
 

ClaytonCross

Kinder reader Inflection wanted
It was the name of the support-oriented formal Role in 4e, "healer" being narrow and having proven unpopular.
That maybe, but that does change player expectations of "I picked leader, so I am in charge."

What, like 'Caller?' IMX, most groups have no leader among the players - you might have stronger personalities or more vocal players who speak up more often when the DM asks "what do you do?"
I have not seen that to be the case. Usually, one player steps forward the call for votes and brings players back on mission point from tangents outside the GM. That's my experience at any rate. It is often based on the character they play as much as the GM know those are often a refection of each other. However, I have seen the leader shift from player to player depending on characters enough to know that despite stronger personalities in player, a stronger player playing a character who wants to be up to mischief this time around is not likely to be the leader because their goal is often to sneak away from the party … for example.

How much have you seen that with players choosing the Noble background?
Enough that its ban by most of the GM I have played with for that very reason.
 


Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top