5E Best Name For A “Leader” Class?

Best name?

  • Herald

    Votes: 7 8.4%
  • Banneret

    Votes: 3 3.6%
  • Captain

    Votes: 15 18.1%
  • Warlord

    Votes: 22 26.5%
  • Marshal

    Votes: 31 37.3%
  • Mark

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

    Votes: 9 10.8%
  • Commander

    Votes: 13 15.7%
  • Warden

    Votes: 6 7.2%
  • Sentinel

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    83

Tonguez

Adventurer
Just to not that the term Captain was prior to the 16th century used for the Head of a Mercenary company, the Capitani di ventura, that operated in italy and across Europe before the rise of the large states (Germany, France) with larger more permanent armies. They were independent ’leaders’ fighting for gold and not part of a hierarchy
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
Of the existing options, I would probably go with Captain. It has the best feel.

I chose the Other option, though. I'd prefer the name Tactician for the sort of thing that the Warlord does, to indicate that they make the plans during combat, but don't necessarily outrank anyone else in the party. (It's not great to suggest that one PC is in charge of the other PCs.)
 
Last edited:
Well, I chose Marshal. I know it dates back at least to the 3.x Miniatures Handbook which had a few classes, the Marshall being one of them. In some respects it was basically an earlier version of the Warlord.
It was also pretty awful, to be honest.
''Marshal'. To "marshal" people around is a good part of what the class does,
Some builds more than others. Though that sense of the word would be great for a sub-class that actually marshals some troops it can use like a pet class or summon or the like (5e did finally get things like that to work, yes?)
but it also does not represent a status position above the others in the party, like 'Captain' or 'Commander' does. Or indeed like the idea of a "Leader" does too.
Well, it is a military rank (just not in the US, where it's a law-enforcement officer strongly associated with the Old West). While Warlord specifically eschews any implication of legitimate authority.
 
Last edited:

OB1

Jedi Master
Of the existing options, I would probably go with Captain. It has the best feel.

I chose the Other option, though. I'd prefer the name Tactician for what the sort of thing that the Warlord does, to indicate that they make the plans during combat, but don't necessarily outrank anyone else in the party. (It's not great to suggest that one PC is in charge of the other PCs.)
I'll second Tactician as a great name for the class.
 
I can see the benefit of avoiding a name that evokes military rank or command, however, I also don't really think it's all that big a deal. YMMV.

Stategos might work. As would Mentat for all those Dune fans out there. I might even advocate for Hip Hop Tic Tac Tician if I were feeling saucy.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
While Warlord specifically eschews any implication of legitimate authority.
shrug Well, I still always thought the name was dumb. It eventually just morphed into the name of the class as I would think about it during my time playing 4E so I don't really care... but if given the opportunity to state my preference (which this thread is doing), I'd still vote 'Marshal'. And if it doesn't work for other people?

Well, it's never going to appear in 5E anyway, so who really cares. ;)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I chose the Other option, though. I'd prefer the name Tactician for the sort of thing that the Warlord does, to indicate that they make the plans during combat, but don't necessarily outrank anyone else in the party. (It's not great to suggest that one PC is in charge of the other PCs.)
I'll second this, if such a class or role must exist at all.

I mean, if I sit down at the table and someone tells me I'm the Leader I'm going to expect to be playing the role of a leader, and that people are in the end going to do what I tell them to do.

Flip side, if I sit down at the table and someone tells me another PC is the Leader my first reaction would not be Grandma-friendly and would probably end with "off".

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; though my next question would be, what would make a Tactician different from a Fighter with some specialized training?
 
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;
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.

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.

though my next question would be, what would make a Tactician different from a Fighter with some specialized training?
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.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Just to not that the term Captain was prior to the 16th century used for the Head of a Mercenary company, the Capitani di ventura, that operated in italy and across Europe before the rise of the large states (Germany, France) with larger more permanent armies. They were independent ’leaders’ fighting for gold and not part of a hierarchy
yep, and it was a general term form someone who lead a band of warriors for a long time before it was ever a rank.

Fionn mac Chumhaill was a Captain. The idea of him as a “warlord” is just laughably incongruous, though.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Let’s call it the Fighter or Fighting-Man.
I’d love to turn the Fighter into the Captain, tbh. I don’t actually think that there is any identity to the fighter at all, and every single existing archetype would work just as well if it could do support stuff as part of attacking to represent being a paragon of martial prowess that others naturally look to for inspiration and battlefield strategy.
 
Let’s call it the Fighter or Fighting-Man.
You could roll every non-casting/non-supernatural class in D&D history into one - call it fighter or just Hero - and probably implement it in a worthy enough way without being OP compared to 5e casters.

But, 5e made the Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue individual classes, restricting them each to limited design & conceptual space, and balancing them with different flavors of high single-target DPR.

So, here we are.

Fionn mac Chumhaill was a Captain. The idea of him as a “warlord” is just laughably incongruous, though.
The Fianna served the High King. The High King might very well have been so by strength of arms, but that aside, their leader necessarily had legitimate authority and was set above those he led in status, as well. Fionn was a might hero, and personally superior to those he led in many other ways, as well.

That is, indeed, not what the Warlord class is meant to evoke. A character like that - if a PC ended up in command of a formal unit somehow - might work very well with the Warlord class, but the class is not limited to that sort of concept the way 'marshal' or 'captain' or other military ranks or positions would suggest.
 
Last edited:
Its very name would tend to suggest otherwise, as Lord of War....
The OP posted a definition, if you're unsure of the actual meaning, just start at the top.

The class has been out for 11 years, if you care to educate yourself in how D&D used it.
 

Aebir-Toril

Is lukewarm on the Forgotten Realms
I don't care what name it has as long as it's in the book.

That being a given, I chose Herald and Banneret, as each evokes less of a 'leader', and, perhaps, more of a martial marshal (ha ha ha).

Postscript: What's wrong with calling Support classes heal-bots? That's what they are right? 🙃
 

Advertisement

Top