Also, like "fixed that for you" and " called, they want their back," not nearly as clever as they seem to think.which precludes any relevance of a “XYZ would like a word” reply.
Any military rank is going to imply legitimate authority, superior social position, and the role of literally leading the party & giving other PCs (and players) commands they 'must' follow. None of which is desirable. Non-military uses of Captain, like a ship's captain, carry most of the same issues, and even the very tenuous metaphorical "Captain of Industry" implies superior social position and top-level accomplishment in the field.I thought that "Captain" at least had the benefit of being more ambiguous towards the relative social position of the person vs. alternatives like "Commander" and "Warlord", and does at least sometimes apply to someone who is leading only nominally and by consent. But it does seem firmly entrenched in some people's minds as a ship's captain, and I can hardly complain about this when my own issue with "Marshal" is that it immediately makes me think of a military rank above general (well, that and an old west lawman).
Already in use as a non-Cormyrian PDK.Perhaps "Banneret"
Was already a build (sub-class) of the original Warlord. Would be too narrow.Tactician?
Accomplice is amusing... Get the Accomplice together with the Mastermind and the Thief....How about Accomplice?
Umm, okay, but a D&D party typically deploys and directs themselves and doesn’t take “marching orders” from anyone. I think this is a really flawed premise for a class. It shouldn’t be one member of the party’s job to give orders to the other members. It’s definitely not a class I would want to play with in my party.The Standar Bearer generally didn't fight -- because he had to hold the standard. So the term might fit the Lazylord, but it doesn't fit the Bravura Lord. Also, the standard bearer was subordinate to the actual leader, who ultimtely called the shots. The only officer whose role was specifically to deploy the troops, issue them marching orders, and generally direct the army was the Marshal. That's why we still use the word Marshall in this sense today: he 'marshalled' his troops.
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.@Hriston: yes, i understand what you are saying, and the class may not be for everyone's group. I personally find though that other players are far less likely to dislike the leader shouting out 'orders' when those 'orders' consist of things like taking extra saves, movement, and attacks. And of course you can always disobey those 'orders' if you like.
To marshal as arrange or select for effectiveness and direct solicitously ... Marshal as a verb fits very well.The Standard Bearer generally didn't fight -- because he had to hold the standard. This is for example what Joan of Arc did. So the term might fit the Lazylord, but it doesn't fit the Bravura Lord. Also, the standard bearer was subordinate to the actual leader, who ultimtely called the shots. The only officer whose role was specifically to deploy the troops, issue them marching orders, and generally direct the army was the Marshal. That's why we still use the word Marshall in this sense today: he 'marshalled' his troops.
We addressed all this on the first page, and expanded upon it, rather than ask you to read the whole thread or retype all that, here:How is “leader” a valid concept for a class? Why is this thread about finding a name for a “leader” class that doesn’t imply authority, legitimate or otherwise. It seems like a flawed premise.
For that matter "Leader" isn't the best term for Support classes, in general, just better than the prior "Healer" "Cleric" and "Band-Aid"
Leader is problematic as a way of saying "Support oriented class," because it implies (no matter how clearly you may state otherwise up-front) 'leading' the other PCs, and, by extension, their players.
(Like anyone would willingly take up cat-herding that way.)
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
So leader is just a euphemism for support class? If so, I think torchbearer works on a lot of levels including being the literal leader, as in the one who goes first.We addressed all this on the first page, and expanded upon it, rather than ask you to read the whole thread or retype all that, here:
It was the jargon label for the formal support Role in 4e, along-side Striker, Defender, and Controller.So leader is just a euphemism for support class?
Well, it’s good to know the 4E usage doesn’t necessarily imply “the guy in charge”, but rather perhaps someone who exhibits leadership: a leader, rather than the leader.It was the jargon label for the formal Role in 4e, along-side Striker, Defender, and Controller.
"Euphemism" is fair, though, since the whole band-aid-cleric and healbot stereotypes had gotten pretty negative in the preceding decades....
....in the way of things, maybe the euphemism needs a euphemism to avoid the negativity.
Nevertheless its use here seems to have created the impression, at least in some posters’ minds, that we are talking about someone in a position to issue orders to other party members, e.g. @Hurin88 ’s statement that standard-bearer is a bad fit because subordinate to the actual leader.