• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 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

Garthanos

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

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
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

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
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.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
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.
 

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. ;)
 

Hurin88

Adventurer
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. ;)

Yes, though DoctorBW's point is still made I think: Boromir has the skills and ability to command -- he is a 'Warlord/Marshall/Commander' -- but the members of the party didn't obey him like privates obeying their sergeant. So I think Boromir is a great example of why people shouldn't worry too much about the names that have a connotation of command. No character is compelled to obey any other.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.

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. ;)
That makes my point stronger, though for two-thirds of the books, Aragorn is the leader of the group.

Regardless, I don't think the "suggests legitimate authority" argument holds all that much water. Why does "legitimacy" of the authority matter? Warlord suggest the sort of authority that will have you killed if you question their authority.
 

Warlord suggest the sort of authority that will have you killed if you question their authority.
Have you killed by an ally willing (at that moment) to kill for them, in spite of their having no legitimate authority, sure. Which is hardly out of line for weird loyal anarchy of an adventuring party.

Regardless, I don't think the "suggests legitimate authority" argument holds all that much water. Why does "legitimacy" of the authority matter?
No argument based on connotations or shades of meaning or implications of the name of a class holds any water, at all, since the name is just a label used in the game, not in the world. (Prestige classes might be an exception, since they can represent in-fiction membership actually sought out by the character, for instance).
But, once, for lack of any cogent argument against the class, you make that sort of argument against the name 'Warlord,' you open the door to the same sorts of spurious arguments being made against each and every alternative you suggest. And, spurious arguments are extremely easy to come up with.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Have you killed by an ally willing (at that moment) to kill for them, in spite of their having no legitimate authority, sure. Which is hardly out of line for weird loyal anarchy of an adventuring party.

No argument based on connotations or shades of meaning or implications of the name of a class holds any water, at all, since the name is just a label used in the game, not in the world. (Prestige classes might be an exception, since they can represent in-fiction membership actually sought out by the character, for instance).
But, once, for lack of any cogent argument against the class, you make that sort of argument against the name 'Warlord,' you open the door to the same sorts of spurious arguments being made against each and every alternative you suggest. And, spurious arguments are extremely easy to come up with.
The arguments against the warlord name aren't spurious. It's a crap name.

And you shouldn't ever be intentionally making spurious arguments. That's explicitly arguing in bad faith.

Since you admit that this is what you are doing, I'm going to stop interacting with you in any way for a while, as I find the behavior quite distasteful.
 

The arguments against the warlord name aren't spurious. It's a crap name.
That is a spurious argument of the lowest order. A mere contradiction, as the Monty Python sketch would have said. ;)

You could call any name of any class a crap name. It's a crap argument.

And you shouldn't ever be intentionally making spurious arguments. That's explicitly arguing in bad faith.
Like I said, you opened that door.

Since you admit that this is what you are doing, I'm going to stop interacting with you in any way for a while, as I find the behavior quite distasteful.
I'm just making the same kinds of arguments you are, on the same kind of subject, if you find them distasteful when I make them, re-consider using them so heavily, yourself.

Warlord is the name the class got in it's only implementation, it's clearest and most convenient to continue using.
Class names in D&D do not bear much scrutiny when it comes to actual dictionary definitions or every possible connotation or implication, so it's effortless to find fault with them. It's also pointless, unless all you want to do is generate controversy for it's own sake.
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
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.
Okay, but what is giving commands other than telling people what to do? If that isn’t what this class is all about conceptually, then what is?
 

Okay, but what is giving commands other than telling people what to do? If that isn’t what this class is all about conceptually, then what is?
Well, a power that has a requirement like "the ally must be able to hear & understand you" might be literally a command, as a name like "Commander" might imply, or it might be a warning, pointing out an opportunity, offering advice, giving encouragement, or coordinating a pre-arranged or oft-used battle plan/trick/maneuver. Without such a restriction, a maneuver that granted an ally an attack or bonus might also/instead involve creating an opening by binding then enemy's weapon or shield and/or distracting it.
 
Last edited:


Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Who said the warlord is giving commands?
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.
The Warlord class, though, to me, implies the ability to command others. That's why I prefer the terms Warlord, Marshall, and Captain for the class.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top