D&D 5E Best Name For A “Leader” Class?

[Tonguez]

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

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[OB1]

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.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Battlemaster

ducks

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Battlemaster

ducks

With six Medium Lasers, a PPC, 2 Machine Guns and an SRM-6 rack,
ducking might be a good idea...

 

[jasper]

Jasper

 

[DEFCON 1]

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]

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?