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

[Hriston]

@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.

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.

 

[Hriston]

Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of what this class is supposed to represent. What is it supposed to do? If I was going to design this class, I’d just get rid of the “leader” part and make a class based on the rest of it. At this point, though, I’m really not sure what that’s supposed to be because the OP says nothing to explain it.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

To marshal as arrange or select for effectiveness and direct solicitously ... Marshal as a verb fits very well.

 

[Hriston]

Torchbearer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

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:

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

 

[Hriston]

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:

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So leader is just a euphemism for support class?

It was the jargon label for the formal support 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.

 

[Garthanos]

Modern terminology combat coordinator ... well that describes some of them. Not all nor does it describe how the icon/lazylord does it.

 

[Hriston]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hurin70]

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.

I did note that 'leader' is a bad term for the archetype's role, because the core of the role was healing (all leaders got healing; but not all leaders issued orders like the Warlord did). That is why, to me, the term 'leader' never really fit the archetype (whereas Controller, Striker, and Defender all worked reasonably well). 'Healer' would have been better, but as Tony Vargas notes, there were other reasons why the developers wanted to get away from that term.

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.

In short:
--The archetype is Healer/Support, and does not imply command
--The specific class is Warlord/Marshall/Captain, and does imply leadership/command (even if just in the informal sense in which Captain America is often the tactician of the Avengers, when he devises the plan and is the one other members often look to for tactical guidance).

That's just my perspective of course.