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

[Hurin70]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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]

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?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Who said the warlord is giving commands?

 

[Hriston]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So...not me. Cool.