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

[Tony Vargas]

The very word "Leader" implies such authority; regardless how much pointless backpedalling they do on it the mistake has already been made.

It's not "backpeddling" when it's made perfectly clear in the very introduction of the concept.

Words have different meanings in different contexts, and as a label for the role, Leader was jargon. You don't have to like it, but you really should stop willfully misrepresenting it.

It's not the best name, and there's people who I play with who'd be raging about it to the point where I'd probably be forced to change it.

But you're not crusading against the Warlock on line. For whatever reason, you're content to change that only at your own table? But even mere discussion of a hypothetical "leader" you have to draw a line in the sand?

 

[Lanefan]

But you're not crusading against the Warlock on line. For whatever reason, you're content to change that only at your own table? But even mere discussion of a hypothetical "leader" you have to draw a line in the sand?

Warlock's a lost battle. Warlord - along with the general idea of a 'leader' class - isn't.

 

[Hriston]

When you play a game of “Follow the Leader”, do you feel that the person you’re following has authority over you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlock's a lost battle. Warlord - along with the general idea of a 'leader' class - isn't.

Further proof the Warlord needed to be in the PH.

 

[Lanefan]

Further proof the Warlord needed to be in the PH.

Or was seen as a flawed concept and - rightfully - scrapped.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or was seen as a flawed concept and - rightfully - scrapped.

The very fact you can choose to see something cool from a past edition that other fans would like very much to have in 5e that way illustrates the problem with excluding it.
How it make's 5e's 'big tent' smaller, and 5e's community less diverse and less welcoming.

 

[Zardnaar]

The very fact you can choose to see something cool from a past edition that other fans would like very much to have in 5e that way illustrates the problem with excluding it.
How it make's 5e's 'big tent' smaller, and 5e's community less diverse and less welcoming.

Not really. Warlord appeals to a small amount of people it's exclusion appeals to a larger amount.

Doesn't really fit either. At will attack granting with 5E Rogue. Worked in 4E because of the rogue design.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really. Warlord appeals to a small amount of people it's exclusion appeals to a larger amount.

See, that's backwards. Including an option some people want is not excluding people who won't use that option, themselves.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, that's backwards. Including an option some people want is not excluding people who won't use that option, themselves.

You cook potatoes. One person likes mint and adds it. Ten don't like the mint and don't eat the potatoes.

If you sell potatoes don't add mint.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You cook potatoes. One person likes mint and adds it. Ten don't like the mint and don't eat the potatoes.
If you sell potatoes don't add mint.

Individual players choose their classes. You don't want 'mint' you don't choose 'mint.' Try some pepper or garlic salt.
Or both, if the optional multi-seasoning rules are allowed.