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

[Zardnaar]

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.

If it's you and DM sure. The campaign is the pot though so everyone else gets mint regardless if they want it.

They did some very simple calculations.

Do we make more money including or excluding the warlord. The proof is the phb. They knew what people hated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it's you and DM sure. The campaign is the pot though so everyone else gets mint regardless if they want it.

Sorry, no. If no one at a table reaches for the mint, it might as well not be there.

You're not talking about people objecting to something they don't want, themselves, you're talking about people insisting they have the right to tell everyone else what they can and can't play. Not just at their table, but globally.

At best, that's gatekeeping.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry, no. If no one at a table reaches for the mint, it might as well not be there.

You're not talking about people objecting to something they don't want, themselves, you're talking about people insisting they have the right to tell everyone else what they can and can't play. Not just at their table, but globally.

At best, that's gatekeeping.

Take it up with WotC. Want a warlord play 4E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Take it up with WotC. Want a warlord play 4E.

Again, exactly why it should have been in the PH.

 

[Zardnaar]

Again, exactly why it should have been in the PH.

Jump up and down as much as you like. It was cut for a reason and everyone knows why.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At best, that's gatekeeping.

It was cut for a reason and everyone knows why.

Yup.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just a personal thing for me, but I couldn't care less what the class is called. I just don't hang a lot of importance on it.

Nor should anyone - which is why it doesn't need to change.
Campaigning to change the name is making the name of classes more important than has ever actually (or, given how squirrelly some of the names are if you look at 'em too hard, ever should have) been the case.

Enough different concepts get build out of the base classes that the name the class has may or may not end up being that descriptive of the final product. Cleric, for example, describes the fluff of the mechanics, but more times than not, doesn't describe the character in play. Not all Rogues are rogues. I use the Bard class to build all sorts of concepts, many of which aren't remotely connected to strumming a lute.

Nod. But, unlike Cleric, Rogue and Bard are evocative, and Rogue a bit edgy, while Bard evokes the period, at least somewhat.

. That being the case, I'd rather have a cool class name than a really accurately descriptive one. If you take out the anachronistic phrase "small unit tactics", and replace it with "knows how to organize men in battle", most of names suggested here work just fine.

All the familiar military-rank examples end up feelling anachronistic, too, though.

And, of course, the class already has a name: Warlord.

 

[Zardnaar]

Warlords a crap name for a silly concept.

The class concept is flawed as well, really only makes sense in 4E. Martial leader, cheerleader that heals.

Vs a charismatic or intelligent fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Warlords a crap name for a silly concept.

The class concept is flawed as well, really only makes sense in 4E. Martial leader, cheerleader that heals.

Vs a charismatic or intelligent fighter.

eh, you’ve been proven wrong by the many, many, viable 3pp and homebrew versions of the concept for 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

TBF, Zard, the concept is common in genre, and even IRL. To assert that 5e, the version of the game striving to be so inclusive of players & playstyles, can't handle it is pretty damning.