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

[Tony Vargas]

Usually, one player steps forward the call for votes and brings players back on mission point from tangents outside the GM. That's my experience at any rate. It is often based on the character they play as much as the GM know those are often a refection of each other. However, I have seen the leader shift from player to player depending on characters

Players have the same personalities, whatever class they play. It's a bigger issue than just which player tends to be more assertive, really, but not really relevant.

Enough that its ban by most of the GM I have played with for that very reason.

I've heard no complaints about the Noble background being conflated with party leadership - either at the table nor around here - but if that's where you're coming from, well, ban the things you need to ban.

Unlike the 5e Noble background, though, the explanation of the leader role made it perfectly clear it did not imply, let alone require, party leadership.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Which means you read very little of the thread and actually do not know what is referenced.

No, it means I object to the principal of naming any class or subclass under the scope of leader. I get 4e leader and healer... bla bla. The problem I have is the leadership association by a single players choice. The stated goal is to continue a skill set and all the names listed are "Leader" titles... warlord, commander.. in a party your not the commander of your party because you pick a subclass.

So like Tony Vargas said, "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. "

The "Leader" and all the titles suggested for it all depict leaders.... something like "Power Emissary" would be better for a class the supports and buffs its allies. Mastermind is the closest thing listed but even so it still sounds like someone controlling the party and that name is taken.

 

[Garthanos]

Unlike the 5e Noble background, though, the explanation of the leader role made it perfectly clear it did not imply, let alone require, party leadership.

I am sure all the Clerics demand your characters worship their gods and pay them proper respect for their role as the most important characters in any medieval world. The ones without whom the King cannot claim validity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am sure all the Clerics demand your characters worship their gods and pay them proper respect for their role as the most important characters in any medieval world. The ones without whom the King cannot claim validity.

Nod, there's been numerous instances of backgrounds, feats, PPs/EDs/PrCs/level-titles implying authority, position, and/or leadership (generally of NPCs, FWIW), from 5e on back to the early game.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Players have the same personalities, whatever class they play. It's a bigger issue than just which player tends to be more assertive, really, but not really relevant.


I've heard no complaints about the Noble background being conflated with party leadership - either at the table nor around here - but if that's where you're coming from, well, ban the things you need to ban.

Unlike the 5e Noble background, though, the explanation of the leader role made it perfectly clear it did not imply, let alone require, party leadership.

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.

… You have been saying the same thing as me.... Anything named so that it sounds like a leader will taken as a granting a leadership roll to the player despite the intent of the class / subclass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

… You have been saying the same thing as me....

Different context, much earlier in the thread, and different conclusion.

...
(Like anyone would willingly take up cat-herding that way.)

The concept can work, and quite well, it's the implication of position, rank, or legitimate authority that should be avoided.

It's a problem with hypothetical class names like Captain or Commander.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Nod, there's been numerous instances of backgrounds, feats, PPs/EDs/PrCs/level-titles implying authority, position, and/or leadership (generally of NPCs, FWIW), from 5e on back to the early game.

The thing is "background" implies its in the past and "Inspiring Leader" may initially feel like it grants a leadership but players read it and realize its just a speech that inspires for a bonus. Classes and Sub classes carry different weight. For example, even experienced players who have not played a warlock before often come to the table with hexblade warlock wielding a legendary sword (their supposed patron) and when its noticed and asked why they think they get that they say "I am hexblade, this is my patron"... to which we tell them time and time again... no where in the hexblade class does is say you get an artifact weapon ever... infact you don't get a weapon from the class at all and could be a very effective pact of the tomb caster never touching a melee weapon in the entire campaign but using hex worrier for just for better armor and a shield.

My point is naming class/subclasses with loaded names is far more dangerous to players who don't read every line of the text before building a character. Flavor or otherwise. I can't tell you how many player I have seen who didn't read anything past level 3 for there character and didn't read the flavor text. It just creates misunderstands. Warlord backgound can work if they are clear backgrounds are the past, the warlord/leader etc class will be picked for a cool name and cause problems later.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My point is naming class/subclasses with loaded names is far more dangerous to players who don't read every line of the text before building a character. Flavor or otherwise

That's a fairly trivial concern - even "Marshal," above, isn't as potentially problematic, that way as sub-classes right in the PH, like Thief (steal from your own party!) & Assassin.

 

[Garthanos]

Nod, there's been numerous instances of backgrounds, feats, PPs/EDs/PrCs/level-titles implying authority, position, and/or leadership (generally of NPCs, FWIW), from 5e on back to the early game.

Remember if you play with Lawful stupid Paladins to blame the class... its definitely the games fault

 

[ClaytonCross]

... it's the implication of position, rank, or legitimate authority that should be avoided.

It's a problem with hypothetical class names like Captain or Commander.

That's not different context... that's exactly what I am saying. In the context I am saying it in. Oo
_

Something like "Power Emissary" or "Tactician" would make way more since for a support class. Nothing that implies leadership is a good idea for class or subclass. A Tactician could be a leader, an adviser / support while warlord, captain, commander, warden, and Marshal all imply leadership.

Best Name For A “Leader” Class? - Should not be in the game.

Best Name For a support class designed after the 4e "Leader"? might be Tactician or something along those lines.