Hussar
Legend
Another possible option, that I personally really like, is Myrmidon. Granted, I just looked up the dictionary definition, and it's not particularly good ("a follower or subordinate of a powerful person, typically one who is unscrupulous or carries out orders unquestioningly.") but, in my mind, it's sufficiently removed from common usage that it really doesn't carry a whole lot of connotative baggage. And, I'll note that Primeval Thule uses Myrmidon as a background with leadery/warlordy benefits, so, I don't think I'm alone in this. It's kind of like Paladin in that sense. Sure, by the dictionary, it's probably not the best name, but, again, it's so esoteric that most people probably aren't even aware or are only tangentially aware, of the root of the name.
True. But, let's be honest, once the rubber met the road, all those complaints largely died.
Fair enough. And, to be honest, that was true in 4e as well. You could certainly build a warlord in 4e that was much more than a corner coach and, in fact, that was probably the most common, and certainly easiest path, way to create a warlord. Tons of warlord effects were based on the warlord smacking someone first and then bringing someone in to finish the job. A low level example would be Hammer and Anvil - warlord smacks baddy and adjacent ally gets a free shot too. Pretty much every level of power options for a warlord had something along those lines. So, yeah, a warlord being able to shine as a solo warrior? Well, not so much. It's no different than a rogue or a bard in that sense. A lone rogue loses pretty much all of his offensive power - it's very difficult for a solo rogue to sneak attack. A lone bard isn't exactly rocking anyone's world in combat and is really meant to be part of a group.
But, at any rate, I look at the Order of the Avatar mystic as a proof of concept. Will D&D fans be happy with adding leader style mechanics to the game? So far anyway, I'd say that the answer is a resounding yes. No one seems particularly bent out of shape by the Avatar mystic. I've yet to see any real complaint about the mechanics. And, previous attempts have largely been seen positively too - Mastermind Rogue, Purple Dragon Knight, Battlemaster have all slipped in under the radar and been accepted into the game.
What we're seeing, in my opinion, is how masterfully WotC has managed the fanbase this time around. They have managed to slip in all sorts of elements incrementally and then sat back until those elements are no longer objectionable. Many of the elements that were incredibly hot button issues and, in fact, non starters in 4e, have managed to slide into 5e and become acceptable.
Give it another iteration of some other option that adds yet more leadery elements to the game and we'll likely see a warlord come down the pipe. The next proof of concept iteration will likely blur the line between supernatural and mundane to a large degree. Kind of like how bardic inspiration is currently unclear as to whether it's a supernatural effect or not. The next "leader" set of mechanics will look a lot like the Order of the Avatar mystic, but, possibly using something like ancient knowledge (a la monk training) to create effects. Not specifically supernatural but, esoteric enough that it satisfies both the non-supernatural crowd will leaving more than enough wiggle room for interpretation that the "building a class mainly based on class feature, and not spells ( or discipline) you can greatly reduce its versatility" crowd is happy too.
I gotta give WotC some HUGE kudos this time around. They learned the lessons of the 4e release and Paizo's approaches to fandom and have really done a masterful job of it.
