Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.

[Sacrosanct]

This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but not a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?

Just my opinion of course, but the only "story" validation I would need is if it fits the story of that particular game table that wants it. D&D isn't very good at reflecting fictional characters completely. The Gray Mouser, Elric, etc? What clear class are they? You kinda just go with what seems to work the best.

So while I see where you're coming from, I don't think we really need a story justification on whether or not the class should exist. Things like "can you create what you want with existing classes/subclasses/feats" are more legitimate reasons as to why there should or shouldn't be a warlord class IMO. YMMV of course.

 

[mellored]

This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but not a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?

What character could be a barbarian, but not a fighter?
What character could be a ranger, but not a fighter?
What character could be a paladin, but not a fighter?

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lelouch_Lamperouge

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's not. And the PDK is not a replacement for the Warlord. Sure it's got some of the features, but it's still mostly a fighter.

And no one said they shouldn't tone it down. But that's doesn't mean it shouldn't exsist. Wizards where overpowering in 3.5, but that doesn't mean 5e wizards shouldn't exsist, you just modify the numbers.

But that goes back to my post on page 1. No one can seem to agree what those things are. Almost every single discussion going back 2 years now, a lot of people want the 5e warlord to do what the 4e one did. And you can't do that in 5e without having an OP class. Every thread has this big list of things a warlord should do, but you can't have all of those in 5e because you're essentially getting the best of 2 classes in one. So when you need to pare down those abilities to fit with balance in 5e, no one can agree with what those abilities should be.

And that's why, from a designer's perspective, I see red flags all over the place where you'll piss off more people than who would be pleased with an official warlord, and instead let the fans create what they want by giving them to tools to do so.


*Edit* For the record, I'm not against a warlord in 5e. Heck, about 2 years ago, I even came up with my own version. The problem as I see it is how do you do it from an official standpoint for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[mellored]

But that goes back to my post on page 1. No one can seem to agree what those things are. Almost every single discussion going back 2 years now, a lot of people want the 5e warlord to do what the 4e one did. And you can't do that in 5e without having an OP class.

of course you can.

Try listing everything a wizard can do. Burn things, teleportation, turn invisible, fly, summon creatures, dominate people's minds, turn people to stone, reverse gravity, disguise themselves as anything, suck the life out of people, create illusion, clone themselves....
Over 30 different spells and 10 cantrips just at level 1.
it's a massive list, way bigger than the warlord, and everyone will have a different opinion on what spells they should be able to cast, and what their ideal version of a wizard is.

Yet you can have a wizard who isn't OP, because he can't do everything all at once. You have to choose which one you do.

Similarly, a warlord could have 20 maneuvers, but only do one at a time. Just don't do anything like give them more actions and you're fine.

And as a balance point, consider that a level 11 wizard could cast haste every battle. So a level 11 warlord should give out about the same amount.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The current group friendly option available to Battle Masters can boost damage movement/actions/grant advantage and grant temporary hit points. All of which are non-magical abilities.

As a stand-along class, I'm not sure how they'd make a 5E Warlord significantly different to the Battle Master, other than adding some group-friendly maneuvers.

I guess they could throw out some additional group-friendly maneuvers, boosting initiative, armour class, saves and so on.

And support for the other 2/3 of the game.

 

[Mecheon]

This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but not a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?

Alexander the Great, Zhunge Liang, basically any sort of legendary general

A fighter gets into the fray and cuts heads. The Warlord stands to the side and gives orders to achieve maximum victory

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Alexander the Great, Zhunge Liang, basically any sort of legendary general

A fighter gets into the fray and cuts heads. The Warlord stands to the side and gives orders to achieve maximum victory

Or leads the charge, with banner high/battle cry/howling, or hectors enemies, or any combination of those.

 

[steeldragons]

What's "hector[ing]" an enemy? That's a new one for me.

 

[77IM]

Alexander the Great, Zhunge Liang, basically any sort of legendary general

A fighter gets into the fray and cuts heads. The Warlord stands to the side and gives orders to achieve maximum victory

Those are excellent examples. Thank you.

 

[jayoungr]

As a game designer myself, that sends a HUGE message to me if I were on the WotC design team: If we were to release an official warlord in an UA, it would be met with an overwhelming response of "This sucks! It's horrible! What were they thinking!"

They kind of did, in SCAG's Purple Dragon Knight--I can dig out the quote if you want, but someone who worked on the book confirmed on a podcast that it was an attempt to get a warlord-like subclass into 5E. And I don't think any of the warlord fans on this board were happy with it (can't speak for anyone not on this board).