D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[LuisCarlos17f]

I would be the warlord will be in a sourcebook about mass battles and warbands skirmishes, and even in some RTS (set in Birthright?). Today some videogames are mixing ARPG and RTS, for example Warcraft III (now reforged version) or Kingdom Under Fire 2.

I imagine her with "troops" companions.. (troops as a monster subtype, close to the swarm), and the martial maneuvers of the white raven school (3.5 Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords).

 

[TwoSix]

Rob Schwalbe's Warlord class (which as I always point out in these threads already exists - and is written by one of 5E's designers - but which for some reason is always ignored), covers most of the above points - it has attack granting from level 2 (so no beginning as a lazy lord) it has buffs and buffs, it has some movement granting abilities - although mostly in the capacity of extra movement. What it doesn't do - which is what I personally enjoyed most about the 4E warlord is allow the big "I attack and then you attack" options or the off turn moves and combo set-ups. (But it's difficult to really pull of this sort of combo without the inclusion of an equivalent of daily powers).

I like Rob Schwalb (Shadow of the Demon Lord is one of my favorite games), but not a big fan of his Warlord attempt. It's OK, but didn't quite hit the nail on the head.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"people want the warlord, so they should have it,"

I think there are a small number of very shouty people who really really want it, and a lot of people who go "meh, not this dead horse again!".

Psionics is pretty much the same.

Personally, I'm with Rhett Butler.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jayoungr]

(Never mind, had a question but the thread answered it. Should read the whole thing before I post.)

 

[Aldarc]

I think there are a small number of very shouty people who really really want it, and a lot of people who go "meh, not this dead horse again!".

I think that this is inaccurate representation of all the various involved parties.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[dave2008]

Well I think I just disagree with the "we already have that" bit. I think we can create more subclasses that more closely align with 4e's original design.

I tend to agree with you, and I think the recent UA variant feature options would be a method to help create the warlord feel with the existing class/subclasses

 

[Undrave]

Title says it all. In effect, although I haven't played any edition other than 5e, my impression of the Warlord is that it is a class that excels in handing out bonuses to allies. These bonuses are all based upon the idea of an inspirational leader who is able to inspire, cajole, or otherwise boost their allies into getting some extra benefits to help them in battle.

I think that's a fun angle for a PC to have, especially when it's not based on magic. But here's the thing; it's hard for me to imagine someone who's just that. Robin Hood may be a warlord, but he's also a ranger. John Carter may be a warlord, but he's also a fighter. Conan may be a warlord, but he's also a barbarian. And when people hear warlord, they think of a person leading large groups of soldiers and controlling territory, not a guy directing a small group of adventurers.

If you do a google search of warlord, you get a collection of images of people that are mostly knights, soldiers, and samurai... archetypes already filled in other classes.

So what's my point? That although the warlord's schtick (giving boosts to allies through non-magical means) is a good one, it isn't one that I find particularly good alone, either mechanically or thematically.

However, I do think the warlord angle is a good idea as a subclass for several different classes, with these "inspiration abilities" layered over the classes base skills. I've already given some thematic examples of fictional characters above, but I'll give more ideas for names for some below (and these are just things I can think of easily, I'm sure one for each class can be devised);

• Barbarian: Path of the Conqueror
• Cleric: Inquisition Domain
• Fighter: Commander
• Paladin: Oath of the Crusade
• Ranger: Bandit Lord
• Wizard: Battle School

Add rules for mass combat, and bingo you got something that I think is pretty cool, and a lot more appropriate than a new class.

Alright, I now have time to get into it a bit...

So the game already has SOME elements of the Warlord, for sure. The Battlemaster has Commander Strike and Rally as well as a maneuver that helps to move an ally, the Mastermind Rogue has ‘Master of Tactics’ (Great feature!) and there’s the Inspiring Leader and Healer feats. But all of these have flaws.

‘Master of Tactics’ is the only thing the Mastermind does that is not self-serving. It’s a BRILLIANT feature but the rest of the Mastermind kit doesn’t work as a Warlord figure. It’s the Arcane Trickster of Tactics: a dabbler, at best.

I’ve already mentioned my position that Battlemaster feels more like a multiclass subclass than a full Warlord. The first problem is the fact that you can’t be the Tactician from round to round. A Spellcaster can use Cantrip and feel like a caster all the time all day long, and even more with Ritual Casting. The Battlemaster gets a handful of tricks per short rest. Is the Ranger a good substitute for the Druid? I’m sure we could flavor it well enough to justify it. If Commander Strike was simply an at-will ability that only added INT dmg like in 4e, for exemple, it wouldn’t break the game.

The second problem with the Battlemaster is the lack of progression. Your maneuvers you pick at level 3 are the best of the bunch and then all you do is pick your second-best choices later on. Your maneuvers at lv 20 will still do the exact same thing as they did at level 3, but now with more damage. You don’t get new maneuvers that help counter the new level of threat you encounter, your maneuvers don’t let you affect more than one ally at a time, nothing of the sort. A potential Warlord would need to be less front-loaded than the Battlemaster for sure.

Third problem is that it’s entirely possible to play a Battlemaster with 10 in all their mental stats and not be any less effective than another Battlemaster that spent point in INT or CHA (and nothing but Rally even uses a mental stat). The Tactical or Inspiring Leader aspect of it is entirely optional. Heck, the rest of the Fighter kit doesn’t give you any reason to invest in your mental stats to begin with (unless you want good perception I guess) so you can just focus on STR and CON (or DEX) and probably end up MORE effective than if you had ‘wasted’ points making your Rally maneuver slightly better.

Finally, the feats are good but I’ve said before that there’s a bunch of feats out there that feel more like Fighter Class features that were shunted to the Feat section of the book (to be pilfered by any other class) just so they could do the whole ‘Fighter get more Feats’ thing to appeal to 3e loyalist. Inspiring Leader could easily be folded into an CHA based Warlord subclass, and Healer into a different one (Combat Medic?).

Now, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to make subclass that are part Warlord for other classes. As mentioned we got the Mastermind and the College of Swords Bard. The Barbarian and the Sorcerer (and Monk too?) have Divine flavored subclasses but we still have Paladins and Clerics. But the reverse is also possible: A sneaky, underhanded, Rogue-ish Warlord, a Warlord that dabbles into Arcane magic or one who had a sudden religious revelation could all be interesting subclass of the Warlord.

I’m sure there’s plenty enough of material for multiple subclasses without going into the multiclass styles too! At the end of 4e we had: Tactical, Inspiring, Bravura (who put themselves at risk), Insightful, Skirmisher and Versatile (both INT and CHA) Warlords and some I don’t even recall.

There’s enough material to make a Warlord class (or whatever we want to call it, I don’t mind a name change), so I don’t see why not.

 

[TwoSix]

A. The lack of martial complexity and options; and

B. The idea that fans who supported D&D and WoTC during the tough times (aka, 4e) are not being recognized and supported now.

So that's why the Warlord will never go away; because it's not really about the Warlord. Again, IMO. Because if it was as simple an issue as a constellation of abilities and a name, then it wouldn't keep popping up with vitriol.

To be fair (to be faihhhhh), the issue could totally go away if WotC simply added more martial complexity and catered more to players who enjoyed 4e.

Not going to happen, of course, but it isn't an unfixable problem. It just probably isn't the most business-savvy approach.

Edit: Oh, and as a mythical "WF", I'm totally fine with 3pp Warlords. 5e has taught me to appreciate WotC's contributions but not depend on them. The number of "only official really counts" players is too damn high, though.