Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.
Gardens & Goblins
First Post
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.
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.
Sacrosanct
Legend
About every six months or so.
Here's the thing though. I don't think anyone has denied that there are some people who want the warlord. But if you look at all these threads, no one agrees as to what that should be, even among warlord fans. 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!" I am doubly sure of this response based on how a lot of people react to literally every UA already.
So, as a designer, at this point I'd leave it up to individual fans to create what they want and go with it, and just avoid the drama from the get go and spend my time designing things that have a greater overall appeal and less drama surrounding them. Like a new ranger....
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Now that's not trying to pick a fight. Nosir.
mellored
Legend
A non-magical support class. They use a mix tactics and inspiration to buff allies, and cajole enemies into bad position.
It was called Marshal in 3.5, and warlord in 4e.
In 5e, there are the mastermind and purple dragon knight subclasses, but they are too little for some fans, and you still end up spending most of your actions attacking instead of supporting. Similar to how an Eldritch knight isn't a good replacement for a wizard class.
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
It's also not honest. Not the first time he's made a comment like that, and yet has been unable to show one single person making that claim (that anything other than "I attack" is using magic.)
Sacrosanct
Legend
Why would anyone think the EK is a replacement for the wizard? Also, I know a lot of people think the warlord options in 5e are too little, but what I think is happening is they are comparing the 5e version to previous edition versions. Pretty much every class in 5e is toned down from previous editions. Just part of design. So yeah, I totally get why people may feel that way, but expecting a 5e variation with all the bells and whistles of a previous edition's version will just frustrate people. For better or worse, 5e is what it is.
ccs
41st lv DM
On the basis of this comment alone I oppose the 4e/Warlord fans in ever seeing this class officially added to 5e. You can wade through however many versions you can find on the DMGuild, pick your favorite, & then plead with your DMs to allow you to use it. And I hope your DM tells you "No".
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?
mellored
Legend
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.
