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

[Horwath]

I would like to see warlord a spell-less paladin.

2nd level: no spells, no divine smite.
4 maneuver dice(d8), 2 maneuvers known.
lay on hands (5+cha bonus)×paladin level
5th level, +1 maneuver known(3 total)
6th level, auras as normal but 60ft range. 120ft at 18th level
9th level, +1 maneuver known(4 total), +1 die(5 total)
13th level, +1 maneuver known(5 total),
17th level, +1 maneuver known(6 total), +1 die(6 total),

 

[Sacrosanct]

Over the past 5 years, it seems to me:

• there has only been one new class since inception, the Artificer, and that was recent. So WotC seem very reluctant to introduce new classes (this also aligns with Jeremy's many statements on the topic of introducing new mechanics). And on the list of "missing" classes (artificer, psion, warlord, shaman, etc), it seems warlord is down on the list.
• we know WotC is not going to introduce new mechanics unless they have to. It goes directly against design philosophy and scope. Any new class would have to be setting specific
• as mentioned, no one quite agrees with what a warlord should look like in 5e*. Being able to port over a 4e version just isn't going to work. In those various threads in the past, it looks like to do so, you've got the abilities of two full classes into one class, and that brings major balance issues
• the number of people who really want it seem to be pretty few. I know people will disagree with that, but where is the data that shows a significant portion of the fan base really wants one (that can't be replicated via a combination of class/subclass/feats that already exist)? It's only the same half dozen very vocal people over the past few years on this forum at least. In a recent poll of what the next new class should be, the psion ran away with it. The warlord got very few votes. So in order to change my perspective on that, I need the data.

So all that being said, while I absolutely think there is room for a warlord class, I don't see how it could be done to be both unique, and satisfy the fans of the warlord. And I don't think it's high on WotC's design team knowing that they are adverse to creating new classes unless that class is directly tied to a particular setting, essentially making the new class mandatory, like the artificer.

* I'm gonna be honest. As a game designer myself, I wouldn't want to touch the warlord with a ten foot pole if I was working for WotC. Why? Because I've seen the vitriol and angst among fans just in the threads of how it should look, and I just know that no matter what I did, it would upset people and not be good enough. And I don't want that drama. No thanks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well I think Warlord should be a class!

The idea of a class that is about being....what? Badass? Inspiring? Is too limiting. I spoke some times of the equivalent of that class I have for my games: its called the Companion. Its not the Ulysses, the Jon Snow, the General Paton nor the Aragon of novels and movie that can better be replicated with other classes and some character building in game. Its the Samwise, the Sam Tarly, the Robin from said novel or movie. Its the type of character that help a group be more than the sum of their part, because its a world where, some times, the mundane wits and goodwill of the underdog CAN help even the most independent of heroes.

That's a kind of character you could do with the Warlord class, in 4e, usually with some of the build options that gave you the 'LazyLord,' It's a good example of, well, literally a sub-class a sub-set of the things the full class should be able to do. Of course, the class should also do the Bravura builds who /were/ badasses in their own right, too.

...ooh.. sub-classes...

The Warden, you usual quick witted, Int-based strategy/protector guy
The Emissary, the social specialist wanting to defuse situation instead of fighting
The Vagrant, the trope-y backpack guy who always have the necessary items on hands.
The Brave, that reckless friend we all have that have crazy plans that somehow always work.
Coming Soon: The Scholar, the wise friend who knows a bunch of stuff.

...let's compare notes!

Extant 'builds' from 4e:
Inspiring, the most literal 'leader' take and the concept most covered by feats &c in 5e, so far, all about CHA, best at restoring hps.
Tactical, the most military-leaning 'comander'ish take, MM's partial Fighter-sub-class design of the 'warlord' limited itself to this INT-based build.
Bravura, lead-by example combat bad-ass, a risk-taker who encourages the same in his allies.
Resourceful, planning an material preparation, down with Combat as War - and improv when the plan contacts the enemy.
Skirmisher, mobile scout/woodsman/guerilla, who can keep the party together & sticking to those tactics rather than go on ahead by himself.
Insightful/Watcher, observes & predicts enemies actions, understands their motivations

community ideas:
Icon ('LazyLord' - I like Garthanos's 'Princess Build,' but y'know, gender), it's not so much what the Icon does, as what they represent to the party. Can include the plucky side-kick who inspires by trying, even if he'll never be in the same league as his allies.
Marshal, commander of masses of faceless troops (could be a 'pet class' with a swarm-like template pet, or could be saved for a wargame spin-off, like it's namesake was in 3e)
Artillerist, an archer himself & an organizer of ranged-weapon & spell volleys
Teacher, advocate of a martial philosophy, not just practical tactics or techniques
Protector, the trope of the 'leader' who puts the lives of his allies first
Hector, inspired allies, but also goads and out-maneuvers enemies into making mistakes.
...
5e-style faux-MC sub-classes
Crusader - divinely-inspired to bring the faithful together for victory (cleric/palad)
Arcane Battlemaster - on the battlefield, leverages the most powerful of all resources: magic. (wiz)
Infernal Strategist - victory at any price, even your soul (warlock)
Thaneborn - traditional tribal leader who incites berserk fury in his allies (barbarian)
Ardent - telempath, projects inspiriation/courage/etc to his allies (Psion)

 

[Weiley31]

I seen a third party "Noble" who had the lazylord as one of its subtypes. Called way of the Heart or some such thing.

You are correct: it even has the ability to shed/discard it's helplessness to allow you to replace your levels in it to another class. For those who hate the lazylord aspect of it OR for the moment in the plot where your Noble DECIDES to do something.

 

[Weiley31]

5e already has a ‘warlord’. It’s a subclass. Battle master.

In my games, The Battlemaster is The Warblade.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would like to see warlord a spell-less paladin.

2nd level: no spells, no divine smite.
4 maneuver dice(d8), 2 maneuvers known.
lay on hands (5+cha bonus)×paladin level
5th level, +1 maneuver known(3 total)
6th level, auras as normal but 60ft range. 120ft at 18th level
9th level, +1 maneuver known(4 total), +1 die(5 total)
13th level, +1 maneuver known(5 total),
17th level, +1 maneuver known(6 total), +1 die(6 total),

It seems to me, that if I were to take a very macro look at a 5e warlord, it would be a hybrid between the battlemaster and the spell-less paladin. Some sort of hybrid.

 

[Aldarc]

Any generalizations will be inaccurate in part, but how inaccurate is it?

Very, especially when it is presented as a binary that ignores a side who were shouting down at the warlord fans any and all opposition to the idea of a warlord class. So yeah, it's egregiously inaccurate to present it as a loud vocal minority in support versus everyone else. I hope that answers your question.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems to me, that if I were to take a very macro look at a 5e warlord, it would be a hybrid between the battlemaster and the spell-less paladin. Some sort of hybrid.

The battlemaster certainly provides the mechanical seed: maneuvers.
The Paladin is an able support class, though more focused on personal DPR than the Warlord should be (and, it's at least a flexible focus, Smite is often the /best/ thing to do with slots, but not the only thing). Along with other support classes like the Bard and Druid, it would be a good benchmark to balance a 5e Warlord against.

But, my thought has long been that the Warlord would be to the BM as the Wizard is to the EK. A much lighter chassis, with a much greater proportion of it's power in it's resources (maneuvers, but maybe not via CS dice - the whole 'superiority' thing doesn't fit, the Warlord should not be even the equal of a fighter in that sense).

 

[Pauln6]

How about level 3 Mastermind Rogue and Banneret Fighter multiclass with Martial Adept Feat, Inspiring Leader feat, and the new fighting style from UA? Admittedly only 2d6 superiority dice but even so.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*