Oh, no. I wasn't trying to say its not a good class, or one that don't need to be there. I just haven't seen the class and don't know its strengths and weaknesses. I posted my question after reading the first page of this thread without going further. I can see I might need to read all 17 pages. I would just like some kind of summary of what the class does that makes it so popular that people are calling for it to be made in 5th Edition. Does Pathfinder have something similar? Does some of the older versions of the game have something similar? You have to realize I went from 1E, to OSR, to 5E, so my question is honest, and not part of any alterior motive.
Well, unfortunately, we get this sort of question a lot, and it's not always asked with an open mind, but I'll try.
The Warlord was the continuation of a concept that appeared in 3e, the Marshal class. The two go about their business in different ways, as I understand it--I'm not very familiar with the 3e Marshal--but they both had a fairly similar core idea. Martial characters (those who use arms, skill, armor, and tactics, rather than arcane secrets, divine favor, or otherwise "mystical" assistance) who rely heavily on one or more mental attributes (Int/Wis/Cha), and who possesses moderate skill at fighting but is more about enabling other characters to be better at what they do. Both the Marshal and the Warlord had abilities to help maneuver allies around the battlefield (though the Warlord was arguably better at it), and both of them had some kind of passive benefit that all allies nearby received (for the Marshal, it was called "auras," while for the Warlord it was called a "presence").
Pathfinder doesn't appear to have any *core* classes that are absolutely equivalent, but it does have a "base" class (not sure what the difference is) called "
Cavalier" which is very similar, just with the addition of mounted combat stuff. Archetypes can let you get even closer--it's not perfect, but it's very similar. For example, instead of having a "command presence," the Cavalier can "provide the benefit of a Teamwork feat" to all allies within 30 feet as long as they can see and hear the Cavalier. There's also at least one PrC called "Battle Herald," though (sadly) it requires Inspire Courage, which is a magical ability--why it needs that I'm not sure, since it doesn't actually advance that ability and isn't explicitly magical. Regardless, the point is that classes which do stuff very similar to the Warlord
are present in Pathfinder.
I, personally, would argue that the Warlord is what happened to a part of the Fighter that was shed at some point: the interaction with followers. The Fighter used to become a Lord at some point, and gain men-at-arms; this hasn't been a thing since 3e, and possibly earlier (my 2e experience is solely with CRPGs, so I don't know if the followers were removed from it for programming reasons or if they were just absent by that point). However, because "hirelings" in general were no longer a major feature of the game, the focus of that "captain leading fellows" switched from NPCs to the Fighter's fellow party members; the Marshal expanded that, and the Warlord expanded it further (and differently).
One of the things that is almost always stressed about the Warlord--a major positive for fans, a major sticking point for detractors--is that the Warlord was
explicitly non-magical. I already mentioned this above, but I just wanted to be clear: nothing the 4e Warlord did was considered "magic." In my opinion, what exactly, "magic" means to any given person--literally all things "supernatural" or which couldn't happen here on Earth, or just those things which are arcane secrets/Divine boons/Nature's esoteric power--has a lot to do with how people feel about the Warlord class.
As for the specific things the 4e Warlord did, it varied slightly depending on how you put it together. 4e was big on having each class contain no less than 2, and often 5 or more "styles" or "builds" by choosing class features (much like PF's Archetypes, but the choice is baked into the class from level 1). For the Warlord specifically, you chose a
style of leadership--your method for either improving or assisting your party-mates at doing
stuff. Eventually there were six different "style" choices, which emphasized different behaviors (defense vs. offense, risky attacks vs. tactical coordination, etc.) There were also some options that could let you specialize in ranged combat instead of melee combat (the default for Warlords). Also, was juuuust possible, if you picked the right options, to play a Warlord that never actually made any attacks at all--instead, that specific kind of Warlord worked by granting special, off-turn attacks to party members; this is known as a "Lazy" or "Princess" Warlord, and was somewhat popular even though it never had any "official" status. Additionally, and this is a sticking point for some people, Warlords had an ability that could restore HP up to a limit*, but generally they weren't especially good at that (they could invest in being better at it, but it wasn't their strongest suit).
So, to sum that all up briefly:
1. Yes, this class has existed since at least 3rd edition, and yes, it has analogous classes in PF (both a "base" class and a PrC, just taking the first one I found that worked).
2. Although it's debated, I'd argue it hearkens back to something the Fighter used to have, but shed at some point.
4. The 4e Warlord had a support-focused kit, and specialized in moving allies around the battlefield (4e combat is less mobile than 5e), improving allies' offensive abilities (attack, damage, sometimes even initiative), and allowing allies to take extra/off-turn actions.
5. Some Warlords never attacked at all, but most were melee attackers who favored Strength plus one mental stat (Int, Wis, or Cha) depending on chosen class features.
6. The 4e Warlord could heal, though only up to a limit*, and other support (aka "Leader" in 4e lingo) classes were better at it.
Anything I could say beyond this--and I've tried to write this paragraph four times now--would be either coercive or trying to frame the argument in my favor. Suffice it to say, *I believe* those who oppose the Warlord either see something deeply wrong with one of the typical features of the Warlord (particularly its ability to restore HP without magic), or feel that "Warlord fans," as a group, are unpleasable without breaking the game...or just oppose the addition of any new classes whatsoever. Suffice it to say that I am not opposed to the addition of new classes, I think there is nothing wrong with the general
idea of many of the Warlord's mechanics (but definitely that they need to change to fit a new edition), and have no problem with a Warlord that can restore HP.
