D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[Paul Farquhar]

They're irrelevant to the character concept regardless of how they're flavoured. That won't help. You're not doing the thing you could do, and homebrew shows that you should be able to do

If there isn’t a spell that has the effect you want create a custom spell and add it to the bard list. Or use that homebrew you like.

As already stated, the warlord was invented to fill a mechanical gap in the 4e rules. A gap that doesn’t exist in any other version of D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

did they? i was under the quite distinct impression that they used 'powers' which are a significantly differently designed structure of mechanics from 5e's 'spells'

to me, saying 5e can use 'spells' because '4e did it' is like saying a rugby/american football helmet with the open grill face covering serves the same purpose as wearing a welding mask when you weld metal because they're both 'protective headgear'

not to mention in 4e, to some people 'everything was a spell' which just wasn't accurate.

Moreorless, 4e used the same "power" format for all actions, including spells and weapon attacks. It was mainly the flavor that distinguished one power from an other. For players who care about narrative flavor, this is an effective and customizable approach. (Heh, I almost said, "a powerful approach".)

For example, even in 5e, one can use the spell format to describe a simple sword attack.



LONGSWORD
Martial maneuver

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 5 feet (Melee)
Components: S, M (longsword)
Duration: Instantaneous

With longsword in hand, you launch an onslaught against your foe. Make a Melee Weapon Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 slashing damage. If you use both hands, to wield the longsword, its damage die increases to 1d10.

At Higher Levels. At level 5, you can attack twice instead of once, when you use this maneuver to attack. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach level 11, and to four when you reach level 20.



Similarly, 4e design utilized a standard of format for the various kinds of actions.

 

[Corinnguard]

Yes, just like how any Barbarian is a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent.

Which is probably why the Barbarian class was renamed the Berserker class in Level Up. Monks, Paladins and Warlords were all renamed in this RPG (Adept, Herald and Marshall).

 

[Yaarel]

Which is probably why the Barbarian class was renamed the Berserker class in Level Up. Monks, Paladins and Warlords were all renamed in this RPG (Adept, Herald and Marshall).

Does Level Up touch on the shamanic aspects of the Berserkr?

 

[James Gasik]

The point being that the real-world connotations of the class names has very little to do with what they are in D&D. Paladins are not one of the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Rangers are not mounted soldiers, and Warlocks? Well the origin of the word is the old english wærloga, which means traitor- an odd choice for someone who made a pact with an entity to gain power.

 

[Corinnguard]

Does Level Up touch on the shamanic aspects of the Berserkr?

It would be easier if I provide you a link.

Berserker (class) | Level Up

a5e.tools

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Paizo is playtesting the commander class.

I wonder how would be playing with warlord classes in Cerilia/Birthright.

Could a warlord to be the captain of a ship? For example in a Spelljammer campaing.

My opinion is to roleplay a good warlord you should understar the keys of the true leadership and how a team works together.

* Could we see the return of the martial adepts? I know it is hard because psionis hasen't arrived yet really.

 

[Minigiant]

I did not pull statistics out of my hat.

Also, by your definition, you are no true scotsman if you don't agree on those concepts. So it should be 100%.

I do like the warlord. I don't like them being artificially divided from the fighter. This was just a 4e thing. Because of roles. And power sources.

It's not no true Scotsman.

@Reynard say that Warlord fans cannot agree.

I said that is wrong.
On the concept of how a Warlord class would look, 90% of them agree. Most Warlord class homebrew follow the same patterns which branch into either an internal or external tactics subsystem.

However if you try to bridge the Fighter and the Warlord into one class, there is nothing but disagreement. Which is why WOTC won't do it. Because the Warlord fandom will never agree on design that combined fighter and Warlord, bard and Warlord, or makes a Warlord subclass. They will fight over how much fighter and how much Warlord. They will fight over supporting a simple build. They will fight over Int, WIS, or Cha build. They will fight over Inspiring, Tactical, Insightful, or Mascot focus.

Which is exactly what your preference is.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Moreorless, 4e used the same "power" format for all actions, including spells and weapon attacks. It was mainly the flavor that distinguished one power from an other. For players who care about narrative flavor, this is an effective and customizable approach. (Heh, I almost said, "a powerful approach".)

For example, even in 5e, one can use the spell format to describe a simple sword attack.



LONGSWORD
Martial maneuver

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 5 feet (Melee)
Components: S, M (longsword)
Duration: Instantaneous

With longsword in hand, you launch an onslaught against your foe. Make a Melee Weapon Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 slashing damage. If you use both hands, to wield the longsword, its damage die increases to 1d10.

At Higher Levels. At level 5, you can attack twice instead of once, when you use this maneuver to attack. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach level 11, and to four when you reach level 20.



Similarly, 4e design utilized a standard of format for the various kinds of actions.

My point being, although the structure of both powers and spells are quite similar on an individual level the structure of the entire system around them that they are used by, AEDU VS spell slots respectively, is significantly different, and that means ‘just give warlords spells’ has entirely different implications for them in 5e than it did in 4e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You proved my point.
You are suggesting a warlord within the fighter.

Because multiple designers have created a homebrewed Warlord class that has those main archetypes as it's subclasses. It's an agreed upon concept among most Warlord fans.

2 big homebrewers did it. ENWorld Publishing did it. MCDM is doing it. Paizo is doing it.

WOTC just wont do it as they are anti-new-classes and anti-subsystems.

This purely a WOTC problem. They won't dedicate real page space to a well made subsystem except for magic spells, magic items, and feats unless absolutely forced (see Artificer Infusions).

If you know this is the situation regarding WotC... have you moved on from waiting for it and just went with one of LaserLlama's or EN World's, or Kibblestasty's versions and used that one instead?

At some point, fans of the Warlord need to just play rather than waiting for WotC to get around to it. Because by not playing any version, they are tacitly proving WotC right if the company thinks that there aren't enough fans of the class to warrant making one themselves.