D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[Hussar]

It's not like the concept was so obscure that no one would ever think of it. Heck I've been trying to play "leader of men" since very early 2e. Just never had a class that fit.

Which is largely why I want a warlord in 5e.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Heck I've been trying to play "leader of men" since very early 2e. Just never had a class that fit.

That sucks. Have you tried roleplaying it? I've been playing the "leader of men" trope in D&D since 1978.

 

[Pickles III]

The very best games have the mechanical effects tie in with what is happening in the fiction.

What made Runequest2 such a great game for me back in 1980 was the fact it was that it was so deeply embedded in Glorantha with its battle magic & rune magic being unique to that world. It lost a lot when it became more generic (for me in part disillusionment with the core system).

Now you can just role-play your cleric as a wise old warrior giving out advice but if you are just casting blees every fight that might feel like you are in fact just a cleric.

 

[Pickles III]

Here's a 5e "warlord" for 12 levels above which I am totally (as opposed to mostly) unqualified to design. It's tactical - not sure where I would put subclass splits or whether there should be options at some levels instead of the fixed picks. In any case this would be a build that fell out from possibly more options.

Of course I don't know if it's properly balanced without playing & I think the at will may be too fiddly for 5e but would keep a player involved. It could also do with another bonus action effect to give options there rather than spamming the one thing.


Level Ability Which does:
1 Battleplan: Directed Strikes; Bonus action: give +int mod to one attack damage roll one target enemy (At will)

2 Stratagem: Look Out!; As reaction add your proficiency to an allies defence. Use after attack roll is made before determining results (Short rest)

3 Battleplan: Practised Manoeuvre; Bonus action: ally uses reaction to move ½ speed ignoring disengaging strike (At will)

4 ASI

5 Set the Trap; As an action you & each ally within 30’ can make an attack or move your speed ignoring disengaging strikes or cast one cantrip. Each ally that takes advantage must use their reaction to do so. (long rest)

6 Improved Battle plans: Next 2 damage rolls/ target 2 allies

7 Respected Leader; Advantage on CHA checks to influence groups (waffle)

8 ASI

9 Stratagem: Coordinated assault Use your bonus action to nominate an ally. When you use your action to attack this turn that ally may use his reaction to attack the same target (short rest)

10 Practised Stratagems You may use each stratagem twice per short rest

11 Superior Battle Plans: All allies/All attacks.

12 ASI

The presence of Eldritch blast messes up cantrip granting a bit as it's a full attack sequence worth rather than a single attack as are rogues effectively.

An inspiring character would grant THP & save bonuses /rerolls based on CHA
A bravura character would be better at fighting (+1 hp /level & extra attack at 6th) but would reward people for attacking his assailants & would have to lead by example
A lazy warlord (the classic fat crime boss/princess/used beast of burden trader) would get attack granting at level 1, would lose partial proficiency but would be able to push INT & CHA & get a broader range of abilities)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The very best games have the mechanical effects tie in with what is happening in the fiction.

What made Runequest2 such a great game for me back in 1980 was the fact it was that it was so deeply embedded in Glorantha with its battle magic & rune magic being unique to that world. It lost a lot when it became more generic (for me in part disillusionment with the core system).

I whole-heartedly agree. Heck, it's why any version of Deadlands, that is not the original from Pinnacle, is a daggum travesty...

But the problem is, "leader of men" is a personality trope, not a class. As evident by the fact that it can be realized through roleplayed just fine (and has been for decades). This is irrefutable.

A desire to have a great deal of "mechanical effects [that] tie in with what is happening in the fiction" can be (doesn't have to be, but can be) an indicator that there are other systems better suited for the individual's needs than 5e. That's not a bad thing, just sayin'.

Now you can just role-play your cleric as a wise old warrior giving out advice but if you are just casting blees every fight that might feel like you are in fact just a cleric.

And yet you can play a religiously devout warrior (and with the acolyte background he even becomes an honest-to-god, full-fledged priest!).

The problem with saying that you want "leader of men" to have mechanical weight in a game like D&D, is that it is implicitly seeking a leadership role over the other PCs. Because, after all, those other PCs at the table are the "men" you are seeking to "lead". Look, this particular dead horse has been thoroughly bludgeoned in countless threads at this point, but there it is.

 

[Pickles III]

The problem with saying that you want "leader of men" to have mechanical weight in a game like D&D, is that it is implicitly seeking a leadership role over the other PCs. Because, after all, those other PCs at the table are the "men" you are seeking to "lead". Look, this particular dead horse has been thoroughly bludgeoned in countless threads at this point, but there it is.

It is an issue you seem to take particular exception to, I can't recall anyone else having it.

I like agency for my PC it is why I like balanced power levels including point buy stats, broadly balanced class power, even levels for new characters. I am anti fudging, anti "GM story telling" & so on.

I do not find the leader role as it was called actually requires being a "leader" in the sense of bossing around the other players.

When 4e came out I was playing City of Heroes which had classes that mirrored 4e roles. Except their defender class was called Tanker & their leader class was called Defender, which is a much better name IMO.

If we leave the baggage of support characters being called leaders in 4e & call them defenders or describe them as support characters or anything that removes any hint of a connection with them removing player agency by forcing other PCs to do things then do you still have a problem?


I play a lazy warlord in 4e right now I am a used Kank salesman in Darksun based on a character in British TV called Arthur Daley who was a wheeler/dealer that relied on his "Minder" Terry to do all of his fighting (the 80s show was called Minder & I remember it being great 30 years ago).

I grant other characters attacks a fair bit plus tell them to dodge trouble & heal them & let them move around a bit more than usual.
When granting them attacks I have never been accused for removing their free will rather they like to make more attacks to the extent that I spread them around a bit more than is strictly optimal (though this is 4e so we are pretty safe).

While I could play a leader as an imperious bossy boots* it would still not remove agency from the players - there would still be the out of game social contract that they get to do what they want to do. I cannot compel either them or their characters in game to actually do anything they do not want to.

Of course I like warlords


*I did play a conventional High Elf tactical warlord like this but he mostly did his own fighting anyway

 

[Miladoon]

5E has a mechanical leader of men. But apparently it does not leader of men enough. A common mantra is 'too fightey'. There are even official subclasses for leader of men. Fan-based fixes to leader of men, apparently are way OP.

Mantra 2. The low magic support class is warlord. Because fightey.

I see no future for this class in 5E.

EDIT: I think this snippet from the Miniatures Handbook is interesting"

"...An adventurer faces many physical and mental challenges, mostly in mundane, arcane, and supernatural combat. A commander of a warband or army, however, faces these challenges and more—directing troops to where they can do the most good, knowing which ones are dependable and which ones will flee when the going gets tough..

Whether you’re playing miniatures battles for a change of pace from your D&D campaign or incorporating battles into that campaign, you’ll find what every good warlord needs right here..."

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It is an issue you seem to take particular exception to, I can't recall anyone else having it.

I do. I encourage you to go back and read some of the big threads here, and see for yourself, that there were others who felt exactly as I do (some argued even more passionately on the matter than even I).

I like agency for my PC it is why I like balanced power levels including point buy stats, broadly balanced class power, even levels for new characters. I am anti fudging, anti "GM story telling" & so on.

That's great. Honestly. But I fail to see what that has to do with our discussion.

I do not find the leader role as it was called actually requires being a "leader" in the sense of bossing around the other players.

Odd statement given the mock-up you just posted with abilities such as "Respected Leader", and abilities that direct the other PCs (attacks and movement). How do you envision such things playing out without you telling them how to think, feel and act?

When 4e came out I was playing City of Heroes which had classes that mirrored 4e roles. Except their defender class was called Tanker & their leader class was called Defender, which is a much better name IMO.

If we leave the baggage of support characters being called leaders in 4e & call them defenders or describe them as support characters or anything that removes any hint of a connection with them removing player agency by forcing other PCs to do things then do you still have a problem?

Is the class' fundamental functionality (I get into this more at the end of this post) tied up with telling the other players how their PCs should think, feel and act in order for it to contribute? Then yes.

I play a lazy warlord in 4e right now I am a used Kank salesman in Darksun based on a character in British TV called Arthur Daley who was a wheeler/dealer that relied on his "Minder" Terry to do all of his fighting (the 80s show was called Minder & I remember it being great 30 years ago).

I grant other characters attacks a fair bit plus tell them to dodge trouble & heal them & let them move around a bit more than usual.

That's marvelous. I love it.

When granting them attacks I have never been accused for removing their free will rather they like to make more attacks to the extent that I spread them around a bit more than is strictly optimal (though this is 4e so we are pretty safe).

4e != 5e. I played a few warlords in 4e as well. My dwarf bravura was probably my favorite. Warlords serve(d) a great role in 4e. But that in no way means they are necessary in 5e.

While I could play a leader as an imperious bossy boots* it would still not remove agency from the players...

Subtle, insidious evils are the worst kinds of evils. Frog in a cooking pot. Et cetera, et cetera, and all that jazz. Just because you aren't overtly usurping control at all times, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in discreet moments or in certain situations. Also, you may not even be aware that some of your fellow players might feel pressure to acquiesce, because as your friends, they want your character to contribute meaningfully. Maybe they don't want to sound like jerks for stepping on what you consider enjoyable. And so they compartmentalize. I know this happens. I've experienced it.

...there would still be the out of game social contract that they get to do what they want to do. I cannot compel either them or their characters in game to actually do anything they do not want to.

And if they all decided to stop receiving your warlord gifts? How much fun would you have with that character if none of them ever accept your various leadership-y benefits (bonus attacks, movement, inspiration, healing)? Exactly. Maybe that's why they do it? So you don't lose your fun. Your choice to play a warlord tells the other players at the table what kind of fun you are seeking. For them to step on it can say as much about them as your choice says about you. People sometimes forget that that's part of the social contract as well. Sometimes people accept contracts with parts they don't necessarily like. Whether for the greater good, or because they get to participate at all. But it happens all the time. I know this happens. I've experienced it.

Of course I like warlords

Awesome. There are great games/editions for that.

I like to play superhero RPGs. There are great games for doing those as well. Doesn't mean 5e is better for trying to handle it either.

 

[mellored]

4e != 5e. I played a few warlords in 4e as well. My dwarf bravura was probably my favorite. Warlords serve(d) a great role in 4e. But that in no way means they are necessary in 5e.

What exactly stops warlords from fitting into 5e?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

What exactly stops warlords from fitting into 5e?

Tricksy. Because what that question really begs is for a 4e warlord in 5e. And when you ask it directly like that, you get a question that answers itself.

Related counter question: What makes you think there aren't already 5e warlords, that are compatible with it's system paradigm, core balance framework, and class design principles?