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

[Eubani]

The concept of the fighter is far too broad and swallows up far too many ideas that could fairly be their own thing. It covers many ideas but provides little to no mechanical support for said ideas. Whenever a person says that idea X is a Fighter, they usually fail to add if being honest that it barely plays lip service to the idea.

 

[TwoSix]

The term "Fighter" or "Fighting-Man" is almost idiomatically peculiar to D&D (and its fantasy heartbreaker derivatives). In many other games, the Fighter is generally called a "Warrior." But hey, we're talking about a game where Gygax thought that "Fighting Man" and "Magic-User" were somehow more appropriate names than "Warrior" and "Mage."

I would honestly not mind if D&D 5e (or a hypothetical 6e) reduced the barbarian, ranger, warlord, and various associated archetypes into a Warrior/Fighter class. I would arguably prefer it. The berserker would be a type of warrior. The ranger is a wilderness warrior. The warlord is a commanding, tactical warrior. The paladin is a smug holy warrior that no one likes. The "blademaster" is a type of warrior. That seems like a more robust architecture for the game than trying to devise subclasses for these more specialized archetypes.

I think the class identity IP is too integral to not put into the game, sadly, but I would love a hypothetical 6e with just Warrior, Expert, and Mage and robust multiclassing. Bonus points if they have features that give a utility to each stat for each class (so an high Int warrior or a high Strength mage are viable and interesting).

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We have to remember enemy bosses can have got levels of class, including the future warlord. If it is not used by players it could be by the DMs for the leader of the squads. Then the subclasses would be like add racial traits for different types of minions.

 

[Xeviat]

What of the base fighter feels like it doesn't fit in the Warlord? Or is it that the base fighter being the Warlord skeleton wouldn't allow for "lead from the rear" type Warlords?

Without subclass, the fighter is constructed of:

• Fighting Style: This fits the Warlord, but I'd add in some Leader oriented options.
• Action Surge: Warlord could utilize this with their features, but is the worry that it allows for too much damage on its own for the Warlord?
• Extra Attack (1): seems fair for the Warlord, all the other warriors except for the Rogue get it.
• Extra ASIs: Could be very useful in getting feats like Inspiring Leader, Healer, or theoretical new ones.
• Extra Attack (2): is this too much for the Warlord? Is this the breaking point?
• Indomitable: Doesn't seem out of place for a Warlord, but maybe not the best?
• Extra Attack (3): Too much?

One of the directions I'm coming from is that I'd like each class to be defined by a mechanic that dictates their play style. Not all of the 5E classes did well here. I could see the Warlord separate because of this.

I guess I'm seeing that the Fighter consuming the Warlord and discarding the mundane warrior (I do like Warrior as a class name better than Fighter, but I doubt we're going to get another class name change after 3E) would create a far better class.

The Fighter then becomes the class that "fights with trained technique and battlefield tactics", where in the barbarian uses instinct, the rogue uses trickery, and the monk, paladin, and ranger use their supernatural powers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What of the base fighter feels like it doesn't fit in the Warlord? Or is it that the base fighter being the Warlord skeleton wouldn't allow for "lead from the rear" type Warlords?

Without subclass, the fighter is constructed of:

• Fighting Style: This fits the Warlord, but I'd add in some Leader oriented options.
• Action Surge: Warlord could utilize this with their features, but is the worry that it allows for too much damage on its own for the Warlord?
• Extra Attack (1): seems fair for the Warlord, all the other warriors except for the Rogue get it.
• Extra ASIs: Could be very useful in getting feats like Inspiring Leader, Healer, or theoretical new ones.
• Extra Attack (2): is this too much for the Warlord? Is this the breaking point?
• Indomitable: Doesn't seem out of place for a Warlord, but maybe not the best?
• Extra Attack (3): Too much?

One of the directions I'm coming from is that I'd like each class to be defined by a mechanic that dictates their play style. Not all of the 5E classes did well here. I could see the Warlord separate because of this.

I guess I'm seeing that the Fighter consuming the Warlord and discarding the mundane warrior (I do like Warrior as a class name better than Fighter, but I doubt we're going to get another class name change after 3E) would create a far better class.

The Fighter then becomes the class that "fights with trained technique and battlefield tactics", where in the barbarian uses instinct, the rogue uses trickery, and the monk, paladin, and ranger use their supernatural powers.

For me, if a Captain subclass gave options to use in place of an attack, or that add to an attack, as part of the attack action, then a lot of that becomes leadery. Extra attack isn’t a DPR overload if you can use it to grant attacks or give bonuses.

But the main thing is, it would be a waste of the potential represented by the Captain archetype.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Why are people so opposed to more options?

We haven't hit the point that we're in danger of class bloat yet, and I honestly feel that right now we're in a class drought. Yet some people are arguing for further curtailing of player options? What???

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Why are people so opposed to more options?

We haven't hit the point that we're on danger of class bloat yet, and I honestly feel that right now we're on a class drought. Yet some people are arguing for further curtailing of player options? What???

Gatekeeping.

"I don't like X, so X shouldn't be part of the game."

 

[Tony Vargas]

What of the base fighter feels like it doesn't fit in the Warlord?

The fighter is too locked down by tradition, it lacks the flexibility and resources to deliver adequate support to a party. Adding anything to it is a fraught design exercise.

The 5e fighter, in particular, is locked into single-target sustained DPR as it's primary meaningful contribution. Something about 5e design - with its 6-8 encounter day - values that very highly, leaving little room for anything else, as the BM and PDK illustrate.

One of the directions I'm coming from is that I'd like each class to be defined by a mechanic that dictates their play style. Not all of the 5E classes did well here. I could see the Warlord separate because of this.

The BM manuevers point towards one possibility, if expanded beyond adding onto attacks and given depth via level-gating.

I guess I'm seeing that the Fighter consuming the Warlord and discarding the mundane warrior would create a far better class.

Frankly roling the rogue into that would help, too. The idea that you cant have out-of-combat skills and combat prowess in the same class is the kind of niche protection 5e has otherwise abandoned.

 

[Xeviat]

Frankly roling the rogue into that would help, too. The idea that you cant have out-of-combat skills and combat prowess in the same class is the kind of niche protection 5e has otherwise abandoned.

Especially when the Rogue holds their own in combat as long as it's against a single foe and they have the support or necessary subclass to be able to use sneak attack every round. I've long talked about wanting the Fighter to attain an identity that spoke to doing something out of combat. I think the Rogue is different enough from the fighter to stay separate; the Rogue doesn't have all weapons and armor proficiency, they aren't skilled with arms and armor the way a trained warrior is, but they know how to fight dirty or at least maximize advantages. A fighter will typically fight in a straight up manner, a rogue is going to break the rules.

But being a tactician, knowing your enemy, and being an inspiring presence for your allies, those are the things for a heroic Warrior to own.

 

[Xeviat]

Why are people so opposed to more options?

We haven't hit the point that we're in danger of class bloat yet, and I honestly feel that right now we're in a class drought. Yet some people are arguing for further curtailing of player options? What???

I, for one, am not opposed to more options, I just want those options to be concise and tightened up. Look at 3E; so many of the extra classes after the PHB could have been subclasses if its class system allowed for that level of customization. It's not less options, because I'm giddy to get new and better subclasses. I want classes to be big things. Initially, I didn't like the idea of the Artificer, but some explanations here helped me to see that it was a character archetype that wasn't quite served by what we have.

As of right now, I just feel like the Fighter could be improved by the inclusion of the Warlord archetype. Without the Warlord being part of the Fighter, the Fighter feels like it also holds an "NPC Class" within it (I know 5E doesn't have NPC classes; I miss them).

The lead from the rear, lazylord, and noble type Warlords are the crux that makes me think the Warlord might need to be it's own class. Those character types are fun, and the Rogue and Fighter both have too many class abilities that wouldn't really suit them.