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

[Urriak Uruk]

Of course, these are all good points. The lazylord is more of a build than anything else, though, one must remember, and 5E, even though it's not 3E, has no shortage of weird builds. For example: Tabaxi Cleric/Monk who dashes past hordes of enemies, activating Spirit Guardians.

For sure, and I have some issues with those builds (as a DM I am continually frustrated when PCs are doing things feel like optimizing instead of natural). But I won't delve into that rabbit hole.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

I think the typical warlord does fit in 5e, but that it really should be a singular class but instead split up into several subclasses for the other classes. Because I think the idea of an inspiration fighter can also be an inspiration wizard, an inspiration rogue, etc.

If it was its own class then players could multiclass with it and add leadery bits to any class. At the same time it would allow those who want the full warlord experience to be satisfied. This seems like the most flexible approach.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

If it was its own class then players could multiclass with it and add leadery bits to any class. At the same time it would allow those who want the full warlord experience to be satisfied. This seems like the most flexible approach.

I don't really agree as in 5e multi-classing is typically not very optimal and frankly I've never had any player do it.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Yeah, I never cared for the "Lazylord" nickname. It implies that the character isn't making an active contribution to the party's success. I'd prefer something along the lines of "War Sage".

 

[Sacrosanct]

Thanks for the clarifications on lazylord. I was starting to see some compromise in this thread (gasp) and worried that if it was a pejorative, it would erase progress

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah, I never cared for the "Lazylord" nickname. It implies that the character isn't making an active contribution to the party's success. I'd prefer something along the lines of "War Sage".

Or “coach”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The 2e ranger doesn't fit Robin Hood, either—the 2e ranger was a dedicated dual-wielder with nothing to support archery. (And, of course, the 1e ranger never had any archery focus—that didn't come online for the ranger until 3.5e.)

Yeah, I’m guessing the premier archer was always the fighter? Probably in most pre-wotc editions, you’d want some sort of fighter/rogue build.

3/.5e too, probably. The ranger can focus on archery just fine, but it doesn’t make a good thief/bandit captain/rabble rouser. Could do a ranger/rogue, or either class with a custom PrC.

4e ranger or rogue with the right theme works, but Warlord with the right theme works even better, IMO, and a hybrid Warlord|Rogue/[woodsy background] might be just about perfect.

5e, as is...Swashbuckler Rogue, custom background to get survival and Retainers (unless the party wants to play the merry men) or something.

 

[Don Durito]

I don't really agree as in 5e multi-classing is typically not very optimal and frankly I've never had any player do it.

It works well for some purposes, and is better if you know in advance that the game will likely finish around a particular level - but the flexibility it offers is very limited.

Basically, a how much a Warlord class would allow other classes to pick up Warlord abilities is questionable, given how much 5e multi-classing is dependent on build and class combinations.

 

[Undrave]

I don't really agree as in 5e multi-classing is typically not very optimal and frankly I've never had any player do it.

Like a lot of things in 5e, it just works better if you got spells...

 

[Hussar]

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. I mean from popular fiction, not history. I literally used Captain America as an example, and I can easily find a character that matches every class and works in D&D parties.

Ranger: Robin Hood
Fighter: Boromir
Paladin: Geralt of Rivea
Rogue: Arya
Barbarian: Conan
Wizard: Merlin
Druid: Radagast
Warlock: Melisandre

Couple of points.

Geralt of Rivea is a paladin? How? He doesn't heal, he certainly doesn't cure diseases and has zero religious overtones. Vengeance paladin maybe? Certainly not the archetype that most people go to for paladins.

Conan rages? Since when? Does he speak to animals or have any sort of totemic spiritual bent that I missed? Conan is nothing like a D&D barbarian. He's about as close to a fighter as you can get.

Merlin is most certainly not a D&D wizard. A 5e wizard is Harry Potter, not anything from fantasy written before about 1990.

These aren't even close.

But, for archetypes of warlord:

1. Cutter from Cook's Black Company series. Absolutely freaking perfect warlord and actually fits rather well as a lazy lord archetype as well.
2. Multiple characters from the Malazan Fallen series, particularly many of the marine characters.
3. Sam Vimes from Pratchett's Guards Guards series. Again, excellent example of a warlord in action.
4. Miles Vorkosigan from Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series. Another very excellent example of a lazy lord archetype.

In this particular case, I'm legit curious. Because when I think of the Lazylord, I think of people like Sun Tzu, Cortez, Attila the Hun. People who, at the pinnacle of their ability, were not personally getting involved in fights.

The Lazylord just doesn't seem to fit the classic D&D gameplay of 6 people fighting a group of monsters/people. But I'm willing to believe I'm wrong on this, so I'm trying to think of a figure in history or fiction of someone in a small group going on adventures, who is using tactics to tell his comrades the best way to fight without personally getting involved.

Closest thing I can think of is Fire Emblem, but in even those the game gives you a PC who is a combatant itself.

Now, the thing to remember is that lazy lord was never actually a class. So, to be honest, for me anyway, if a 5e warlord precluded a lazy lord, I wouldn't have a problem to be honest. It never was a class, so, meh, it's not a hill I will die on.

But, in classic D&D style, the warlord works fantastically well. Take it from those who actually saw it in play, instead of listening to those who simply read the books and then brushed it off. It really does work excellently. It's a class that requires the player to pay attention to the game and also works to draw in the attention of all the other players as well. Think about it, in most D&D games, when it's not your turn in combat, there is generally nothing you can do. Sure, you might get a reaction, once in a while, but, by and large, after your turn is done, if you got up, left the table, and then came back before the beginning of your next turn, it wouldn't matter.

The warlord completely changes that dynamic. Anyone can now be called on to take actions outside of their turn at any time. Sure, it might just be movement - warlords could grant the entire group movement off turn, for example, or an extra saving throw, or an extra attack, but, the point was, you were being granted extra actions on a regular basis. It is such a fantastic class for focusing the group on the game to a degree that you don't see otherwise.

A lazy lord or a warlord, doesn't really matter, does that. It makes every round actually matter. You can't take your turn and then go back to playing Candy Crush on your phone.

THAT'S what a warlord brings to the table.