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

[Undrave]

There are some spells and paladin auras you could repurpose as well.

The problem is, all of these things have already been rejected by warlord fans as insufficient (With the UA alternative class abilities and feats you can cobble those battlemaster manoeuvres onto a PDK). Colour me dubious you could make something from this that would satisfy even a small fraction of warlord fans. I would be fine with it though.

The problem is that they're all over the place and cobbling them together results in a wonky MC mess with subpar abilities. The other problem is that they don't really scale to match the challenges of the higher level. A Battlemaster that gains level just picks the maneuvers they didn't like LESS at lv 3 instead of getting new, better ones. And again, their's nothing you can do at-will. With a Feat and Fighting Style you get TWO superiority dice. That's it.

I would go for: At the start of each battle you may add your proficiency bonus to the initiative rolls of a number of allies you can see within 60' (including yourself) equal to your intelligence mod (minimum 1). You may do this before or after you see the rolls. I don't think that would break anything.

I could see the area of effect start smaller and increase with level.

I could also see abilities that trigger on rolling initiative. Like "When you roll for initiative, you and each allies within X (getting bigger as you level) that can see and hear you gains Temp HP equal to your CHA" or "Get to move half their speed without spending an action" or some such.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The PDK fans?
Both of them?

In it's defense, the PDK would've made a fine setting-tie-in PrC or Paragon Path...

...actually, I think it did.

 

[Prakriti]

INT based Tactician

For what it's worth, I like this concept and think it belongs in the game. 5E needs more Intelligence-based archetypes in general (and fewer Charisma-based ones -- there are too many as it is).

 

[Tony Vargas]

For what it's worth, I like this concept and think it belongs in the game. 5E needs more Intelligence-based archetypes in general (and fewer Charisma-based ones -- there are too many as it is).

It'd be a mixed bag, for you, then - the original Warlord had an INT-secondary Tactical build (sub-class) and a CHA-secondary Inspiring one. Latter builds were also mostly one or the other, though there was an even INT/CHA build, a WIS build, and one that had no strong need of a secondary stat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

2. But then there's going to be the opposite issue; while 5e has almost no niche protection, you might get pushback from people who are fans of the various classes and subclasses you are taking abilities from if you stripmine all of their best abilities to put into a single class. Not to mention balance issues (between the Warlord and the classes you are borrowing abilities from).

I think it depends on the implementation. So long as you're not just copy-pasting it could work. The PDK abilities interact with abilities the Warlord wouldn't have (Action Surge, Second Wind, Indomitable), but my point is that those effects and results (burst healing for exemple) exist in a non-spell form.

Also, the way I see it, the Battlemaster and PDK are basically Eldritch Knights equivalent of the Warlord. The basic frame of the Fighter would still be unique to them, as is the way it interacts with it.

Also note that in this case, ideally, the bonus to damage the Battlemaster gets from Superiority Dice would be traded in for being able to use the effects more often so the Battlemaster would still get that over the Warlord.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Prakriti]

Where did you get this photo?! I thought I burned it! HELP, I'M BEING DOXED OVER HERE!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, the way I see it, the Battlemaster and PDK are basically Eldritch Knights equivalent of the Warlord. The basic frame of the Fighter would still be unique to them, as is the way it interacts with it.

Sure, that's been pretty clear from the moment the BM dropped.

...I mean, the BM is like an EK restricted to learning from a list of 16 1st level spells his entire career, and the PDK like a EK that just gets a spell-like ability added as a rider to a couple of Fighter resources. But, other than that...

 

[Xeviat]

Every argument against the warlord drips with edition war talking points.

Hey now, my arguments against the Warlord aren't edition warring. 4E was almost my favorite edition, and I still want to backtrack and make a "4.5 edition" with some 5E ideas.

But! I am here to say that I've changed my mind on the Warlord. For a while, I felt that the Bard could be tweaked to be the home of the Warlord, but the more I read this thread and listen to the arguments of Warlord supporters, the more I see the Warlord as a viable class that isn't quite represented well. I do think the Fighter archetype could be expanded to include most Warlords, there are some less combative character tropes that would fit into the Warlord that wouldn't fit into the Fighter or Rogue.

Heck, less combative characters don't fit in anywhere currently, not without making a grossly ineffective character.

Do, consider me one player/DM who has changed her mind. Bring on the Warlord!

• INT based Tactician (Best at granting additional attacks and initiative manipulation)
• CHA based Inspiring Leader (Best at temp HP and granting saves)
• CHA based Bravura (Best at melee combat, has 'push your luck' types of mechanic where they risk themselves to boost allies)
• WIS based Insightful Leader (Best at boosting skills and regular saves)

New-ish:

• Artillerist Warlord: has background in leading squads of archers or spellslingers or ballista crews (focus on improving ranged attacks)
• Chosen One Warlord: has supernatural luck and a divinely appointed destiny, good for the Lazylord or Sidekick build
• Bandit King: Dirty tricks and Rogue-like skill proficiency, boosts Stealth of allies
• WIS based Skirmisher subclass: Dash of 4e Ranger, good mobility powers and interacts with Trap rules, Survival skill (maybe has some spells/rituals but I'd prefer fully mundane)
• WIS based Combat Medic: Basically has the Healer feat as a class feature, good at out-of-combat healing, can make potions and healer kit charges, most straightforward in combat.
• An INT-based Formation specialist to interact with the Formation rules
• An INT-based Witch Hunter subclass: an Arcane dabbler with ritual casting and ways to defend groups against spells or make allies' weapons magical, no offensive spells of their own. Has skill in Arcana and additional Saving Throw proficiency.

Good enough?

Great start.

I think the Warlord should be based around the Warlock chassis a little more. I think the base warlock shouldn't have extra attack. I want the Noble/Lazylord to work better. I want it to be possible to make an Int/Cha heavy character with low strength and moderate dexteritu and still be able to function.

I just don't want it to step on the Bard's toes too much. But, then again, the Cleric and Druid share a lot of toys.