D&D 5E (2024) Chance for a warlord?

[CreamCloud0]

Curious take. Why would they use battlemaster maneuvers when they're not a fighter? It's either a reprint, or you need to reference another class for your chosen class.
"Another subsystem" is like complaining that sorcerers need to have their own system for sorcery points.

i have no real opposition to adding another martial subsystem, but i do wish martials shared their unique mechanics amongst themselves more, to be able to make their play experienced more layered, a warlord that utilized both battlemaster manoeuvres and bardic inspiration, a monk that rages, fighters with a choice of 2 of maneuvres, rage, ki and sneak attack.

 

[Marc Radle]

Kobold Press is doing that with the Vanguard. They have a free preview PDF that showcases it off.

Yes indeed!
You can take a look here!

The Elemental Scion heritage in the sneak peak PDF looked nice.

Thanks!

There is a TON of awesome stuff in Player's Guide 2 besides the Vanguard, and even better, it's compatible with 5E as well as Tales of the Valiant

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Yeah, I think the road I keep rumbling down is Warlord as fighter subclass, the more I look at what I wrote

I will say you have a team full of players (fighters). You have this gifted quarterback (warlord). The players all have the same gifts (fighters) BUT they just don't have the "IT" factor (subclass abilities to utilize that high CHA). There may even be other charismatic players (gladiator champion showmen /defensive end), but they don't have the instincts or super specialness to combine it into the quarterback (warlord) role to cohesively accomplish things while ordering a team. And while you may love your charismatic band leader (bard), they should stick to the goofy hats and background inspiration.. distinctly different niche roles, uses of charisma, and abilities.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I have got an idea. Let's create a warlord subclass whose partners were a harem of monster girls.

Now seriously, a subclass could be the captain of a ship, or even a spelljammer. Other subclasses could be about to controll certain type of monster allies.

The design of a new class needs three things:
- Right power balance, of course.
- Fun gampley, and easy to be understood by new players.
- A mark of identity.

The warlord can't be only a warrior who buffs allies.

If the player wants to play a warlord with a lot of "sidekicks" who enjoyed the buffs the combat could become slower. Maybe with a virtual tabletop and the right HUD we shouldn't worry too much but the class has to be designed avoiding that type of help.

Who would want a warlord? Maybe a solo-player using a virtual tabletop wargame against against an IA.

Let's review possible example of D&D warlords: the king Arthur Perdragon, John Snow (Game of Thrones), Kull of Atlantis the conqueror (Hyrborian universe), El Cid Campeador(Spanish History).

 

[Minigiant]

Not for this edition, but...

I could see merging Ranger and Warlord into a single class. Call it Guide or something.

"Ranger" being the subclass that gets druid spells.
And give a bonus to leading a ghost army.

To me ideally if we were divorced from D&D requirements

• A Simple Warrior
• A Physical Warrior
• A Mental Warrior

And the mental warrior class would be a combination of Warlord, Eldritch Knight, Ranger, and Paladin where the class focuses on INT/WIS/CHA, has access to tactics and/spells, and has restricted ability to attack with INT/WIS/CHA.

Barring that I'd have a Warlord class who can grant free "Warlord actions" and non-numeric buffs to ally regular actions.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I don't imagine the warlord like a spellcaster, but more like a martial adept (school of white raven). Other thing could be a subclass focused into a magic banner.

Other ideas for subclasses could be to be linked to some faction or creature: barbarians, church crusaders, dragons, giants, feys, forest lords, warmage guilds, dogs of war..

You are thinking about the warlord like the leader of a squad in the battlefield but a true militar leader would be more focused into military logistics. Napoleon started to lose in the Spanish indepence war when in the battle of Bailen a failure in the logistics was used against them (it was very hot and French hadn't got enough water, and the spoils of war delayed the movement).

Do you know what is a Fabian strategy? This was very important in the second punic war. We aren't talking about killing monsters or dungeon bosses but how to face attrition warfare.

I guess some players to save efforts in worldbuilding they will recycle the lore of fantasy wargames like Warhammer, Kings of War, Conquest, Sphere Wars, Chronopia, Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok.. We shouldn't blame them.

* Do you remember the videogame "Kingdom under Fire II"? A mixture of musou rpg and RTS.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because a champion is a pure fighter. An eldritch knight is a wizard light. Uses the spell subsystem. A psi warrior, if the Psion gets through as is, will be a psion light using the psi dice subsystem.
For symmetry reasons, a battlemaster should be a warlord light, using the same subsystem as they do.

This is my take explained in post 1. Maybe not explicitely enough.

Edit: you also mix up complaining with stating an opinion. Which is dismissive.

Kill the Fighter. Distribute its remains to the classes that are left.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Kill the Fighter. Distribute its remains to the classes that are left.

No thank you

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't paricularly like the marshal.

Actually I do like it a bit. I mixed it up with the class created before which had a tactical focus area or something like that. How was that called?

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Funny you'd mention WOTC elves, I dislike their characterizations... also the cartoonish dildo-ears don't help... reminds me of WoW elves or something.. but that's me, I feel like less-is-more.... so I am happy with less WOTC Goliath, unless they did a good job I guess, but more likely they go all over-wrought with it