D&D (2024) How should the Warlord be implemented in 1DnD?

So this is the next in a series of thread about how to implement certain commonly requested class concepts in 1DnD, in order to see how people want certain class/subclass concepts handled in the new system. I'm focusing on the most suggested and talked about classes first, and maybe I'll move onto some more obscure ones later.

The Warlord is a class which was originally a player's handbook class from 4e, and acting as a martial support character. It supported a variety of playstyles ranging from sitting on the backline buffing allied, to being up in the thick of melee combat using its own weapons. I see the Warlord mentioned a lot, and the fact that it was never implemented in 5e is surprising due to its position as a former PHB class. However some subclasses like the battlemaster have managed to embody certain aspects of the warlord, specifically the more martial end of the spectrum.

So in 1DnD, how should the Warlord as a concept (pure martial buffing and support) be handled? Should it continue to be a series of subclasses? Should it get its own class in a later book? Should its buffing be replaced with spells? Or should martials simply not be doing backline buffing of allies at all?

Other Threads:

Artificer - How should the Artificer be implemented in 1DnD?
Summoner/Pet Class - https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-should-the-summoner-pet-class-be-implemented-in-1dnd.697591/
Psion/Mystic - How should the Psion/Mystic be implemented in 1DnD?
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


  • Warrior Base. The Base Warlord is a Martial Warrior
  • Passive Tactics: Any Ally fighting with a Warlord who follows their plan gets a bonus to certain combat actions. Like a Paladin's Aura but wider and smaller. Like +1 AC or +X damage when adjacent to enemies.
    • AKA. Flanking isn't default. Class features like Warlord tactics and Rogue Sneak Attack enable Flanking bonuses
  • Active Tactics. The Warlord can spend resources to give bigger bonuses or enable new actions
    • Short rest based
    • Can use long rest feature to refresh features at mental cost
  • Subclasses
    1. Captain: The basic Warlord. Gives more Warlordy stuff
    2. Veteran: Warlord based on experience than knowledge. Expertise in History. Can roll to speak any language "I know a little Dwarven". Tougher. Rouses allies when crits or is critted.
    3. Knave Prince: Sneaky Warlord. Light armor. Archery trick shot to set up combos.
    4. Battle Healer: Gains divine magic by via worship of a War god.
      • Third Caster. Wis Based
      • Can Heal you Three Ways
    5. Archon General: Gains arcane magic to summon magic troops
      • Third Caster: Int Based
      • Summons elemental legionaires

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I'd mix the classic features of the Warlord with the rather bland fighter chassis, giving us a real master of combat, being the class to pick to be the best at fighting and making your group fight.

For starter I'd go with:

Put the support features of the Banneret and the improved help features of the Expert sidekick. (maybe to replace the bonus feats with actual features).


I see the Warlord mentioned a lot, and the fact that it was never implemented in 5e is surprising due to its position as a former PHB class.
I mean, it shouldn't be surprising. 5e was a direct reaction to the perceived issues with 4e and an attempt to placate those who were upset by it. Warlords were one of the poster childs for those issues.

Personally I thought the 4e warlord was great and would love to see a halfway faithful implementation of it in 6e, but I doubt it will happen.

My first 4E character was a polearm-wielding tiefling warlord. I loved the concept of a martial character being able to lead and support the team. That is kinda why I like paladins because even if they only help others with lay on hands and auras. But when it comes to design, narratively, I don't see 1 class owning all that stuff that they tried to shoehorn in. I really like the leader-type maneuvers introduced in the 5E fighter, but even then that was too limited.

I honestly believe that spreading out the "Warlord"-concept abilities into a bunch of "leader" subclasses, and the rest going into robust leadership feats and maneuvers would be the best way to go, so more than one class can opt into that playstyle.

Barbarian - Primal Path of the Warlord (it probably can't happen due to history but barbarian warlord is a trope)
Bard - College of Valor
Cleric - Domain of Order
Druid - Circle of the Shepherd
Fighter - Banneret
Monk - Tradition of Mercy
Paladin - Oath of the Crown
Ranger - Packmaster (you can influence/lead animals, and those instincts happen also to help with humanoids.
Rogue - Mastermind
Sorcerer - Ascended Sovereign (an aspirant Sovereign Sorcerer theme with a self-idealized right to rule and protect using magic.)
Warlock - Pact of the Witch Queen/King (The patron teaches how to influence/lead in their name, in hopes to grow their influence.)
Wizard - Warmage (re-imagine this as a smart arcane military leader like the War Wizards of Cormyr)
Artificer - Battlesmith

I would guess that it would be an Expert class not a warrior class. An Expert of combat not at combat if that makes sense.
Yeah I've got no clue which class group I think it should go into. Both expert and warrior seem to make some sense.

Still easier to classify than the psion/mystic though...

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads