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

[Shardstone]

There's no need to combine them. They don't automatically overlap. A warlord could be a crummy fighter with good ideas.

Mechanically, fighters are flexible rapid attackers with a gear focus and barbarians are narrow hard attackers without a gear focus.

Sorry, but I think that's a narrow minded approach. Flexible rapid attackers with a gear focus make for great warlords. Odysseus is a great warlord and a great fighter. I'd like to see a Warlord whose also a Champion but can lead people to greatness in combat too.

So, I think the Fighter X Warlord makes the most thematically interesting idea. You can play it as Fighter or as Warlord as you want it, too, much like how the new Warlock can be a gish or unique caster.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not being able to make a Lazylord though would suck though.

 

[Incenjucar]

Sorry, but I think that's a narrow minded approach. Flexible rapid attackers with a gear focus make for great warlords. Odysseus is a great warlord and a great fighter. I'd like to see a Warlord whose also a Champion but can lead people to greatness in combat too.

So, I think the Fighter X Warlord makes the most thematically interesting idea. You can play it as Fighter or as Warlord as you want it, too, much like how the new Warlock can be a gish or unique caster.

"Narrow minded" is literally the opposite of my position; you're the one limiting warlords to fighter variants.

A warlord should be someone who can lead a war. Some lead from the front, but others lead from the back. Indeed, the warlord could be expanded to having non-magical options that specifically help magic-centric parties or stealth-centric parties, as well.

 

[Vaalingrade]

'Narrow-minded' does seem a weird response to 'here is a breadth of options to be considered'.

 

[Incenjucar]

If you want to say my mind is so broad my brain is at risk of falling out, then at least the dig makes sense. :3

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

We literally have multiple classes and subclasses using the same spells and spell slot system. Having a list of Maneuvers (including ones that are actually level gated) that is available to any Leadership subclass would be a fine equivalent system. Simply need to have the Superiority Dice recharge mechanic be different depending on the subclass wanting to tap into it. With the Warlord being the one with the most Superiority Dice and a handful of features they could do at will.

Spellcasting is a universal system, not unique class abilities. But there isn't a universal maneuver system, just one system for one subclass of fighter and a feat to get a taste for others. I think it would be great if there were a system, and it would be great if Fighters and Paladins and Rangers and Barbarians and Bards could opt into those options.

I'm not saying those abilities shouldn't exist. I'm saying they should be largely class-agnostic so existing classes can opt into them.

What abilities would a "Warlord" and it's 4+ subclasses have that would be unique to a Warlord, that no other class can have? Because that is how classes and subclasses are designed. And assuming the answer is "all the 4E Warlord abilities translated to 5E plus some new stuff" why would the majority of these cool abilities be locked out from other classes who want to opt into those Leadership themes?

"Combat Leader" is a class-agnostic trope that deserves a system, like Psionics deserves its own system. Here is my ideal design. Create a sourcebook with a robust series of maneuvers that covers all kinds of themes, including non-magical leadership options of the Warlord/Marshal style classes of old, as well as magical gish-like maneuvers a la Book of Nine Swords. As part of that system, there would be feats as well as class-agnostic subclasses that can have their own unique abilities that also all pull from those maneuvers and enhances them in different ways.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Spellcasting is a universal system, not unique class abilities.

Wasn't until the playtest.

RIP, Warlock.

 

[Incenjucar]

Exactly what is not class agnostic?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Exactly what is not class agnostic?

I am using class-agnostic to mean that it is not unique to a class and is therefore open to more classes. Most class abilities are not shared between classes because they define those classes, and are therefore not class agnostic. Second Wind is not class agnostic. Lay on Hands is not class agnostic. Bardic Inspiration is not class agnostic.

If I just look at Fighter, there is Second Wind, Action Surge, Weapon Expert/Adept, Indomitable, Unconquerable. The Champion shares none of its abilities with any other class or subclass (minus Additional Fighting Style).

A Warlord class would be the same way. There would be no way for a single-class bard to opt into the Lazylord abilities if it werepart of a Warlord class.

A Fighter and a Ranger can both be a "Captain" in the lore of the game. A "Warlord" should be treated the same. It shouldn't be its own unique thing any more than a "Captain" is.

A single class Barbarian Warlord should be able to exist alongside a single class Military Officer Fighter "Warlord".

 

[Garthanos]

"should be magical" is missing the point of martial characters.

this... if one wants magical warlord a couple cleric archetypes are not far off.

Niche protection really only gets trotted out to 1) keep fighters from getting things and 2) protect the Wizard and Cleric's 'everything' and 'everything but also healing' niches.

Yup it's agenda driven.