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

[Frozen_Heart]

This is not how 5E or D&D works in general, making it something I cannot feel concerned about. There are no such hard limits on sharing mechanics.

Game narrative is easy to come up with. We literally already had a warlord class in D&D. The class name is not terribly important.

Yep this. Even if the name of the class and even the entire class story are changed, having a support focused martial is a valid niche.

And I'm not sure how warlord is invalid because other classes can be leaders. Could argue that sorcerer shouldn't be a class because other classes are casters.

 

[James Gasik]

What abilities do Wizards get? They get Arcane Recovery, their famous spell book, couple at-wills later and an entire category of treasure created just for them.. Everything else is done by subclasses.

Again, that's what subclasses are for.

Spells are class features.

 

[Shardstone]

My suggestion is not a fighter variant, its to have the full scale of both classes in a single super class.

 

[ChameleonX]

I think your Warlord is missing something at-will to do at first level (IMO every class should have an at-will thing at first level). Stealing the Mastermind’s ‘help as a bonus action’ would work well here.

Obviously, a real class would have it’s own list of maneuvers with some exclusive ones added. And I’m not sure I like that the Superiority Dice is lower than the Battlemaster while being the same quantity. I think if the Battlemaster is about damage, then the Warlord should start with more dice. Also the wording ‘your superiority dice is the same as your leadership dice’ would probably save on word count and have the same result.

Feels like it’s a little lacking in ribbons too.

I’m not a fan of absolutely hanging everything off of charisma. A warlord being buildable with a focus on CHA, INT or WIS would be the most fun. Just give it a name (Leadership Ability?) that you can reference later on. I also think Commanding Tradition instead of Presence is a cooler idea to hang the subclasses off of, because it gives you more narrative space to work with.

I totally agree on the d10 HD. A Warlord wouldn't be improving their CON that much as a focus so despite the same HD they will naturally end up with lower HP than other d10 classes.

I was under the assumption that Fighting Styles and the new Weapon Mastery system was essentially the martial equivalent of cantrips, but yeah, I could see adding that in somewhere.

I used the Battlemaster list so that maneuvers could be added to both of them at the same time, but yeah, if I was doing a full write-up I'd probably have a curated list. I did this in like an hour.

I scaled the Superiority Dice that way to make it balanced with the Battlemaster, but to have the Warlord come out on top I'm the end. The assumption is that the Warlord is the OG, while the BM is just a Fighter that minors in Warlording.

They start with a smaller die, but get their maneuvers one level earlier, they increase in size faster, and they get one more die than Battlemasters do. They also get more maneuvers by level 20.

I know the ribbons are lacking. I would probably add more to the subclasses.

Also, yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with adding more build options. Would also cut down on MC poaching by CHA classes. I'll think about it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Warlord
Hit points
Hit points at 1st-Level: 10 + Con score
Hit points per level: 1d10 (or 6) + Con mod per level
Hit dice: 1d10 per level
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, Medium Armor, Shields
Weapons: all simple and martial
Saving Throws: Wisdom, Charisma
Skills (choose 2): Athletics, Deception, History, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion, Survival

personally, although this is just my opinion, i wouldn't have given them full martial weapon proficiencies (maybe just longsword, maul, morningstar, rapier and shortsword(just in flavour terms i don't remember their weapon mastery properties)) and would have given them heavy armour and a third skill.

in a similar way to the cleric the warlord might have subclasses who are more melee combat oriented but the base class itself isn't, warlord isn't someone i see who wants to be mixing it all up close in melee combat, maybe for the purposes of protecting someone else or providing flanking but they're better served facilitating other people making their attacks.

edit: i could see a standard warlord ability being that they only need to spend one superiority die for the maneuvre they chose to affect all of their attacks that turn(providing it's the same maneuvre twice not two different ones), seeing as they only get two attacks i don't think this would be overpowered and would tie into their 'skill over strength' angle.

 

[James Gasik]

personally, although this is just my opinion, i wouldn't have given them full martial weapon proficiencies (maybe just longsword, maul, morningstar, rapier and shortsword(just in flavour terms i don't remember their weapon mastery properties)) and would have given them heavy armour and a third skill.

in a similar way to the cleric the warlord might have subclasses who are more melee combat oriented but the base class itself isn't, warlord isn't someone i see who wants to be mixing it all up close in melee combat, maybe for the purposes of protecting someone else or providing flanking but they're better served facilitating other people making their attacks.

edit: i could see a standard warlord ability being that they only need to spend one superiority die for the maneuvre they chose to affect all of their attacks that turn(providing it's the same maneuvre twice not two different ones), seeing as they only get two attacks i don't think this would be overpowered and would tie into their 'skill over strength' angle.

I'd add some polearms to the list, but yeah, I can see Warlords having a curated list of proficiencies.

 

[Undrave]

I was under the assumption that Fighting Styles and the new Weapon Mastery system was essentially the martial equivalent of cantrips, but yeah, I could see adding that in somewhere.

Admitedly I missed the Masteries were at level 1, but it doesn’t quite feel fitting to me… Maybe they could be limited in Masteries they can get? Same in terms of Fighting style?

I used the Battlemaster list so that maneuvers could be added to both of them at the same time, but yeah, if I was doing a full write-up I'd probably have a curated list. I did this in like an hour.

I figured as much.

Also, yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with adding more build options. Would also cut down on MC poaching by CHA classes. I'll think about it.

Fun thing to do is to MC into Wizard to poach rituals for utilities.

 

[Undrave]

in a similar way to the cleric the warlord might have subclasses who are more melee combat oriented but the base class itself isn't, warlord isn't someone i see who wants to be mixing it all up close in melee combat, maybe for the purposes of protecting someone else or providing flanking but they're better served facilitating other people making their attacks.

Subclasses that grant the missing Heavy Armor proficiencies and full on martial proficiencies would be neat. Like a reverse Battlemaster, who focus more on their own martial might.

I'd add some polearms to the list, but yeah, I can see Warlords having a curated list of proficiencies.

Maybe limit their masteries to the more support ones? Topple and Slow, but no Cleave or Nick?

 

[Undrave]

edit: i could see a standard warlord ability being that they only need to spend one superiority die for the maneuvre they chose to affect all of their attacks that turn(providing it's the same maneuvre twice not two different ones), seeing as they only get two attacks i don't think this would be overpowered and would tie into their 'skill over strength' angle.

Maybe at a later level they can turn a maneuver into a fighting style? You get the effect at will but not the extra damage?

 

[Incenjucar]

A warlord can also get different packages like clerics do to reflect their method and build without dumping a bunch of features on them they won't use.