D&D 5E The Warlord [New Class]

[Jester David]

Going by your logic no class will ever work because not everyone will be happy with it

The warlord is more divisive than other classes. It also brings in the nature of hit point schism and tensions over the edition war, as the class has become a symbol of 4th Edition being sidelined.
No other class has to deal with that much drama and tension.
Heck, there's a lot of talk over the ranger and what the ranger should be and do, but you don't see three or four active threads on the topic and continual polls and debate.

The warlord is divisive. And many of the participants in the debate are set in their positions and refuse to compromise.

 

[JohnLynch]

The warlord is divisive. And many of the participants in the debate are set in their positions and refuse to compromise.

Those who hate the Warlord won. There is no Warlord in the PHB, they never have to open up their 5th edition rules and see the terrible warlord staring at them.mit's time to let it go and let those who enjoy what the Warlord brought to the table actually enjoy the warlord without needing to defend their likes in thread after thread.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The fighter is meant to be the best at fighting. That's their role, that's what makes them unique.
And this warlord gets superiority dice sooner and knows more manuevers....

As Jester here says...

In another Warlord thread (the "big one" I think), I contended that a Warlord class shouldn't be a great toe-to-toe fighter. That his abilities should be FIRMLY in the hands of "support". If a Warlord finds himself in melee with a Fighter or Barbarian...the Warlord should, at most, be able to defend long enough to have help arrive...but he should absolutely not be able to content 1-on-1 with a Fighter of equal level. The fighter FIGHTS...the Warlord does not.

All of the Maneuvers basically make the Warlord the "Fighter +1". Someone wanting to play a Warlord should be weighing all the factors... and, IMHO, the most prominant one should be "do I want to play an active roll, or support role?". If the latter, then Warlord should be on the list. IF the former, it should not.

A Warlords 'abilities' should be of the variety where another PC requests/asks the Warlord for support...not one where the Warlord dictates who gets what. The warlord should have abilities that, after the warlord makes some particular roll, grant some effect or bonus to another PC (if the PC wants it). For example, if the Warlord makes a DC 15 "Strategy Test", he can organize the Fighter and Thief into positions where the Fighter can give the Thief Advantage on his next attack. Or maybe the Warlord can make a DC 10 "Strategy Test" to allow the party to move into position before initiative is rolled. Things like that. Things that give the party or other PC's some tangible bonus if the Warlord makes some particular roll. But giving the Warlord all these melee, toe-to-toe Fighter abilities? Completely misses the point of what a Warlord should be, IMHO.

EDIT: I guess what that long-winded spew was trying to get at is... Warlord abilities shouldn't be dependant on the Warlord being in combat and attacking. Getting into melee should be a last resort of a Warlord. He should be standing right next to the Wizard, observing the battlefield and making tactical decisions and using his knowledge and vantage point to help... not swinging a two handed sword at an ogre who's trying to bite the Warlords head off. Hard to make tactical decisions for the thief who is 30' behind the ogre, hiding in shadows when you have more 'pressing' matters to attend to (like not getting your own head bit off). In fact, I'd say that the Warlords 'abilities' should be reduced or denied if he ends up getting into combat.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Jester David]

Those who hate the Warlord won. There is no Warlord in the PHB, they never have to open up their 5th edition rules and see the terrible warlord staring at them.

But there's the battlemaster maneuvers that can be easily used to build a warlord. It's as much in the PHB as the assassin.

it's time to let it go and let those who enjoy what the Warlord brought to the table actually enjoy the warlord without needing to defend their likes in thread after thread.

Except that "those who enjoy what the Warlord brought to the table" are not a monoform entity with a single view.

There are warlord fans who liked being the intelligent strategist.
There are warlord fans who liked being the charismatic leader.
There are warlord fans who enjoyed buffing the party and attacking through allies.
There are warlord fans who enjoyed being a healer than could hit people.
There are warlord fans who liked moving allies around the battlefield.
There are warlord fans who liked being a fighter that was focused on assisting instead of damage or tanking.
There are warlord fans who believe the class should be focused around healing and restoring hit points.
There are warlord fans who believe the class should be focused inspiring allies to do better.

Some of those ideas work well together, some of those ideas work as independent classes. But some of those ideas step on the toes of other classes. And some of those ideas don't work well with the modularity of the game.

Do they need to defend their likes in thread after thread? Nope. Not if they're satisfied with a homebrew class. But if there's currently dozens of homebrew warlords but the debate hasn't ended.
Do they need to defend their likes if after an official variant? Yes. Making a new class is a time intensive process that should involve months of playtesting and writing and revision. In the time it takes to do a single class, dozens of subclasses or spells or feats could be written.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Those who hate the Warlord won. There is no Warlord in the PHB, they never have to open up their 5th edition rules and see the terrible warlord staring at them.mit's time to let it go and let those who enjoy what the Warlord brought to the table actually enjoy the warlord without needing to defend their likes in thread after thread.

Despite the fact that those who love the Warlord won, they refuse to accept it. There is a Warlord in the PHB, they just have to open up their 5th edition rules and see the viable aspects of the warlord staring at them. It's time to let it go and let those who enjoy what the Warlord represented at the table actually enjoy roleplaying the playable warlord they got without needing to have it be a complete crunch-port-over-from-4e in thread after thread.

 

[mellored]

I would prefer the warlord as a sub-class of the strategist.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

True, but the fighter should still be the best at being the battle master. A little like you could another class a touch of assassination on totemic power but the rogue and barbarian should still be the best at that.

I gotta disagree. That's like saying the fighter should be the best at casting arcane spells because the eldritch knight gets them. The warlord would be wizard equivalent as the parent class the battlemaster borrows it's maneuvers from. Eldritch knight is a fighter with a splash of wizard. Battlemaster is the fighter with a splash of warlord. Take away fighter things (action surge, 3+ attacks, d10 HD, heavy armor, etc) and you have room to expand the maneuvers and other benefits a warlord would have.

 

[Xeviat]

Did I misread that this warlord only starts with 2 superiority dice? That puts them behind the Battle Master. Also, the fighter subclass Eldritch Knight gives them spells, specifically wizard spells; superiority dice could be THE thing of the warlord and the battle master is borrowing some of their abilities. Similar to how I want there to be a Templar fighter who cleric spells and a Kensei who uses ki, maneuvers could be the Warlord thing.

If the warlord lacked Fighting Style at 1st, and lacks Action Surge at 2nd, then Maneuvers become their way of affecting combat. They could use them to be a tactical warrior (disarm, trip, reactions), a buffer (granting bonuses and bonus attacks to allies), or a healer. It is enough design space for a class, and even though I still would rather see a warlord as a fighter subclass, that's partially only because I really like the number 12 and the class symmetry that the PHB currently provides.

 

[Jester David]

No he shouldnt. That's like saying the fighter should be the best at casting arcane spells because the eldritch knight gets them. The warlord would be wizard equivalent as the parent class the battlemaster borrows it's maneuvers from. Eldritch knight is a fighter with a splash of wizard. Battlemaster is the fighter with a splash of warlord. Take away fighter things (action surge, 3+ attacks, d10 HD, heavy armor, etc) and you have room to expand the maneuvers and other benefits a warlord would have.

Okay... that's a fair point.
I had a post written where I railed against this and wanted to argue that the battle master fighter should be the best at maneuvers as it's one of the few things unique to them. But I changed my mind and deleted that post. I'd still prefer not to take something away from fighters and give it to another class. But the idea of making the warlord the full maneuver class in the same way the wizard is a full caster class kinda makes sense. Having some maneuvers unique to battle masters might help with that.

I think I'd support that design.

I imagine there's even room for a subclass that has magic, the combo of the bard and warlord like the eldritch knight is a combo of the fighter and wizard. That might be a good home for the charisma-based warlord that actually heals and inspires allies.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

There are warlord fans who liked being the charismatic leader.
There are warlord fans who enjoyed buffing the party and attacking through allies.
There are warlord fans who believe the class should be focused inspiring allies to do better.

there are also the ones that like the idea of a bard being a character that inspires, but don't like the pusical performer and arcane caster parts.