D&D 5E The Warlord [New Class]

[Jester David]

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.

The musical aspect of the class isn't worked into the mechanics any more. You can be a speech giving bard just fine.
The magic is trickier, but that could be reflavoured easily enough. But, then again, I'm none to thrilled about bards being full casters.

Regardless, the bard really is the "charismatic leader" class whose niche is inspiring people. We don't really *need* another more than we need a brand new class for the urban ranger (the stealthy ambush hunter that removes all that wilderness lore) or the brawling pugilist (the unarmed attacker that removes all the spiritualism from the monk). Those are absolutely valid concepts, but having dozens and dozens of classes in the game is detrimental.

From a design perspective, a warlord class should really focus on what makes it unique and different from the bard, rather than trying to be the bard and the intelligent strategist and the non-magical cleric. It needs to be inspired by the 4e warlord and its concept, not shackled to it.

 

[MoonSong]

The musical aspect of the class isn't worked into the mechanics any more. You can be a speech giving bard just fine.
The magic is trickier, but that could be reflavoured easily enough. But, then again, I'm none to thrilled about bards being full casters.

Regardless, the bard really is the "charismatic leader" class whose niche is inspiring people. We don't really *need* another more than we need a brand new class for the urban ranger (the stealthy ambush hunter that removes all that wilderness lore) or the brawling pugilist (the unarmed attacker that removes all the spiritualism from the monk). Those are absolutely valid concepts, but having dozens and dozens of classes in the game is detrimental.

From a design perspective, a warlord class should really focus on what makes it unique and different from the bard, rather than trying to be the bard and the intelligent strategist and the non-magical cleric. It needs to be inspired by the 4e warlord and its concept, not shackled to it.

Well, the music aspect is more visible than ever. I can't remember any bard who needed a musical instrument to cast spells. -well some variants did, but never a core thing-. What do you think of my effort? (the one in en5ider 34)

 

[Jester David]

Well, the music aspect is more visible than ever. I can't remember any bard who needed a musical instrument to cast spells. -well some variants did, but never a core thing.

It uses a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus. Really, that just means they can use it in place of a component pouch.

 

[discosoc]

Why not just make a Fighter/Bard or Barbarian/Bard or really Anything/Bard and call yourself a warlord?

 

[Xeviat]

I've been inspired by Jester Canuck's ability to have their opinion changed (accepting that a maneuver-based class could exist alongside the battle master), I'm now reconsidering viewing the Bard as the fantasy Warlord. I've been arguing for the better part of a year that the Ranger needs their spells because it lets them be the fantasy woodsman, just like the paladin needs their spells to be the fantasy knight in shinning armor. A Valor Bard could play just like a warlord; the only thing they really need is a "lazylord" spell to make an ally make an attack instead of themselves.

Really, looking over the bard list, there are plenty of spells that could work; their effects are magical, but their displays aren't overtly magical.

0
Blade Ward
Friends
True Strike
Vicious Mockery

1
Bane
Charm Person
Comprehend Languages
Cure Wounds
Healing Word
Heroism
Longstrider

2
calm emotions
enhance ability
enthrall
hold person (describe it as fear)
lesser restoration
suggestion
zone of truth (I'll know if you lie to me, so just don't lie to me)

3
fear
tongues

4
compulsion
confusion
freedom of movement (maybe)

5
dominate person
greater restoration
hold monster
legend lore
mass cure wounds
raise dead (super cpr)

6
find the path
mass suggestion

7
regenerate (mind over body, just relax, you'll heal)
resurrection (super duper cpr)

8
dominate monster
glibness
mind blank

9
foresight
power word heal
power word kill

Thanks for changing my perspective. I still think there's room for a Warlord as a fighter subclass (maybe borrowing the bard's inspiration dice and gaining the ability to use their action surge and second wind on other people), but I'm now sold on the Bard being THE WARLORD. Now I just need to come up with a few new spells ...

 

[GreenTengu]

Why not just make a Fighter/Bard or Barbarian/Bard or really Anything/Bard and call yourself a warlord?

Why does there need to be a "Paladin" class? Why not just multiclass Fighter and Cleric.
Why is there a "Ranger" class when you have the ability to be a Fighter who takes some Rogue and Druid levels?
And why is there a "Bard" class? Surely you can just be a Rogue and mix in a level of Fighter and a couple levels of Wizard.

Certainly nothing is stopping you from calling yourself a Paladin, Ranger or Bard under these circumstances.

Granted, perhaps the issue with the Fighter/Bard mix is that Fighter really isn't giving you anything worthwhile that you aren't getting as a Bard and levels invested in Bard you are required to carry around a musical instrument and a not insignificant portion of your character is "spent" on buying up illusion and enchantment spells.

I think the goal at some point was to be an alternative choice to Cleric since it is weird that the only required character for every party that goes out there to have is the evangelical holyman who is quite likely out there preaching about a god the rest of the party isn't dedicated to. I suppose you can go with the wild nature holyman in a pinch and taking the guy who strokes his flute in the middle of battles is supposedly an alternative though a bad one, but is that really any sort of choice?

I really don't know why there is so much focus on trying to make a Warlord that is so much like the Fighter instead of being a lot more like a Cleric that doesn't use spell-slots. The more one insists it stand in for the Fighter, the more it will fail to be an alternative choice to the Cleric.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Why bother having any classes at all? Let's just play GURPS of Hero..

 

[Xeviat]

I really don't know why there is so much focus on trying to make a Warlord that is so much like the Fighter instead of being a lot more like a Cleric that doesn't use spell-slots. The more one insists it stand in for the Fighter, the more it will fail to be an alternative choice to the Cleric.

Compare the Warlock (not a typo) to the Wizard, then make a chassis for the Warlord (not a typo) to the Cleric as the Warlock is to the Wizard. Cantrips are replaced with Fighting Style. Spell Slots are replaced with "shouts" or something. Spells known are replaced with shouts known. Balance the shouts around spells, heck even steal some of them to save design space. Swap some features around, and then come up with something to replace mystic Arcanum.

Would that be the type of warlord you'd like?

 

[ChameleonX]

As some have pointed out, I designed this class to be to the Battlemaster what the Wizard is to the Eldritch Knight. That said, it ends up learning more maneuvers than the Battlemaster (by two), but still having smaller dice (d10 vs. d12), as well as less dice overall (5 vs. 6). I figured that was balanced enough.

Anyway, I've gone ahead and made some alterations to the class. The Maneuvers are now based on Intelligence or Wisdom (player's choice), while many of the class's features are based on Charisma. This is intended to produce a more cerebral character who relies less on brute force and more on tactics and inspiration.

From the feedback I'm getting, I do agree that I may have focused a little too much on making attacks to trigger the maneuvers. Though the "lead by example" Warlord who fights on the frontlines with his men should still be represented, I am going to make an effort to provide more "support" maneuvers that don't require an attack.

As for the Class vs. Subclass debate, the fact that I made this thread should imply what side of the fence I'm on.

 

[steeldragons]

Why does there need to be a "Paladin" class? Why not just multiclass Fighter and Cleric.
Why is there a "Ranger" class when you have the ability to be a Fighter who takes some Rogue and Druid levels?
And why is there a "Bard" class? Surely you can just be a Rogue and mix in a level of Fighter and a couple levels of Wizard.

You know why (and I'll clarify this isn't directed at you, Hobgoblin, but any/all folks who like to bring this up as if its some kind of defense or retort...which is just far too often).

Because they have legacy. They have been in the game almost since its inception. That is the sad and so painful [seemingly, for some people] truth. That is why they're in the game and dozens of other D&D-like fantasy RPG games, and no one bats an eye about them. They have been in the D&D game a long time and they are expected to be there.

That's why we have them. That's "why we have [those classes]." Tough break for the classes that weren't around for 30+ years.

Not liking the answer isn't going to change the past/reality. That's why. We all know it.

If the warlord had been a class that caught on and been around for 30+ years and the Paladin was something that was turned into a class 5 years ago, we'd be getting treated to a dozen threads a week arguing over "What a 5e paladin looks like" and what mechanics would be "wrong" or not make "a real paladin."

They're in the game because the game is Dungeons & Dragons and they have (following OD&D or B/X), in some form or another, been in it for a very long time. The warlord hasn't. It just hasn't. That's not good, bad, indifferent. That's reality. D&D is a class based game. The paladin/ranger/bard [we could reasonably throw in barbarian] are among the classes that have been around the longest. End of story.

Saying "Why can't a warlord [be/have/do this] when these other classes [can/do/have]?" is never going to be a persuasive argument. No matter how much you love/hate/don't care about the warlord class, or anything else from...well, any edition after 1, you can't change history/travel through time and rewrite the dawn of the game.

/frustrated logician.