D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Aldarc]

Anyway, as others have said, there are some current problems with just having the Warlord as part of the fighter chassis. (1) The fighter chassis is too oriented around offense and DPR; (2) the PDK is considered one of the weakest and crappiest fighter subclasses; (3) you can't be a PDK and a Battlemaster at the same time; (4) there are other Warlord-appropriate things that are not covered by either the PDK or Battlemaster that would almost be too strong if it was all included together as part of a Fighter subclass.

The Warlord would not necessarily even need to be its own class. It could hypothetically be a subclass. I'm just not sure if it would be an appropriate subclass to any of the pre-existing classes, which is part of the challenge. Since it gets floated around, I will acknowledge that the EN "Noble" class is one possible way to do it.

I would personally be most interested in expanding the Battlemaster from a "1/3rd caster Warlord" into a "full caster Warlord." Because IMHO that would not just be an interesting Warlord but an interesting fighting class that brought the sort of tactical options that is more typically held by magic classes to the martial classes.

 

[Mistwell]

As you know, "ignore" no longer functions in the same way as it once did.

So I've been trying something a little novel recently - going out of my way to tell people, "Hey, not arguing this. Stop trying to argue something I don't care about," to see how it goes.

And .... well, this is pretty much how it goes. Because ...



You know what else is an easy fix? Not being such a jerk that people have to ignore you because you refuse to stop arguing with them.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work. EDIT: So, easy fix it is.

Well I think the new ignore works much better, but tastes will differ on that.

I think jerk is kinda in the eye of the beholder concerning "refuse to stop arguing with them" when you keep responding to him. Letting him have the last word probably would have worked better than three responses now about how he needs to stop responding.

And I am not saying it's easy to let people have the last word, particularly when you find them deeply disagreeable. It's not. At least, for me it's not, and I assume it's not that easy for others. But I think pushing through past that uncomfortable feeling of letting their last response hang out there for others to see with no reply from you might have worked better in this instance than calling him a name (jerk) and responding to him after you wanted responses to end.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The class has be designed with Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma as very valuable.

Easily bypassed by anyone rules savvy. Wisdom? Arcane Initiate and use a Shillelagh. Charisma? Grab a level of Hexblade. Intelligence? Multiclass into Battlesmith.

MAD simply does not work for class balancing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Third party contributions have been alright some were however just attempts to direct ummm clone up the 4e one and none I think do service to what it could be. When Tony Vargas mentions that 5e actually has flexibility that could do a better Warlord than 4e I think maybe yes maybe no... but there is more to the Warlord than even what 4e offered.

Class-based systems limit some concepts and pad out others. The warlord was one of the limited ones. As nicely as it worked for balance and party-building, Role limited what a single class could do, even with 'secondary roles.' That's why being great at archery had to be split off from the fighter to the all-martial ranger, because it was too striker (& they couldn't think of a way to make it defender).
5e class designs aren't limited by role (they're brutally limited by tradition, in the case of the fighter, obviously), a neo-Vancian caster can load up to go heavy on control, or blasting, or support, or be ready for all three with less depth in each, and cast spontaneously in whatever proportion the evolving day demands.
The Warlord concept called for a very adaptable set of abilities that could, in different ways, be applied to either allies or enemies. But, the latter would have stepped on the controller role, so it was tightly

Anyway, as others have said, there are some current problems with just having the Warlord as part of the fighter chassis. (1) The fighter chassis is too oriented around offense and DPR; (2) the PDK is considered one of the weakest and crappiest fighter subclasses; (3) you can't be a PDK and a Battlemaster at the same time; (4) there are other Warlord-appropriate things that are not covered by either the PDK or Battlemaster that would almost be too strong if it was all included together as part of a Fighter subclass.

All true.

The Warlord would not necessarily even need to be its own class. It could hypothetically be a subclass. I'm just not sure if it would be an appropriate subclass to any of the pre-existing classes, which is part of the challenge. Since it gets floated around, I will acknowledge that the EN "Noble" class is one possible way to do it.
I would personally be most interested in expanding the Battlemaster from a "1/3rd caster Warlord" into a "full caster Warlord."

Except for the highly inappropriate use of 'caster' to describe a maneuver-based class, that might be a class the Warlord could be a sub-class of. Something with as much more and more varied and more powerful and higher-level-gated maneuvers than the BM as the wizard stands above the EK.
The various Warlord builds & flavors could be archetypes of that, as could the weaponmaster fighter's builds &c, the spell-less ranger, martial artists, and so forth.

Of course, that's a lot to ask for one class, it'd be like expecting to have a single divine caster covering the Cleric, Paladin, Druid and Ranger, and a single arcane class covering the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard and Warlock.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

I shouldn't have to say this - @lowkey13 and @Aldarc - Leave each other alone, please. Stop responding to each other. That includes sideways references that are all about the other person's posts, but not naming them.

Oh, and not interested in arguments of the form, "But he was responding to me, so I should get to respond back!" Both of you could have handled this several times better, and you didn't. So, now, just stop talking to each other.

Is that clear? If not, take it to PM, and I will repeat - just stop talking to each other in this thread.

 

[Aldarc]

Except for the highly inappropriate use of 'caster' to describe a maneuver-based class, that might be a class the Warlord could be a sub-class of. Something with as much more and more varied and more powerful and higher-level-gated maneuvers than the BM as the wizard stands above the EK.
The various Warlord builds & flavors could be archetypes of that, as could the weaponmaster fighter's builds &c, the spell-less ranger, martial artists, and so forth.

Of course, that's a lot to ask for one class, it'd be like expecting to have a single divine caster covering the Cleric, Paladin, Druid and Ranger, and a single arcane class covering the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard and Warlock.

Unless WotC had actually designed a much better Fighter that could fit a lot more into its chassis than it currently does. I am not diametrically opposed to having the Warlord as a Fighter subclass. I just don't think that it would work for the 5e Fighter in its present state and base chassis. If someone built a new fighter that was more akin to the Battlemaster as the base assumption and then had a Warlord that built on top of that by expanding its support functionality, then we would be in a MUCH BETTER position.

 

[Garthanos]

Easily bypassed by anyone rules savvy. Wisdom? Arcane Initiate and use a Shillelagh. Charisma?
Grab a level of Hexblade. Intelligence? Multiclass into Battlesmith.

My design idea also fuels bigger badder Warlord as Fighter subclass maneuvers and the ability to effective do lesser ones at-will using the multi-attack capability so if you delay getting an extra attack you have nerfed your warlord in a different way . So lets say You choose to dump Strength and do Intelligence for the Battlesmith. You are starting out 3 levels with a nerfed Strength to have nice Con and you arent getting the bigger warlord maneuvers till level 8 and further you never get the end game biggest warlord maneuvers. Now is that enough discouragement I do not know. You are also delaying the ASIs and Feats that way too.

You probably went with ALL tactical warlording since you probably arent as good at inspiring and rallying and even some tactical abilities that allow you to affect multiple allies and enemies might not be as good because effects or secondary effects like range and area of effect and so on might be using charisma or wisdom.

Its not bypassed is all I am saying ... you seem to be paying "something" for it somewhere.

 

[Garthanos]

This class level dipping ick reminds me of the issue 3e had all nicely reincarnated.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I’m fine w/ a 5e Warlord, but due to system differences, it is not going to be similar in practice to a 4e Warlord.

D10 HD...lets the class get into the thick of things...differentiates from other support classes...
Saving Throws: Con & Int...Hardy and able to see through deception.
Armor and Weapons: All Armor, Shields, Martial & Simple Weapons.
2 skills...Fighter skill list
Tools: 1 tool either Cartographer or Navigator. ( considered Calligraphy also)

I envision the class as trained warriors so 1st level could look like this: (Rough Ideas)
Fighting Style: Defense, Protection, Superior Technique (recent U/A), no Archery style. (can be subclass).

Support Ability Place Holder: Bonus action, give ally w/in 30’ Temp HPs & bonus equal to proficiency bonus to AC to end of round, or bonus to damage on one hit by end of next round.
Recover Long Rest, uses equal to Con modifier, Warlord can sacrifice HD to fuel power.

2nd Level:
Tactical Options: Warlord can use their reaction to allow ally w/in 30’ to use Disengage, Dash, or Hide Action. Recipient must also spend their reaction.

Basic Training: Warlord can grant Proficiency with a single specific weapon type ( e.g. Scimitar, Longbow etc), single specific armor ( e.g. Plate Mail, Shield) or shield, OR allow a specific sword, armor or shield to count as Magic. (Reflects the instruction) Lasts to Long rest, inspired by Artificer Infusions.
2 Infusions to start.

3rd level: Veteran: learn two Maneuvers ( see Battle Master Subclass), have two Superiority Dice.
(I would recommend a more curated list of maneuvers to chose from to not step on Battle Master)
Subclass choice.

4th level: ASI
5th Level: Extra Attack
6th level: Ability to as an Reaction to add a bonus to Ally’s STR/CON/DEX Ability checks
Might also allow for Vehicle Tool Checks.
7th level: Ability to add Con Modifier to ally’s Saving Throw, as reaction. Usages per day equal to Con.
18th Level: multiple Reactions. ( like 18th level Capstones).

Later levels can add enhancements to the aforementioned abilities... More Maneuvers, Increase dice....ok w/ Warlord having more Dice & Maneuvers known than Battle Master overtime, more Infusions or power up to +2 at 10th etc.

I like basing the class off Reactions, to differentiate from Bard...also allows the Warlord full use of the Bonus Action options from GWM and Shield Master feats.

rough ideas again.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've never found a need for a Warlord in my game, so I'm ill-equipped to change anybody's mind on this topic. When I think of super shouting in combat I think of Skyrim, not Genghis Khan. So maybe I'd start there?