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

[Garthanos]

My biggest irritant with the name "Warlord" is that it feels like it should have a mass combat system (or larger skirmish system) to interact with.

Battle == War

Master == Lord


Coincidence.

 

[Vael]

Paladins were a title for the highest nobles under a king. Wizard was the title gained by magic user in 1e and there was never a profession of Wizard. Thief was a description that included anyone who stole implying no particular skill set. Class naming conventions are hmmm pretty arbitrary.

"Were" being the operative word here. DnD is very much a genre unto itself, and Paladin and Wizard have definitely become class names. The same can be said for Monk, and Cleric. I'd even argue that the divides between Warlock, Wizard and Sorcerer is more a DnDism than a general fantasy trope. I don't think Warlord has achieved that pedigree ... yet. Had Warlord made the jump to the 5e PHB, I'd be arguing the other way, but here we are. I remain ambivalent to a 5e Warlord, I'm not against it, but I am not really advocating for it either.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmmm...definitely not a statement that will find universal agreement.

The 5e fighter doesn’t make a very good 4e fighter, but it doesn’t need to. It makes a perfectly fine 5e fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Title says it all. In effect, although I haven't played any edition other than 5e, my impression of the Warlord is that it is a class that excels in handing out bonuses to allies. These bonuses are all based upon the idea of an inspirational leader who is able to inspire, cajole, or otherwise boost their allies into getting some extra benefits to help them in battle.

That'd be a 4e Inspiring Warlord, in narrow terms, sure.

I think that's a fun angle for a PC to have, especially when it's not based on magic. But here's the thing; it's hard for me to imagine someone who's just that.

A 5e Warlord would have to be more than just that, yes.

5e classes are more focused on underlying concepts, and less on balance or consistent contributions than in 4e. So they tend to be narrower in some ways, and broader in others.

However, I do think the warlord angle is a good idea as a subclass for several different classes, with these "inspiration abilities" layered over the classes base skills.

The 5e class design paradigm seems to be very open to cross-pollenating classes by sub-class - I suppose since Multi-Classing is optional, it covers some obvious concepts that might otherwise require it.
But, the fact it's readily plausible, in 5e design, to have a sub-class of Fighter that's a little bit Wizard (Eldritch Knight) in no way implies you've covered the Wizard class. Little-bit-wizard sub-classes have kinda made the rounds. There's Arcana Clerics, Lore Bards, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Tricksters - and I may have missed some. So, could you have warlord-ish sub-classes of other classes? Sure, you could also have Warlord sub-classes that dipped into another class's schtick. 5e's ...profligate... that way.

In 4e, classes were defined by Source (Martial, Arcane, Divine, etc) and focused by Role. The Warlord was a support class - in prior editions often called a 'healer,' and rather derided as reactive & boring, in a vain attempt to rehabilitate support contributions, 4e called the role 'Leader,' and, even though it immediately made it clear that did not mean 'party leader' and 'boss other players around' there's a tremendous amount of hand-wringing about that possibility. In 5e, support-contribution classes include the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and, now, Artificer. The Bard, Cleric and Druid can also easily make contributions that would have made them very capable Controllers in 4e. The Druid and Paladin can also make the kinds of contributions a 4e 'Defender' would have. The 5e Paladin can also make with the DPR in the way 4e Striker would have - specific spells can let the others rival that, as well, at times.

5e tends to pile a lot on top of support contributions, perhaps because they're not greatly valued. At the same time, the actions and resources you need to contribute support often take away from other alternatives in 5e, while in 4e, potent Support would be bundled with lesser control or dpr or durability. So support classes in 5e tend to do other things, and do them pretty well, even to be able to focus on said other things nearly to the exclusion of support (the Paladin, for instance, is pretty nearly alone in having a healing resource 'siloed' from his spell slots).

Robin Hood may be a warlord, but he's also a ranger. John Carter may be a warlord, but he's also a fighter. Conan may be a warlord, but he's also a barbarian.

Categorically, Robin Hood was not a standard-issue D&D Ranger. He didn't go around casting spells. He was far too skillful to be a Fighter, far to capable in combat (he had been a crusader) to be a traditional Rogue. In classic, TSR era eds, he'd've been some illegal multi-classes human.

Saying an example of a Warlord is 'also a fighter' is like saying an example of a Bard, Artificer, Sorcerer, or Warlock is 'also a Wizard' because he casts arcane spells. Warlords were a martial class, just as many (OK, technically, all) classes in 5e cast spells like wizards, four classes in 4e relied on martial ability, like fighters. 5e has a dearth of such classes, and a glut of casters. The few 'martial' classes 5e does have are pretty limited in expression. The fighter is all tanky DPR; the Rogue is sneaky, SA-based DPR; the Berserker, rage-based DPR. There's a tremendous amount of untouched design space around martial characters in 5e. The Warlord could make use of quite a bit of it.

If you do a google search of warlord, you get a collection of images of people that are mostly knights, soldiers, and samurai... archetypes already filled in other classes.

The only candidates for doing so are the Champion or Battlemaster Fighter, or, maybe, a Rogue or Berserker Barbarian. RL sources of inspiration for those classes, and especially for the Fighter, tend to be better-handled by a class like Warlord, that does more than just hit things. Just being a great warrior in your own right was OK at the dawn of history, the warrior-king would stand at the front of his (actually pretty small) army and stab people just like everyone else. But beyond Gilgamesh and the like, the great warriors remembered by legend and history have been leaders, captains, generals, revolutionaries - more like 4e Warlords than D&D fighters, in both concept, and in abilities modeled.

So what's my point? That although the warlord's schtick (giving boosts to allies through non-magical means) is a good one, it isn't one that I find particularly good alone, either mechanically or thematically.

It was not alone, even in 4e, which was constrained by the concept of Role, and it definitely shouldn't be in 5e. For instance, in 4e there were some powers where, through tactics or haranguing, the Warlord would affect enemies as well as allies, very few, because it tended to encroach on the Controller Role. In 5e, there's no need to worry about that, because most support classes in 5e are full-bore 'controllers,' as well.

 

[cmad1977]

5e already has a ‘warlord’. It’s a subclass. Battle master.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem with the warlord is that it was a popular class that fit into the gameplay of 4E, but doesn't really have a niche in 5E. Bard, Fighter, and Paladin all have sub-classes to help recreate the purpose and feel of the warlord, so the only thing really missing is the name. The full concept of the warlord is tactical combat, which isn't a base aspect of 5E, so making a class based around it doesn't make sense.

Sometime, try to check out the talent trees for the Star Wars Saga Edition Noble class. Specifically the Leadership and, IIRC, Inspiration, trees. Anything from the Galaxy At War or Clone Wars books, particularly, but also the core book and Galaxy of Intrigue, and probably Scum and Villainy.

The Warlord doesn’t need 4e to work as a full fledged class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Robin Hood is a Scout Rogue or Swashbuckler Rogue.

Maybe with 1-2 levels of Fighter, but very easily not.

 

[Don Durito]

The 5e fighter doesn’t make a very good 4e fighter, but it doesn’t need to. It makes a perfectly fine 5e fighter.

Well that seems fairly circular. One can just as well say the 3E fighter was a perfectly fine 3E fighter - if one can abritrarily set criteria than one can arbritrartily meet them also.

It means nothing. It should be obvious however, from the sheer amount of threads there have been on the topic - that people are not universally happy with the 5E fighter. We don't need to argue it out again here - but it would be nice to see people actually acknowledge basic reality.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Robin Hood is a Scout Rogue or Swashbuckler Rogue.

Maybe with 1-2 levels of Fighter, but very easily not.

That is, unless the game includes a warlord, in which case he is a Bandit Captain or whatever the skillful underhanded subclass is called.

 

[Garthanos]

Robin Hood is a Scout Rogue or Swashbuckler Rogue.

In 4e the trick shot using Hunter is closest in my thinking or maybe that is William Tell