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

[Manchurian]

No one is pretending that the 5e fighter is universally liked. But the fact that the fighter isn’t universally liked is not an argument against the addition of a Warlord class.

How do you feel about the blade master class vs the ranger....?

 

[Don Durito]

I think there's an issue with the Warlord as I hinted at earlier in the thread in that it covers a whole lot of things - some of which are easier to implement in 5e than others.

The 4E warlord could

• give up attacks to make others attack (lazylord when taken to extremes)
• provide static buffs to other classes (in 5E this would be done by having effects such as bless granting advantage or something like a Paladin's aura).
• Healing (difficult to implement in 5E due to the different ways healing works without it being explicitly magical) - there are things you can do - eg temp hps and the like - but they probably wouldn't add up to the abilities of the 4E warlord in this area. (i.e no "Stand the Fallen Daily when you rouse your unconcious allies heal the whole party and yell "Once more into the breach".)
• Act as Force multiplier - abilities to make an attack and then grant an ability to others to make an attack. Or charge and others charge to - or attack and then move an ally - or push a guy and then every ally that's adjacent gets an attack. This could easily done in 5E - The Battlemaster can already spend short rest resource to make an attack with a reaction - it wouldn't break anything in particular to grant others an attack on their reaction. (This is the one thing that - except for the one Purple Dragon Knight tenth level feature is completely lacking in 5E.)
• Grant movement to allies, shift the game boards around etc (easily doable in 5E as the Battlemaster has a limited version of this and the glamour bard has a major version).

You can easily make a subclass that does some of the above things - there's probably not a subclass with enough scope to all of those things.

Rob Schwalbe's Warlord class (which as I always point out in these threads already exists - and is written by one of 5E's designers - but which for some reason is always ignored), covers most of the above points - it has attack granting from level 2 (so no beginning as a lazy lord) it has buffs and buffs, it has some movement granting abilities - although mostly in the capacity of extra movement. What it doesn't do - which is what I personally enjoyed most about the 4E warlord is allow the big "I attack and then you attack" options or the off turn moves and combo set-ups. (But it's difficult to really pull of this sort of combo without the inclusion of an equivalent of daily powers).

 

[Garthanos]

Well that seems fairly circular.

There is a lot of that going round.... sorry had to say it.

 

[Aldarc]

IME, Crowder-style framing of "[strong opinion X], change my mind" is rarely, if ever, done in good faith, so I doubt that anyone will leave this thread with their mind changed on whether the Warlord should be a full class or not. And rehashing a thread topic where warlord fans on this forum are again forced to justify the hypothetical existence of a class archetype they want to see fulfilled in 5e seems pretty dickish after the umpteenth time.

 

[Manchurian]

I think there's an issue with the Warlord as I hinted at earlier in the thread in that it covers a whole lot of things - some of which are easier to implement in 5e than others.

The 4E warlord could

• give up attacks to make others attack (lazylord when taken to extremes)
• provide static buffs to other classes (in 5E this would be done by having effects such as bless granting advantage or something like a Paladin's aura).
• Healing (difficult to implement in 5E due to the different ways healing works without it being explicitly magical) - there are things you can do - eg temp hps and the like - but they probably wouldn't add up to the abilities of the 4E warlord in this area. (i.e no "Stand the Fallen Daily when you rouse your unconcious allies heal the whole party and yell "Once more into the breach".)
• Act as Force multiplier - abilities to make an attack and then grant an ability to others to make an attack. Or charge and others charge to - or attack and then move an ally - or push a guy and then every ally that's adjacent gets an attack. This is easily done in 5E - The Battlemaster can already spend short rest resource to make an attack with a reaction - it wouldn't break anything in particular to grant others an attack on their reaction. (This is the one thing that - except for the one Purple Dragon Knight tenth level feature is completely lacking in 5E.
• Grant movement to allies, shift the game boards around etc (easily doable in 5E as the Battlemaster has a limited version of this and the glamour bard has a major version).

You can easily make a subclass that does some of the above things - there's probably not a subclass with enough scope to all of those things.

Rob Schwalbe's Warlord class (which as I always point out in this thread already exists - and is written by one of 5E's designers), covers most of the above points - it has attack granting from level 2 (so no beginning as a lazy lord) it has buffs and buffs, it has some movement granting abilities - although mostly in the capacity of extra movement. What it doesn't do - which is what I personally enjoyed most about the 4E warlord is allow the big of turn "I attack and then you attack" options or the off turn moves and combo set-ups. (But it's difficult to really pull of this sort of combo without the inclusion of an equivalent of daily powers).

Cool....I agree could be a subclass easy or even an inherited template ...I get the point....But those Abilities It Has Is Nice....Maybe the daily powers can be supplemented by relics and potions of rejuvenation and the like....Abit sketchy but worth the extra right up part for a detailed bad ass combo character

 

[Garthanos]

The “archer or dual wielder with mild woodsy fluff” 4e ranger worked, but the 5e Ranger is definitely not where I’d go for a guy who is a crack shot and lives in the woods.

The 5e ranger did inherit the flurry of snapshots from the 4e Hunter, but ... still not so much tactical control choices.

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.

Just realized I responded with the snarky part and not the agreement. It would certainly be badassed if they are doing an expansion with mass combat like maybe Birthright, to introduce a Full Warlord Class

 

[Garthanos]

Birthright also seems a setting that would be attractive to 4e fans in a general sense the larger than life element of the Bloodline gifted heroes certainly appeals to me.

 

[Manchurian]

IME, Crowder-style framing of "[strong opinion X], change my mind" is rarely, if ever, done in good faith, so I doubt that anyone will leave this thread with their mind changed on whether the Warlord should be a full class or not. And rehashing a thread topic where warlord fans on this forum are again forced to justify the hypothetical existence of a class archetype they want to see fulfilled in 5e seems pretty dickish after the umpteenth time.

The Idea Of Several Different Fighter Types Is Feasible.....It Should Be A Class!....I Could Tweek A Ranger Cleric To Do The Same..But For All Purposes I Have To Say It's Reasonable For It...For Example Just Because I Have Jedi's And Sith Lord's Running Around In My Campaign Does not Mean I can't Have Paladins And Antipaladins AlsoAnother example..... The Beast master And The Hunter Class Also....The Same But Different spectrums.....There is other kits that the Warlord Class Can be Used For Like Warlord/Necromancer . Get some of those vile feats in the ad&d book of Vile Darkness Time of Damnation.....This could be A Hell Of A Antagonist.... Cause he can power up his undead bonus hit bonuses strength bonuse hitdice and it stacks....This Warlord Class If Melded Right Is A Beast For Those Who Thought it Shouldn't Be .. let me add again some class abilities don't stack with cross classing but these actually due stack without a Tweak...So Yes.. Warlord Class Awesome. .Depends How You Use Him And What Templates And Subclasses you Put on His Build

 

[Garthanos]

Mearles happy fun time Warlord is a fighter type with the limits that implies but at least seems to have both the intelligence foundation of the tactical warlord and some more of the help the whole party gambits going for it down (still hoping to perhaps see that followed through on in some fashion)

 

[Charlaquin]

How do you feel about the blade master class vs the ranger....?

What’s the blade master class?