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

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

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. 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. And when people hear warlord, they think of a person leading large groups of soldiers and controlling territory, not a guy directing a small group of adventurers.

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.

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.

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. I've already given some thematic examples of fictional characters above, but I'll give more ideas for names for some below (and these are just things I can think of easily, I'm sure one for each class can be devised);

• Barbarian: Path of the Conqueror
• Cleric: Inquisition Domain
• Fighter: Commander
• Paladin: Oath of the Crusade
• Ranger: Bandit Lord
• Wizard: Battle School

Add rules for mass combat, and bingo you got something that I think is pretty cool, and a lot more appropriate than a new class.

 

[Retreater]

I can agree that the hallmarks of the 4e warlord design (inspirational leadership maneuvers, nonmagical healing, etc.) can be folded into other classes in a satisfying way.
I found this PDF on DriveThruRPG that lets you add Warlord-style powers to existing 5e classes, so you can get the feel of the Warlord without adding a separate class. I recommend it!
Martial Exploits - Dungeon Masters Guild | DriveThruRPG.com

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

It would have made a great subclass if the basic classes were more narrowly designed.

But since we have 3 different classes that are basically “a fighter plus gimmick” and 8 classes that are like “a wizard, but...” I don’t think the class/subclass divide is a convincing reason to put Warlord in column B instead of column A.

Now, to change your mind. As popularized in 4E, the warlord filled a role in the party that was closer to cleric or bard than it was to fighter. I can’t (and don’t) speak for everyone, but it seems to me that a faithful 5E recreation of this 4E concept ought to try to emulate the feel that fans of the 4E warlord want now. A subclass (as they are now) doesn’t offer the depth or customization that fans of the warlord once had. If they wanted “a fighter plus gimmick” they’d have been satisfied with any of those offerings. Since they’re not, and continue to want a warlord class, it seems like we should start there.

After all, if there is to BE a warlord in d&d, shouldn’t it be made in accordance with the wishes of those who actually want one in the game? I think so. It doesn’t strike me as reasonable to go “well we’ll do a warlord but design it for people who’d never play it or permit it in their games.”

How’d I do?

 

[cbwjm]

I prefer the way they have divided up the warlord kit between various subclasses for different classes. The most obvious is the battlemaster which has some manoeuvres that replicate warlord abilities. But you also have the totem barbarian: wolf granting advantage on melee attacks, the order cleric providing extra attacks when casting a spell on an ally, the mastermind rogue and and the purple dragon knight also have abilities that could have been folded into a warlord class. The Bard class is another obvious one thanks to bardic inspiration with lore, glamour, and valour colleges enhancing their ability to that aid their allies. These are the subclasses (and class) that I know of off the top of my head that have taken parts of the warlord kit and folded them into the subclass and this is how I prefer it. I like having the leader of men having multiple paths rather than shoehorning the concept into a single class.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

It would have made a great subclass if the basic classes were more narrowly designed.

But since we have 3 different classes that are basically “a fighter plus gimmick” and 8 classes that are like “a wizard, but...” I don’t think the class/subclass divide is a convincing reason to put Warlord in column B instead of column A.

Now, to change your mind. As popularized in 4E, the warlord filled a role in the party that was closer to cleric or bard than it was to fighter. I can’t (and don’t) speak for everyone, but it seems to me that a faithful 5E recreation of this 4E concept ought to try to emulate the feel that fans of the 4E warlord want now. A subclass (as they are now) doesn’t offer the depth or customization that fans of the warlord once had. If they wanted “a fighter plus gimmick” they’d have been satisfied with any of those offerings. Since they’re not, and continue to want a warlord class, it seems like we should start there.

After all, if there is to BE a warlord in d&d, shouldn’t it be made in accordance with the wishes of those who actually want one in the game? I think so. It doesn’t strike me as reasonable to go “well we’ll do a warlord but design it for people who’d never play it or permit it in their games.”

How’d I do?

Good points, but my mind remains unchanged.

To be fair, your argument seems to largely be "people want the warlord, so they should have it," which I don't really like much. Just because people want it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Second, I'm largely arguing that the feel of the 4e warlord can be recreated through subclasses in existing classes; I'm saying that instead of an entirely new class to recreate that feel, it should be new subclasses with those options.

That way you can get the fighter + inspiring figure" (the 4e warlord), plus other matches, like "healer + inspiring figure."

 

[Seramus]

If we inject chemicals into your brain, your mind will change immediately.

 

[Bawylie]

Good points, but my mind remains unchanged.

To be fair, your argument seems to largely be "people want the warlord, so they should have it," which I don't really like much. Just because people want it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Second, I'm largely arguing that the feel of the 4e warlord can be recreated through subclasses in existing classes; I'm saying that instead of an entirely new class to recreate that feel, it should be new subclasses with those options.

That way you can get the fighter + inspiring figure" (the 4e warlord), plus other matches, like "healer + inspiring figure."

Yeah. I understood that was your point. Mine was “we already have that but the people who want the warlord aren’t satisfied with that, so maybe we should start with what they want.”

Now, there’s nothing that says all that other stuff you think is cool should be removed from the books, right? So why not both?

And just because people want it doesn’t make it a bad idea, either. That’s down to execution.

 

[Don Durito]

There seems to be a divide in any case between what people who want the Warlord actually want.

Some want the 4E warlord as it was actually designed to be run. Able to hand out healing, movement buffs and attacks while stiff being an effective combatant.

Others want the lazylord - an emergent build which emerged by being able to string a lot of warlord abilities that granted attacks to others together and dump strength. This allowed you to reskin the warlord as effectively a complete non-combatant character but with the player still having contributions to make during combat.

The first can easily fit in D&D provided you have a combat system that can handle the tactical depth. Rob Schwalbe made a version of the 4E class that's up on DMs guild that's almost straight conversion. If it's unsatisying it's unsatisfying in the same way the Battlemaster fighter is unsastisfying in comparison to the 4E fighter - all the tactical depth has been moved into spellcasting and magic. But there's no reason this class could not be core. It could be folded back into Fighter sure - but then so could Barbarian and Paladin. Ultimately I don't see the point of arguing for it one way or another - it depends on the ecology of the whole class system and whether it goes big or small - I will say that I can't see a good reason why Warlod specifically cannot justify a class - it's at least a good hook as 'warrior who flips out and gets really angry".

The lazylord is probably a lot move divisive. I personally would not want to see it as a core class - and don't really think it belongs in D&D.

 

[Arilyn]

Because people miss the class. Many people want the class, so why not? It would be well received if done well, and make many players happy. It won't ruin the game or cause mass desertion. If we can have sorcerer and wizard, we have room for warlord.