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

[Don Durito]

A barbarian is just a berserker. Everything thing else is there as mechanics to hang off that.

But the berserker thing is the heart of it. (At least since 3rd edition).

There are several reasons it's a class. The first is because there was a Barbarian class in 1e (which had even less reason to exist and was completely different). The reason it was a class in 1st edition because the idea of the conan inspired and derivative barbarian was a thing - especially in the 70s and 80s. He-man, Thundarr etc. This made it a recognisable enough thing that some people wanted mechanics for it - but a lot of those didn't make much sense (distrust of magic) and in any case a lot of classes had higher stat requirements in 1e making them a sort of 'elite' class, you could pick if you were lucky enough to roll well. It certainly didn't need to be a class in 1e but people were going around making classes for everything then.

The rage mechanic seems to be a later attempt to flesh out the nostalgia for a barbarian with something distinct. And to be fair - it's possible to make this distinct enough to justify a class. You could make rage for example a feat, but it would probably be less defining for the character who chose it. Making the berserk rage the centre of a class is probably justification enough to really flesh out that rage - make it something more than just an add on, because as a class of it's own your taking things away as well.

Now 5E does weird things with this divide that don't really make much sense (such as making the Barbarian tanky and using the resistance mechanic for the character that doesn't actually wear armour and then taking the basic barbarian schtick of being the simple athletic strong guy who hits brutally hard and duplicating it in the Champion subclass for the Fighter) but that doesn't mean it can't be done better in principle.

However it seems unlikely that 'Barbarian' would be a class now if it weren't for the historical nature of the 3E designers appealing to old school nostalgia by bringing things back. We would probably have seen some kind of berserker in 3E if there hadn't been a 1st edition barbarian but it would have most likely have been done as a prestige class.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Okay, imagine a word that has no baggage, and apply all the arguments for the Warlord to that.

The problem to me is that the fighter/supporter/tactician mix already exists as a subclass for fighter (forgetting it's name now). Unless you want the lazylord, which I agree isn't in D&D but also doesn't really fit what D&D is and should never exist ever.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem to me is that the fighter/supporter/tactician mix already exists as a subclass for fighter (forgetting it's name now).

Battlemaster. And, it's no more a warlord than an AT is a wizard.

Unless you want the lazylord, which I agree isn't in D&D but also doesn't really fit what D&D is and should never exist ever.

5e was floated as an inclusive edition, not a judgemental, one-true-way edition.

 

[Xeviat]

That's an interesting ideal, but 5e fails it pretty hard. Fighter, barbarian and rogue, for instance, all single-target DPR. The fighter Tanky DPR, the Rogue sneaky, but that's about it as far as meaningful contributions to the party in combat.

That's not "entirely" fair. The Defender fighting style and Sentinel feat can kiiiiiiinda make a Fighter into a Defender. LOL.

The bravura build was a secondary defender, and there were some exploits that could be grouped into a 'Hector' concept, that could have gone full controller, had 4e not been so hung up on grid-filling.
The 5e warlord should definitely be able to reach into control and defender roles, too, and to a much greater extent.

But, at it's core, I can't imagine a Warlord that isn't a "Leader" role. Where as Fighter could be any role depending on subclass. Unless you imagine the Fighter in a more open role system to be a defender at it's core (high AC, high HP), then maaaaaaybe.

The Warlord certainly can be described in a way that makes it distinguised from the other martial-type classes. But, I think working the Warlord into the Fighter would go a long way to giving the Fighter more depth. In fact, treating Fighters as those who enlist in the military and Warlords as those who go to officer school forgets the value of 3E NPC classes; Fighters are PCs. They're heroes. They aren't mundane warriors.

You know! I think that's my argument summed up as succinctly as I can.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem to me is that the fighter/supporter/tactician mix already exists as a subclass for fighter (forgetting it's name now). Unless you want the lazylord, which I agree isn't in D&D but also doesn't really fit what D&D is and should never exist ever.

This sort of one true way nonsense should never be posted, yet here we are. lol

But seriously, I'm not going to put much effort into trying to convert people who begin a discussion having with "the thing you folks really like is bad and should never be part of the game". I just found the name thing pretty spurious. I agree it's a bad name. The vast majority of people who like the warlord aren't going to care if the name changes. It's tangential to the question of whether the concept should be included.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

5e was floated as an inclusive edition, not a judgemental, one-true-way edition.

Aye, I suppose that's right. The lazylord in my mind is not really worth debating, largely as it was a build made from the warlord, a build that seems like it was never truly meant to exist... but i digress.

 

[Don Durito]

The problem to me is that the fighter/supporter/tactician mix already exists as a subclass for fighter (forgetting it's name now). Unless you want the lazylord, which I agree isn't in D&D but also doesn't really fit what D&D is and should never exist ever.

See post 62

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, at it's core, I can't imagine a Warlord that isn't a "Leader" role.

The concept is broader than the suppport-oriented 4e take, in particular it should go further into controller, and there are archetypes tgat fit defender.
Striker - the only role the 5e fighter credibly fills - is the only role it doesn't exactly scream... even then, attack-granting builds could enable striker-like DPR, however much it might've felt like support.


[/quote]Where as Fighter could be any role depending on subclass. [/quote] You'd have to completely re-build it from the ground up. As it stands, the 5e Fighter is hard-coded striker, not much wiggle-room.

Folding warlord into fighter would go a long way to giving the Fighter more depth.

So would folding rogue, ranger, paladin & barbarian into it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You'd have to completely re-build it from the ground up. As it stands, the 5e Fighter is hard-coded striker, not much wiggle-room.

Both the Cavalier and EK can be built as excellent defenders, within the scope of 5e defenders.

Protection Fighting Style and Sentinel help, and fighter has more room to delve into feats than anyone else, but Cavalier is a defender from level 3, and fighting styles are level 1.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Aye, I suppose that's right. The lazylord in my mind ... was a build made from the warlord, a build that seems like it was never truly meant to exist... but i digress

Actually, that's an interesting digression. The build did seem unanticipated, but it was supported quite well in the martial power supplements. And, a core build of the Shaman in PH2 was given a similar attack-granting dynamic. Other subsequent leaders, like the Skald, also got a trick or two along those lines.

Both the Cavalier and EK can be built as excellent defenders, within the scope of 5e defenders.

which is a bit if faint praise, really.
There's a Paladin archetype that's about as defender as 5e gets, too, and a Barbarian, even.

But, it's not very defendery, and still full-bore striker.

Protection Fighting Style and Sentinel help, and fighter has more room to delve into feats than anyone else,

They do canabalize your reaction, though.

but Cavalier is a defender from level 3, and fighting styles are level 1.

Well, from 18th, when it finally gets past the reaction problem..