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

[Hussar]

As much fun as it is to watch these threads go around in circles again and again on the same topics, it is kinda interesting to see how refined the arguments have become over the years.

1. No, fighter chassis doesn't work. Fighters are too dpr focused and there isn't enough space to add warlord abilities in there. Bard chassis might work, particularly if you replace the 9 levels of spell casting with 9 levels of maneuvers.

2. No, you cannot argue about "But, we don't want other players telling me what to do". That ship has sailed with 5e. The Battlemaster already can tell you to take extra actions and move. The Bard can already make you better at your job than you can possibly be without a Bard. This argument is dead on arrival when you allowed Battlemasters into the game. Get over it.

3. No, non-magical healing is not problem. We already have it built into classes, feats and short rest Hit Dice or long rest complete healing. Ship has sailed. Get over it.

4. No, the name isn't really a problem. This is the last bastion of those without a real argument to make. Get over it.

 

[Xeviat]

Always nice to have someone else more concisely summarize my thoughts better than I can do myself.

Thanks! I try.

I'll add that I still don't find the "lazylord" concept one that truly matches D&D. Most of the character examples people cite, like Robin Hood, Odysseus, or Captain America, are still effective combatants without the "inspiration" abilities, and not truly lazylords. I don't truly understand what a lazylord really would look like in a D&D adventuring party.

However I do admit that just because I don't personally understand the point of the lazylord, that doesn't mean other people wouldn't like it...

The lazylord seems more like a build that would be more appropriate in a bigger mini's game. Back in 4E, I was trying to make a Warlord build that used a squire/cohort/companion.

But, I did play a lazylord once. High Elf Tactical Warlord, took as many lazylord things as I could, had a spear for reach when I did have to fight. She was suuuper haughty and really fun to play.

I've been looking at the Ranger and Rogue a lot recently as I'm finalizing my group's Ranger changes (every group has to have one, it's a law somewhere), and I've been considering moving some of the Rogue stuff around. Then the Rogue could be a reasonable chassis for the lead from the rear type leaders, again helping with my desire to see more classes able to fill more roles.

I will say, though, that I have been convinced that the Warlord could be a class. It's broad enough conceptually to have multiple archetypes under it. It is definitely not well supported under the Battlemaster Fighter or the Mastermind Rogue; both can do a little bit of it, but they don't feel 100%. I do think the addition of the Warlord might take away from the Bard and the Fighter, though.

I won't die on the "No Warlords" hill anymore, but I will put my support behind better subclass support. I think Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue subclasses could be made, and possibly some ability adjustments to those classes to allow leaders to be built with them.

 

[cmad1977]

The reasons the warlord shouldn’t be a class are numerous.

What it should be is dance.

 

[Azzy]

The reasons the warlord shouldn’t be a class are numerous.

What it should be is dance.

I'm not on enough drugs to understand this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll add that I still don't find the "lazylord" concept one that truly matches D&D.

AFAIK, it's one of only two builds of its kind in D&Ds long, combat-centric history. The other was the Pacifist Cleric that originated in 3e and got a non-core implementation in 4e.

In both cases, you have a particularly good support character that's non-contributing in direct combat, itself. The Pacifist, it's an oath, with magical consequences, in exchange for more potent healing. The 'lazy' build was just a matter of dumping STR and maxing INT, and needn't be taken that far, as long as INT was maximized you were as good at attack-granting and tactical buffs.

Oh, and in 4e there was also shaman build that could be that heavily into attack-granting, so 3, I guess.

Most of the character examples people cite, like Robin Hood, Odysseus, or Captain America, are still effective combatants without the "inspiration" abilities

They're examples of different builds (sub-classes)

and not truly lazylords. I don't truly understand what a lazylord really would look like

There's a number of takes on it, the silly one you hear about is literally 'lazy' like "oh, you attack him for me," the genre characters that it can model on the more non-combatant side of the scale are sidekicks, supporting characters, the victim in chronic need of rescue - they're out of their league, and depend on their heroes in the party.
It's unique (again, the Pacifist Cleric is the only build that's similar, mechanicalky), in that it allows for a PC concept that isn't another equal, but contributes, indirectly.

The lazylord seems more like a build that would be more appropriate in a bigger mini's game.

Not at all, the really interesting possibilities are quite personal. The Marshal - right out of the Miniatures Handbook - would be the potentisl mass battle subclass.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The lazylord seems more like a build that would be more appropriate in a bigger mini's game. Back in 4E, I was trying to make a Warlord build that used a squire/cohort/companion.

Completely agree with this. The name is after all the WAR-lord, a name I associate with larger battles compared to the smaller scale skirmishes of D&D.

It's why if the lazylord actually became a class, it would be best paired with a setting like Birthright, where war is a pretty big theme (along with politics). It may also work fairly well with Dragonlance with war themse being so strong there, but I still think Birthright is the better pairing.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Open question here; I've heard some good examples of character people would call warlords (Captain America, Robin Hood, Odysseus), but I'd argue those people could just as easily be called Battlemasters.

What are examples of characters that fit the style of the Lazylord (does little fighting and all inspiring allies)? I'm struggling to find one that fits the typical party size of 3-6 people.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd argue those people could just as easily be called Battlemasters.

In the same sense you could argue Gandalf was an Eldritch Knight, maybe.

 

[Eubani]

I do not understand the insistence of some for historical example. D&D in many areas over it's history has been self referential. Most example lead to calls that figure would be a fighter. As I said earlier that the fighter swallows almost everything that does not use magic but mechanically speaking only pays lip service.

 

[Mecheon]

What are examples of characters that fit the style of the Lazylord (does little fighting and all inspiring allies)? I'm struggling to find one that fits the typical party size of 3-6 people.

If we're using "Typical party size" as an excuse to de-include things now, well, we may as well go and ditch every class.

You've got the examples, just not in small scale parties. If we're having that as a requirement, well, then please find me an example of a historical druid of a typical party size of 3-6 people. Or warlock. Or, heck, wizard even