Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Tony Vargas]

Absolutely true. But that's a completely arbitrary benchmark.

Mearls chose it, FWIW, and it is decidedly symbolic of including fans of all editions.

But I could say the same thing about a myriad other concepts, many of which are as iconic in fantasy if not more iconic than the warlord.
Like the alchemist. Or the dedicated shapeshifter. Or the summoner. The The elementalist. The shaman. The pirate. The witch doctor. The tinkerer/engineer. The inquisitor.

None so prevalent in genre as the heroic archetypes modeled by non-casters like the Fighter, Warlord, Rogue or Barbarian, but mostly found in genre to some degree (if rarely as heroes). All have been classes (if we include NPC 'classes' & PrCs), and all could stand with some treatment going forward.

The sorcerer was in two PHBs: 3e and 4e.

PH1 was where Mearls drew the line, and the Sorcerer was only in the 3e PH1, not the 4e PH1. The Warlock and Warlord only appeared in a PH1 in 4e.

Mearl's criterion was an early goal. And he was quick to amend that the options might not be classes.

Sure, the Illusionist & Assassin, for instance, had always been sub-classes and were in 5e, too.

I personally think there probably is room for tactician and strategic planner class. But that may or may not overlap with the leader role depending on how the player wants to portray their character and what role in the party they want to fill.

Obviously there's no formal leader role in 5e, there's classes - Bard, Druid, Cleric, Paladin - that make a lot of support contributions, which map to that formal role, though they go far beyond it, as well. The Warlord (strategic/tactical/inspiring &c) would naturally make those sorts of contributions, and, to be a viable class in 5e, would have to be more flexible, as well.

I don't think that being invested with authority is sufficient to establish a character as inspiring to his/her fellows. The history of the world is full of formal leaders whose underlings followed their orders out of simply duty rather than love or devotion.

Not to mention those who were just plain bad at it. The combination of authority to lead /and/ the skills & talents to do so well often results in a 'great leader' or hero who stands out in history.

In 4e, PC development has a certain trajectory that makes this LotR-style character development easier to bring out in the game. Because of the transition from heroic tier to a paragon path to an epic destiny, a warlord PC's destiny of being a great ruler or leader can emerge as the game unfolds: eg at 11th level the warlord PC becomes a Knight Commander, retrospectively vindicating his/her earlier claims to be a leader; and then at 21st level s/he becomes a Legendary Sovereign.

I think that 5e doesn't build in quite the same trajectory for PC development, so there is perhaps a greater risk of a 20th level warlord not having progressed much beyond 1st level in terms of character backstory revealing how and why the character is an inspiring leader.

There's no PP or ED, but 5e does still go through Tiers, and the idea of higher level characters creating a Legacy that was floated in the playtest needn't be dead. It might be years before some supplement comes out to expand upon it, but it could happen.

 

[pemerton]

That's a lot of good inner-party roleplaying right there. Why are we trying to ascribe or force mechanical doodads to those friends' interactions again? And what evidence is there anything mechanically was being gifted between them?

Even back in 1st ed AD&D there are mechanical elements to emotions and relationshps: dragons get bonuses to hit and damage when fighting to defend family members; dervishes get a +1 to hit and damage due to their fanatic devotion; etc.

In the passage describing the confrontation between the Fellowship and the balrog, we see Aragorn inspiring Boromir, and then leading his fellows out of Moria. Mechanically, this might be modelled by (i) lifting the effects of an aura of despair, (ii) granting a charge attack, and (iii) relieving exhaustion or granting a bonus to movement rate or (if movement is being resolved via checks rather than via grid measurements) by granting a bonus to movement checks.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Even back in 1st ed AD&D there are mechanical elements to emotions and relationshps: dragons get bonuses to hit and damage when fighting to defend family members; dervishes get a +1 to hit and damage due to their fanatic devotion; etc.

Okay. Great. But those aren't PCs. I thought we were talking about warlord PCs...

In the passage describing the confrontation between the Fellowship and the balrog, we see Aragorn inspiring Boromir, and then leading his fellows out of Moria. Mechanically, this might be modelled by (i) lifting the effects of an aura of despair, (ii) granting a charge attack, and (iii) relieving exhaustion or granting a bonus to movement rate or (if movement is being resolved via checks rather than via grid measurements) by granting a bonus to movement checks.

...or maybe it all just roleplayed out that way at the table? Maybe some people are trying to invent a mechanical doodad that wasn't present and needn't be? I can certainly see that being the case. Occam's razor, and all that...

But your examples reminded me of something related. You know what we don't see? In the scene where Boromir falls to his knees shot full of arrows, Aragorn showing up, giving an inspirational word and telling him to stand up and shrug it off.

Nope. Turns out he dies. In spite of his "warlord" buddy watching it happen. I guess Aragorn was a bit of a jerk...

 

[Jester David]

Mearls chose it, FWIW, and it is decidedly symbolic of including fans of all editions.

PH1 was where Mearls drew the line, and the Sorcerer was only in the 3e PH1, not the 4e PH1. The Warlock and Warlord only appeared in a PH1 in 4e.

I really need to reread that post. I'm pretty sure that's misquoting or a stretch of what was said...

Sure, the Illusionist & Assassin, for instance, had always been sub-classes and were in 5e, too.

Subclasses were different then. They received full class descriptions and had their own class features and experience tables. They were effectively separate classes.

Obviously there's no formal leader role in 5e, there's classes - Bard, Druid, Cleric, Paladin - that make a lot of support contributions, which map to that formal role, though they go far beyond it, as well. The Warlord (strategic/tactical/inspiring &c) would naturally make those sorts of contributions, and, to be a viable class in 5e, would have to be more flexible, as well.

But those classes can also tank and deal damage.
Shouldn't a warlord do the same?

What does a non-support damage dealer or tanking warlord look like again? Oh yes, a fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really need to reread that post. I'm pretty sure that's misquoting or a stretch of what was said...

Well, you had a few years to do it, but it's been taken down fairly recently when they closed the forums, so you've picked an excellent time to start questioning it.

Subclasses were different then.

They were. There were lots of subtle differences.

But those classes can also tank and deal damage.
Shouldn't a warlord do the same?

Some better than others. The Paladin is a hybrid, and tanks pretty well compared to his casting relative to the Cleric, for instance.

Any character in 5e can fight, and the warlord /is/ a martial archetype. But it does need to be much more flexible than the fighter. Tanking, sure, it dovetails with support to an extent - you can step in and protect an ally you're trying to help, briefly. Damage-dealing, no, nothing like the Fighters', nor even the Paladins - that's where allies come in. Buff & enable damage rather than dishing it consistently alone - even though that's significantly more limited.

 

[Jester David]

Well, you had a few years to do it, but it's been taken down fairly recently when they closed the forums, so you've picked an excellent time to start questioning it.

Huh. So they have. Irritating. And it looks like the Internet Archive is also blocked from the content. Crud.
I remember looking a while back. But memories get hazy quickly.

They were. There were lots of subtle differences.

Such as?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe some people are trying to invent a mechanical doodad that wasn't present and needn't be?

This takes me back to the issue of necessity vs possibility.

When the warlord topic first arose in a big way last year, I thought your claim was that a warlord along the 4e lines is impossible in 5e. But now your claim seems to be that it's not needed. That second claim is, in my view, much weaker: given that D&D has been played, quite successfully, with only 3 classes (cleric, fighter, magic-user) - and that there's an argument even in that respect that the cleric is superfluous to the strictest specification of the game's requirements (eg no clerics in Chainmail) - then no other class is needed.

But other classes are wanted. Including, by some, the warlord. The fact that you don't want it doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether or not others are making some mistake in wanting it.

But your examples reminded me of something related. You know what we don't see? In the scene where Boromir falls to his knees shot full of arrows, Aragorn showing up, giving an inspirational word and telling him to stand up and shrug it off.

Nope. Turns out he dies. In spite of his "warlord" buddy watching it happen. I guess Aragorn was a bit of a jerk...

But Aragorn does get to hear his dying words. How does that work in D&D mechanics? Also, Boromir's body was full of arrows. How does that work in D&D mechanics (given that, by the rules, some hit dice can be spent and all the damage healed)? Given that 5e is rife with non-magical healing possibilities which would allow a person to quickly recover from being pincushioned by orcs, how hard to you really want to push the example?

That said: a mechanic whereby a warlord, by speaking inspiring words, can give a bonus to death saving throw, and/or allow a dying ally to act while making death saving throws, could be an interesting one.

 

[pemerton]

Obviously there's no formal leader role in 5e, there's classes - Bard, Druid, Cleric, Paladin - that make a lot of support contributions, which map to that formal role, though they go far beyond it, as well.

But those classes can also tank and deal damage.
Shouldn't a warlord do the same?

What does a non-support damage dealer or tanking warlord look like again? Oh yes, a fighter.

It's a nice quip, but doesn't it miss a key point?

Clerics, bards etc have a degree of flexibility - especially because of the way spells work in 5e - to shift between tanking, damage dealing and support. Where does the fighter have the same flexibility? What would be needed would be a mechanic for turning extra attacks into support in some way. Which doesn't seem to be possible under the existing 5e sub-class model. (Though there was a poster upthread who queried this - [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], post 137.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

What would be needed would be a mechanic for turning extra attacks into support in some way. Which doesn't seem to be possible under the existing 5e sub-class model. (Though there was a poster upthread who queried this - [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], post 137.)

I took a stab (npi) at that with the Commander sub-class way back in El Mahdi's Warlording the Fighter thread. Doesn't work very well. You're still working with at-will abilities, and you still have the fighter's high DPR as a baseline when you're not doing anything warlordly. Closes off a lot of design space.

 

[Jester David]

It's a nice quip, but doesn't it miss a key point?

Clerics, bards etc have a degree of flexibility - especially because of the way spells work in 5e - to shift between tanking, damage dealing and support. Where does the fighter have the same flexibility? What would be needed would be a mechanic for turning extra attacks into support in some way. Which doesn't seem to be possible under the existing 5e sub-class model. (Though there was a poster upthread who queried this - [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], post 137.)

That's in part because the different subclasses of bard, cleric, paladin, etc are designed to allow it to fill different roles and make different types of character. That's the key difference between subclasses.
But the difference between fighter subclasses is complexity. They're not designed to allow the fighter to fill different roles, but fill the same roles with different degrees of resource management.

With the PDK and the Uneathed Arcana fighters they seem to be taking a different route, opening up a partial support and skill based variants of the fighter. And more will come with time.

And the fighter can turn extra attacks into support through manuvers, pushing enemies to get them in the right area, knocking them prone, or granting allies attacks. And they can use their Action Surge to do things such as the Help action rather than making multiple attacks. So there's a lot already built into the class.
The fighter is diverse and more flexible than some other classes, like the rogue or barbarian.