Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Jester David]

Battlemaster, mastermind, and PDK are sub-classes.
That's like saying that eldrich knight and arcane trickster and acolyte are enough to be a wizard. Sure they can cast spells, but they still need to spend much of their time hitting things.


Noble sounds like it's a decent contender though. Didn't look at it.

I'm not sure I entirely buy this argument.
The crux of the argument seems to be that the warlord was a class in a past edition, and isn't a full class now, so the subclasses cannot be the warlord. But the assassin, favoured soul, illusionist, scout, jester, wild mage, and cavalier have all been downgraded from full classes to subclasses and work just fine. And the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and assassin have been downgraded from 10-level prestige classes to subclasses with a handful of features. Heck, the ninja was even folded into the Way of Shadow with the shadowdancer, so neither even have their own name anymore.
Subclasses did not exist in prior editions (at least not as we currently know them), so the warlord could not have been a subclass. It seems odd to limit the design of an option for 5e based on limits from a past edition. It's like saying a 2nd Edition kit updated cannot be updated as a feat as it wasn't originally a feat.

Heck, even at the end of 4e, the warlord was fading as a class, being omitted from Essentials. Had that line continued, we might have seen a leader variant of fighter similar to the cavalier and slayer, replacing the warlord like the Essentials ranger replaced the seeker.

That's the nature of the hobby: options should be designed to best use the existing design space, and old ideas and options should be used as inspiration for new ideas.

 

[pemerton]

For me, the situation seems fairly straightforward.

5e has inspirational/martial healing (eg fighter abilities).

5e has inspiration as a buff mechanic (eg bards).

5e has rationed action buffs (eg Haste spell).

5e has at-will numerical buffs (eg Guidance cantrip).

5e has rationed martial abilities (eg barbarian rage).​

Hence there is no in-principle reason why various combinations of these existing elements couldn't be bundled together to create a 5e class which, in play, is more-or-less analogous to the 4e warlord.

Such a class may or may not be popular. WotC may or may not be interested in devoting resources to its design and development. But those are practical considerations, not matters of principle.

 

[ZickZak]

But those are practical considerations, not matters of principle.

I believe that is what this is about. Its not like it cant be created, its just that Warlord needs to have all of these and do them every turn, preferably two at the same time along with two running auras.
If you disagree with that statement, there are ways to create warlord, as noted in the OP. Whatever class/subclass you go with, there are plenty of options and more than that.

 

[pemerton]

Warlord needs to have all of these and do them every turn, preferably two at the same time along with two running auras.
If you disagree with that statement, there are ways to create warlord, as noted in the OP.

I haven't followed all the twists and turns of the warlord subforum, though I know there is a recurring motif that a warlord designed broadly to capture the 4e concept would be potentially overpowered. Personally I have my doubts about this: there are other classes that buff and grant bonus actions without being overpowered, so I don't see why the warlord would have to be any different in this respect.

But I don't agree with the OP. The existence of war clerics, valour bards and the like shows that 5e has ample design space for warrior-types whose mechanical "heft" is less in fighting and more in buffing/healing/etc. A warlord would be a martial character (ie a non-spell user) along similar lines.

As I said, I think as a matter of design principle there is no reason why something of this sort can't be done.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I haven't followed all the twists and turns of the warlord subforum, though I know there is a recurring motif that a warlord designed broadly to capture the 4e concept would be potentially overpowered. Personally I have my doubts about this: there are other classes that buff and grant bonus actions without being overpowered, so I don't see why the warlord would have to be any different in this respect.

And yet the post above yours, that you quoted, would like to see a warlord that can do multitudes more -- all at once and every round -- than any other class currently. I'd love, love, love to see any of you post a rough draft of a class that can do these things. But as usual, all we see around here is a long list of lofty expectations and demands for the class, but nothing hammered out for consideration. It's all just pie in the sky. As soon as someone, such as KickZak with such demands for their dream class, has to put it on paper, the reality of 5e's design parameters kick in and they can't have what they want without making a hopefully broken class.

Unless someone would like to actually prove me wrong instead of just claiming as such with vagueries, innuendo, and ad hominems. As I've said repeatedly for months, please do. Show me a class that can do all these things and keep it 5e balanced. I look forward to seeing it finally done.

But I don't agree with the OP. The existence of war clerics, valour bards and the like shows that 5e has ample design space for warrior-types whose mechanical "heft" is less in fighting and more in buffing/healing/etc. A warlord would be a martial character (ie a non-spell user) along similar lines.

So you want a "warrior" (your own descriptor) that forgoes fighting for support? And you don't see a disconnect there? How can the devs ever hope to meet anyone's expectations when people come asking for something like that? It's an unachievable goal. An oxymoron.

As I said, I think as a matter of design principle there is no reason why something of this sort can't be done.

It can already. Warlords, as I explain in the OP, are everywhere in 5e already. You just have to get your head out of previous edition(s) mindsets and couch your expectations in a 5e framework. Once you realize that you have to play within 5e's class design parameters and system paradigm -- like all the other classes have had to do -- you start to see that this is an issue of perception.

 

[ZickZak]

And yet the post above yours, that you quoted, would like to see a warlord that can do multitudes more -- all at once and every round -- than any other class currently. I'd love, love, love to see any of you post a rough draft of a class that can do these things. But as usual, all we see around here is a long list of lofty expectations and demands for the class, but nothing hammered out for consideration. It's all just pie in the sky. As soon as someone, such as KickZak with such demands for their dream class, has to put it on paper, the reality of 5e's design parameters kick in and they can't have what they want without making a hopefully broken class.

I havent finished reading your whole post yet, but please be asured that the first part of my statement was just my interpretation of what the pro-warlord community seems to want, not what I want, and it was somewhat sarcastic. The second paragraph is my opinion - there is already plenty of options for warlord itself. Sorry if poorly written.

 

[mellored]

I'm not sure I entirely buy this argument.
The crux of the argument seems to be that the warlord was a class in a past edition, and isn't a full class now, so the subclasses cannot be the warlord. But the assassin, favoured soul, illusionist, scout, jester, wild mage, and cavalier have all been downgraded from full classes to subclasses and work just fine. And the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and assassin have been downgraded from 10-level prestige classes to subclasses with a handful of features.

It's not that the warlord couldn't be a sub-class. It just can't be a sub-class of the current 5e fighter.

Illusionist fit into a wizard, because spells are modular. You can readily swap an evoker feature for an illusionione feature. i.e. you lose burning hands, and gain silent image. The current 5e fighter can't lose multi-attack to gain inspiring word. I did attempt a warlord sub-class that swapped multi-attack for maneuvers, but it was very clunky, and you still had multi-attack.

The warlord could, for instance, have easily been a part of the playtest fighter (superiority dice and maneuvers). Just by making warlord maneuvers.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I havent finished reading your whole post yet, but please be asured that the first part of my statement was just my interpretation of what the pro-warlord community seems to want, not what I want, and it was somewhat sarcastic. The second paragraph is my opinion - there is already plenty of options for warlord itself. Sorry if poorly written.

It's all good. Not like there aren't people here asking for all those things and more. What's worse is that the poster who responded to you seemed to think your over-the-top list of abilities was acceptable and doable. And that's the scary thing.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It's not that the warlord couldn't be a sub-class. It just can't be a sub-class of the current 5e fighter.

You say that like you have some manner of authority on the subject. Or that the devs didn't adamantly disagree by making more than one kind of warlord as fighter subclasses.

 

[mellored]

You say that like you have some manner of authority on the subject. Or that the devs didn't adamantly disagree by making more than one kind of warlord as fighter subclasses.

Well, i'm only an authority on what i want from a warlord.
Just as you're only an authority on what you want from a warlord.

Neither of us are authorities on the Dev's.


But i did attempt to make an honest attempt to fit a warlord i want into the fighter sub-class. Here.

My attempt also failed.