Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[The_Furious_Puffin]

A huge slice of the problem with the battlemaster as warlord thing is that the most DPR efficient use of the battlemasters superiority dice is going to be on precision a huge percentage of the time, so it lacks some flavour.

I've played in two 5E games druid through 11 and a sorcerer through 15 in 5E, so this is just 'at the table' perspective combined with some back of the envelope maths, but the three battle master characters (two are ranged and one is a sword and board) seem to overwhelmingly use their superiority dice for DPR, particularly converting misses to hits. This might just be 'in play' observations though, and some of this is probably because for speed reasons the GM now tells players the monsters AC.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think I finally grok what I see as the underlying trend with those who still demand a warlord in 5e. Perception. Or maybe its just unreasonable expectations?

Because I see warlords everywhere. Battlemasters. Masterminds. Purple Dragon Knights. Heck, the Soldier background. Even EN5ider's Noble. Just to name the biggest elephants in the room. Not to mention the variations of a warlord class popping up across DM's Guild as we speak.

With that opening there can be no principled opposition to the Warlord showing up in 5e from you. Most of the parts needed to create a warlord are already in 5e. There can be no principled claim you can't have inspiration mechanics in 5e - the Bard is already there. There can be no principled claim that you can't have inspiring healing with the Purple Dragon Knight.

There is no moral or principled line in the sand against any part of the Warlord that 5e has not already crossed.

However every single case you list with the possible exception of the Noble is a secondary function attached to another class. Imagine the situation without the fighter or other non-casters in 5e. "I want to play a fighter". "You can have the Bladesinger, the Warpriest, the Valour Bard, the Elementalist and Shadow Monks, and even the Druid. I see fighters everywhere." That is the position the Warlord is in right now.

From your own premise demand for the Warlord is high, there is no objection based on principle of what shouldn't be in the game because you see it as already there, and there is high demand. People are just fed up of going round and round in the same argument.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm at a loss as to how to respond. You seem to be speaking as if from some position of authority on what is or isn't a valid opinion. I don't recognize said authority. Nor do I believe you even really understand my post and my opinion. So, all I can do is say, thanks for taking the time to post in my thread. You opinion is noted.

 

[discosoc]

From your own premise demand for the Warlord is high...

I don't know if the demand is high, but it's definitely loud. Some people *really* want some dedicated yet vaguely defined warlord concept, and they want it exactly as they imagine. Any deviation from that concept and they complain that it's not the same.

I think the OP is right in pointing out that there are quite a few options for people looking to get a "warlord" experience. It almost sounds like people are just really in love with the "warlord" name more than anything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know if the demand is high, but it's definitely loud. Some people *really* want some dedicated yet vaguely defined warlord concept, and they want it exactly as they imagine. Any deviation from that concept and they complain that it's not the same.

The same could be said for every game element included (or not yet included) in 5e. 5e errs on the side of compromising among past-edition version to try to get something that evokes the concept. In the case of the Warlord, there's only one past-edition version, so it's not exactly a huge impediment.

I think the OP is right in pointing out that there are quite a few options for people looking to get a "warlord" experience.

There are several extremely limited options. It would be like trying to build to a 'wizard concept' in a 5e game that banned the Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, and Bard classes. An EK or AT sub-class or a Magic Initiate & Ritual Caster feat could get you some wizard spells, a Druid would get you full casting, a Sage or Charlatan background might have some of the feel - you'd have "quite a few options," but you'd never get very close to what you wanted.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

There are several extremely limited options.

The same could be said for every game element included (or not yet included) in 5e...

It would be like trying to build to a 'wizard concept' in a 5e game that banned the Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, and Bard classes. An EK or AT sub-class or a Magic Initiate & Ritual Caster feat could get you some wizard spells, a Druid would get you full casting, a Sage or Charlatan background might have some of the feel - you'd have "quite a few options," but you'd never get very close to what you wanted.

But that's not what is happening. At least not if you avoid cherry picking edition-to-edition "conversion". Because every instance of 4e to 5e has resulted in the same paring and limiting of options. Across the board. As so was done with the warlord.

There are 5e warlords. They look like 5e warlords, not 4e warlords using 5e verbiage.

[Edit: Accidentally clicked the "post" button instead of "advanced" one next to it again...]

 

[Hussar]

I don't know if the demand is high, but it's definitely loud. Some people *really* want some dedicated yet vaguely defined warlord concept, and they want it exactly as they imagine. Any deviation from that concept and they complain that it's not the same.

I think the OP is right in pointing out that there are quite a few options for people looking to get a "warlord" experience. It almost sounds like people are just really in love with the "warlord" name more than anything.

Why do people keep insisting this is "vaguely defined"? I've seen a number of these threads and the definition of a warlord is very darn specific - a support, non-magical character that has (limited) healing capabilities, buffing and action granting abilities. How is this vague? Now, there's a number of ways to get there, true, from the very simplistic to the overly complicated, but, at no point is it vague.

The concept is a character who, either through training or natural ability, can affect how other characters in the group operate on a tactical and logistic level. ((For a clearer definition - tactical is the round by round stuff that happens generally, but not limited to, combat and logistical level is higher altitude stuff like longer term skill checks (operating a ship for example) and healing.)) The character is a support character, similar in nature to a valor bard, but without the magic and music and enchantment abilities. At the table, a warlord character would be expected to fill a similar niche to either a bard or a cleric - secondary combatant, primary support.

Now, because the character should be a secondary combatant, both the fighter and rogue chassis don't work very well. Both classes fight too well. It doesn't make sense that our warlord character is getting 4 attacks per round and has the best AC and HP in the game (barring perhaps Barbarians for HP). Nor does it make sense for our warlord to be the best skilled in the group - he's there to help others, not do it himself, nor does sneak attack make particular sense for the concept.

Although, that being said, I think perhaps a possible way to go about it is to resurrect the old 3e concept of Substitution Levels. The way that worked in 3e was that at certain levels, instead of gaining your base class abilities, say a fighter's bonus feat or a rogue's sneak attack extra die, you would gain an alternate ability. I think that if you took a rogue, made a Warlord subclass that utilized the rogue's bonus action (similar to how a Mastermind works) that then used substitution levels to remove additional sneak attack dice but instead granted new bonus actions or bonuses on existing bonus actions (too many uses of the word bonus there perhaps) you could get something that works very well. Lightly armored, mobile, highly skilled and replace the extra damage with bonus effects.

 

[discosoc]

... the definition of a warlord is very darn specific - a support, non-magical character that has (limited) healing capabilities, buffing and action granting abilities.

Sounds like a battlemaster to me.

The concept is a character who, either through training or natural ability, can affect how other characters in the group operate on a tactical and logistic level. ((For a clearer definition - tactical is the round by round stuff that happens generally, but not limited to, combat and logistical level is higher altitude stuff like longer term skill checks (operating a ship for example) and healing.)) The character is a support character, similar in nature to a valor bard, but without the magic and music and enchantment abilities. At the table, a warlord character would be expected to fill a similar niche to either a bard or a cleric - secondary combatant, primary support.

Still sounds like a battlemaster, but with specifically chosen skills and background...

Now, because the character should be a secondary combatant, both the fighter and rogue chassis don't work very well. Both classes fight too well. It doesn't make sense that our warlord character is getting 4 attacks per round and has the best AC and HP in the game (barring perhaps Barbarians for HP). Nor does it make sense for our warlord to be the best skilled in the group - he's there to help others, not do it himself, nor does sneak attack make particular sense for the concept.

No one is forcing you "fight too well." Just use your superiority dice for maneuvers that enhance your allies, like Commander's Strike. Hell, even the name of the maneuver sounds like something a warlord would have.

Although, that being said, I think perhaps a possible way to go about it is to resurrect the old 3e concept of Substitution Levels. The way that worked in 3e was that at certain levels, instead of gaining your base class abilities, say a fighter's bonus feat or a rogue's sneak attack extra die, you would gain an alternate ability. I think that if you took a rogue, made a Warlord subclass that utilized the rogue's bonus action (similar to how a Mastermind works) that then used substitution levels to remove additional sneak attack dice but instead granted new bonus actions or bonuses on existing bonus actions (too many uses of the word bonus there perhaps) you could get something that works very well. Lightly armored, mobile, highly skilled and replace the extra damage with bonus effects.

Well that really doesn't sound like a warlord to me, but OK.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sounds like a battlemaster to me.
Still sounds like a battlemaster, but with specifically chosen skills and background...

IDK, does a 'character who specializes in casting arcane spells' sound like and Eldritch Knight to you?

No one is forcing you "fight too well." Just use your superiority dice for maneuvers that enhance your allies,

There are 2-4 such maneuvers, in a sub-class that picks 6 maneuvers. So, you're basically talking one warlord-lite build available in 5e, and it's still as stretch to even grant it that. The Fighter's a solid class for what it does, which is tanky DPR, but that's not what the Warlord did.

like Commander's Strike. Hell, even the name of the maneuver sounds like something a warlord would have.

Yeah, there's a reason for that - it's one maneuver out of the 334 the Warlord actually did have. The Battlemaster is 0.33% warlord, in that sense.

 

[MoonSong]

You've said all this before. The arguments for and against haven't changed.

The arguments never changed, but [collective] we are still arguing on how valid the arguments to prove the validity of the validity of the arguments are.

Unless they like my homebrew class and buy it from me...

Hey mine was there first! n_n

Longer history, but not much history in a PH1, which was the initial litmus test. Psionics only occurred in a PH1 in an appendix, and not in the form of a class or even sub-class (like the Illusionist or Assassin in the same PH1) or quasi-class like the Bard in it's own appendix.

Even so, we do have the Mystic in the pipeline, with not one, but two appearances in UA. That's hopeful.

Conversely, the Warlord was a full class in a prior-edition PH1. Only one of them, but that was also true of the Warlock and Sorcerer.

The barbarian was only on one phb too.

Warlords...

I said earlier that there seems to be little demand for a warlord as demonstrated by the seeming low sales of the two warlord fighter archetypes on the DMsGuild. Neither has made it to Copper medal status, meaning that in a month and a month-and-a-half respectively, neither product could sell more than 50 copies.
But, the question remains of reputation. Perhaps these authors, neither of which has much of a name or reputation, cannot move their class.

So I opted to publish my own warlord fighter archetype, with a list of new maneuvers. (In honesty, it was because I had written the class and options and had it on my website, but the battle master wasn't in the SRD, so keeping the class on my site made it non-OGL legal. So rather than just trash the class, I revised and doubled the number of maneuvers and threw it on the DMsGuild).


In the week since I published, I have sold 10 copies of 5MWD Presents: Maneuvers & Commander. 1.37 copies per day to be exact.
My other books have sold 3.05, 6.73, and 4.84 copies per day with an average of 4.87 copies per day. So the Maneuver book is really under-performing.
Now, two of those books (Traps and Diseases) are DM content, which is rarer on the Guild and seems to sell quite well. But even my player focused Feat book is selling three times as much as the book of Maneuvers and the warlord.

Making that product was apparently hardly worth my time.

So I reiterate my position: there isn't much interest for the warlord. It has a few ardent fans, but the majority are likely happy with the bard, battle master, or Purple Dragon Knight, and there's not really enough interest for WotC to be concerned about making a brand to class.

Well other have said it, if a fighter subclass could satisfy us all of this chat would be moot. There is no room in the fighter for the warlord as we want it. (Just like there is no room on the wizard for the sorcerer and never has been) And it seems to be mainly about maneuvers, and your commander still has a huge number of attacks, and Int becomes relevant quite late... Still, 1 sale per day is quite good I think.