Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Sadras]

Heck, put it this way - fighters are based on Str/Dex with a secondary in Con, right? Warlords are based on Int/Cha with a secondary in Str. They are completely different classes. At best, a Battlemaster is to a Warlord as an Eldritch Knight is to a Wizard.

Ah good point. Hadn't thought about the primary abilities!!!

 

[MoonSong]

So, after 500+ posts,... Can we agree that trying to use the current official options to replace the warlord is like trying to relieve low blood pressure with a diet coke? Or is it still a no contest?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

So, after 500+ posts,... Can we agree that trying to use the current official options to replace the warlord is like trying to relieve low blood pressure with a diet coke? Or is it still a no contest?

So, after 500+ posts,... Can we agree that trying to shoehorn what 4e did with the warlord, into a completely different system like 5e, is like trying to fit 50 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack? Or is it still a no contest?

 

[Tony Vargas]

At best, a Battlemaster is to a Warlord as an Eldritch Knight is to a Wizard.

Sure. If the EK could only learn 1st level spells, only ever know 6 of them, and at most 3 or 4 of them were to be found on the Wizard list.

Actually, the original argument is basically that anything that isn't magical and swings a sword is a fighter. Which is not true.
put it this way - fighters are based on Str/Dex with a secondary in Con, right? Warlords are based on Int/Cha with a secondary in Str. They are completely different classes.

Ah good point. Hadn't thought about the primary abilities!!!

In 5e, any class that can use a wide range of weapons & armor is a STR/DEX class, because you can always with finesse weapons for DEX or heavy armor for STR and be viable either way. The Warlord never had much use for DEX (though you /could/ have perfectly viable light-armor Warlords), but in 5e it would be an additional possibility.

'Primary' stats seem a little softer in 5e, in general. In addition to being able to go STR or DEX based on armor/weapon choice, there are spells that can be used effectively even if your caster stat isn't maxxed, and there's some call for tertiary stats.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So, after 500+ posts,... Can we agree that trying to shoehorn what 4e did with the warlord, into a completely different system like 5e, is like trying to fit 50 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack? Or is it still a no contest?

Mash, mash everywhere, all a potato's eye.

 

[TwoSix]

So, after 500+ posts,... Can we agree that trying to shoehorn what 4e did with the warlord, into a completely different system like 5e, is like trying to fit 50 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack? Or is it still a no contest?

I think there's room for any one person's vision of the Warlord in 5e. I don't think there's room for everyone's vision of the Warlord, hybridized into one overarching Frankenclass. It'll suffer from 5e ranger syndrome, where it tries to do a soft version of everything it used to be good at, and then make very few happy by only being OK at everything, rather than really good at any one thing.

Realistically, an encompassing Warlord needs a way to support Str, Dex, Int, and Cha at a minimum as being usable as primary stats for combat functions. 5e doesn't have any pre-existing template to support that level of stat support. You might be able to do it with a class structure with a loose skeleton, and most of the power features put into various subclasses. But I think at least two Warlord-style classes would be more elegant; one to support strong combatant Warlords, and one of the more mental stat focused "princess" or "lazy" style warlords.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think there's room for everyone's vision of the Warlord, hybridized into one overarching Frankenclass. It'll suffer from 5e ranger syndrome

There's not that much variation in the concept of the class, it's not like the Ranger, that's been in a sub-class in multiple editions and a full class in two, and, varied from an Aragorn to a Grisly Adams to a Drizztz to a Robin Hood to a half-caster Druid over that time. There's one vision of the Warlord that's seen print.

Realistically, an encompassing Warlord needs a way to support Str, Dex, Int, and Cha at a minimum as being usable as primary stats for combat functions. 5e doesn't have any pre-existing template to support that level of stat support.

STR/DEX is easy, any class with a fair range of weapon & armor choices can go either way. It's one of the things D&D has really gotten 'right' this time around: not attaching any sort of 'tax' or class-niche-protection to light-armor-viability or DEX-based-offense in melee or STR-based offense at range.

INT/CHA has some possibilities. If the class is mostly designed around choice of maneuvers, some could use INT as a secondary stat, others CHA, and some either.

5e is also less locked into choosing only a single secondary stat, being generally open to more than 2 'high' stats, especially if Feats aren't opted into.

You might be able to do it with a class structure with a loose skeleton, and most of the power features put into various subclasses. But I think at least two Warlord-style classes would be more elegant; one to support strong combatant Warlords, and one of the more mental stat focused "princess" or "lazy" style warlords.

Either might be viable. Or the strongest strong-combatant (Bravura) concepts could be palmed off on the Battlemaster, maybe with the help of more BM-useable Manuevers, or perhaps yet another archetype with more 'Defender' style mechanics, and the actual Warlord focus more on the Tactical, Inspiring, Resourceful, Insightful, Skirmishing, and Princess/Lazy sorts of builds (the Archer build from MP2 could arise more or less naturally out of 5e's treatment of STR/DEX in combat).

There's certainly no shortage of un-tapped design space for such things.

 

[TwoSix]

There's certainly not room for the It'll suffer from 5e ranger syndrome There's not that much variation in the concept of the class, it's not like the Ranger, that's been in a sub-class in multiple editions and a full class in two, and, varied from an Aragorn to a Grisly Adams to a Drizztz to a Robin Hood to a half-caster Druid over that time. There's one vision of the Warlord that's seen print.

Well there was only version of the Warlord in print, true, I'd argue that at least part of its enduring popularity in 4e was the fact that it supported such a multiplicity of archetypes that hadn't previously had been done well (or at all) in previous versions. I saw the warlord being used to model concepts ranging from Alexander the Great to Princess Peach in Super Mario RPG. When you add on the fact that Warlord might have been the best (or at most flexible) hybrid class in the game, I think the player base interested in the Warlord has a pretty expansive vision of what a Warlord is capable of. They might not always be right, historically speaking, but when has that stopped game design from catering to them anyway?

STR/DEX is easy, any class with a fair range of weapon & armor choices can go either way. It's one of the things D&D has really gotten 'right' this time around: not attaching any sort of 'tax' or class-niche-protection to light-armor-viability or DEX-based-offense in melee or STR-based offense at range.

INT/CHA has some possibilities. If the class is mostly designed around choice of maneuvers, some could use INT as a secondary stat, others CHA, and some either.

Personally, I can't accept a warlord class that can't leverage Int or Cha as its primary attack stat. It would need some sort of at-will Commander's Strike ability, or at least the bulk of its class features featuring Int or Cha, so I could fill in the gap by dipping for appropriate cantrips.

Either might be viable. Or the strongest strong-combatant (Bravura) concepts could be palmed off on the Battlemaster, maybe with the help of more BM-useable Manuevers, or perhaps yet another archetype with more 'Defender' style mechanics, and the actual Warlord focus more on the Tactical, Inspiring, Resourceful, Insightful, Skirmishing, and Princess/Lazy sorts of builds (the Archer build from MP2 could arise more or less naturally out of 5e's treatment of STR/DEX in combat).

There's certainly no shortage of un-tapped design space for such things.

Sure, there's lot of ways to do it. The primary unmet need, to my mind, is non-spellcasting features centered on Int or Cha that don't require serious dips into a spellcasting class to obtain. That's the mechanical window I think a Warlord should hit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well there was only version of the Warlord in print, true, I'd argue that at least part of its enduring popularity in 4e was the fact that it supported such a multiplicity of archetypes that hadn't previously had been done well (or at all) in previous versions. I saw the warlord being used to model concepts ranging from Alexander the Great to Princess Peach in Super Mario RPG. When you add on the fact that Warlord might have been the best (or at most flexible) hybrid class in the game, I think the player base interested in the Warlord has a pretty expansive vision of what a Warlord is capable of. They might not always be right, historically speaking, but when has that stopped game design from catering to them anyway?

I don't see that as a problem. One class managed to handle all that, some of it in spite of not being specifically designed to do so, initially. And, that in a system much more structured and balance-concerned than 5e.

Personally, I can't accept a warlord class that can't leverage Int or Cha as its primary attack stat.

No version, even the most out-there Lazy builds, ever actually used INT or CHA to make attack rolls. So that's a pretty far-afield thing to demand.

It would need some sort of at-will Commander's Strike ability, or at least the bulk of its class features featuring Int or Cha, so I could fill in the gap by dipping for appropriate cantrips.

Designing around a bunch of class features, presumably different ones for each sub-class would be a pretty limited approach. A few features, including a flexible one, like Maneuvers, with many choices, including some that leveraged one secondary stat or another (and/or either optionally), would open the class up to a wide range of concepts and customization. Backfilling basic functionality with Cantrips needn't be part of it, IMHO.

Sure, there's lot of ways to do it. The primary unmet need, to my mind, is non-spellcasting features centered on Int or Cha that don't require serious dips into a spellcasting class to obtain. That's the mechanical window I think a Warlord should hit.

Well, it's under-utilized design space, certainly.

 

[TwoSix]

No version, even the most out-there Lazy builds, ever actually used INT or CHA to make attack rolls. So that's a pretty far-afield thing to demand.

Not attack rolls, per se, but the capability of utilizing Int or Cha, or being stat-neutral, for the bulk of combat action. That's certainly what lazylords did back in 4e. They used Commander's Strike (which gave bonuses to hit based on Int) as their primary at-will, and filling in with other powers that either didn't require attack rolls or had strong effects even on a miss. That's isn't even counting Warlord|X hybrids, which made up a lot of the Lazylord builds.

Designing around a bunch of class features, presumably different ones for each sub-class would be a pretty limited approach. A few features, including a flexible one, like Maneuvers, with many choices, including some that leveraged one secondary stat or another (and/or either optionally), would open the class up to a wide range of concepts and customization. Backfilling basic functionality with Cantrips needn't be part of it, IMHO.

Fine for me, either way. That isn't my particular concern for the class.

Well, it's under-utilized design space, certainly.

I've already filled my needs for Warlord-type class, but the imprimatur of an official release would certainly be nice.