What the warlord needs and how to make it happen.
I've been debating whether or not to reply to this. And how much to say.
But, at the end of the day, I don't self censor well and have limited restraint. Plus this is a topic I have some strong feelings toward, which tend to outweigh my better judgement.
So… how do we make it happen?
Because the warlord was introduced with 4e, so many criticisms of the class came hand-in-hand with shots against the edition (both warranted and wholly unwarranted). So many people still equate discussing or critiquing the warlord with edition warring and respond as such.
Much like how for a long time it was hard to discuss the magic item Christmas tree and assumed wealth without using 3e edition war language. Or quadratic wizards & linear fighters.
But to have any kind of warlord, there *needs* to be a discussion on it's strengths and weaknesses. We can't have an entirely pro-warlord discussion because then any problems the concept has don't get fixed. You can't make improvements.
That's not how design works. There needs to be a give/take.
Similarly, because the warlord is seen as so iconic of 4e, its absence is often seen as a shot by the designers against that edition. And so every element of the warlord
needs to be included on principle. If the warlord doesn't do everything it did in 4e, then it's a failure.
Up to and including the name. It can't be a commander or marshal or captain or tactician or strategist (and forget about purple dragon knight and bannerette). Personally, "warlord" throws me off for a couple reasons. First, "warlord" is used in the real world, and tends to apply to pretty horrible people. Very literally among the worst people currently in the world. Throw it into Google News for an example. Second, implies a certain level of rank and status. It's like having the wizard class be called the "archmage" or the cleric the "high priest".
With the above in mind, what is needed to make the warlord happen, is for it to stop being an edition war flashpoint. Which likely won't happen this edition.
Maybe for 6e. When enough time has passed for the topic to be discussed without pitchforks, WotC can try bringing it back.
That said, let's get into common abilities.
1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).
The catch is, everyone can do this.
A class feature where you can take the Help action as a bonus action and/or at range is certainly doable.
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage.
It'd have to be a reaction, but also doable.
Extra damage isn't 100% necessary though. If you're granting an attack in place of your own, you're almost likely trading a lower damage attack for a higher damage one. That's already a bonus.
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks.
This was one of my favourite passive warlord bonuses, as so few things muck with initiative.
Granting the warlord proficiency on initiative checks might be a simple tweak. Or half proficiency to the party.
A flat bonus isn't very useful though. It's just something you write down and then forget about. Despite coming up in every combat, it's not memorable.
Having an ability to allow characters to reroll initiative, making it more active, would be much more interesting, even if it only affected one person or was usable once a short rest. Ditto having an option allowing the warlord to shift a character's position in the initiative order. Fun
and tactical.
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks).
Less useful since exact positioning is less of a thing in 5e.
A limited use ability for off turn movement without provoking would be handy, to get people away from a creature they're base-to-base with. Good for squishies and ranged attackers.
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks).
Useful and very much in the wheelhouse of the 4e warlord. But it feels like one of those abilities that better fits the "leader" role and not the "tactical commander" concept.
It's a checkbox ability that feels less vital to the class concept and probably more at home at a healing subclass.
It could be a simple as also allowing the Help action to benefit a saving throw instead of an attack roll.
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally.
As simple as adding a "aid AC" to the Help action. A "Hinder" action if you will.
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).
The big debate point. Gulp. Here we go….
The issue is all warlord healed in 4e, but that was more a function of their class role rather than their class concept. In the same way marking isn't essential to the fighter or crowd control isn't essential to the wizard. You can make a character that does neither in 5e. Also, you don't expect the tactical genius to also work as the field medic. Those are two different archetypes. There's a finite number of options classes gain each level (and a very limited "hand size" for active powers). This list already includes almost a dozen powers. That's a lot. Getting them all at a reasonable rate would be tricky enough, so including healing as an assumed option likely means healing is coming at the expense of something unique to the warlord. It's losing a tactical option that would be distinct to the class in order to gain something a half dozen other classes can already do.
Really, there's only one class in the game with default healing options: the paladin. And that's a secondary healer at best. All other classes have to *choose* to heal. You can make a cleric or druid that never memorizes
cure wounds. You can play a bard that literally does not know the spell. It seems odd to make the tactical warrior the only dedicated healer class in the game.
There's the giant elephant in the room of martial healing. Restoring real hit points versus temporary hit points. What hp represents. Etc. Which is the thread killer of a topic that has been hotly debated since OD&D. Gygax literally stuck his personal rant post on the topic into a 1e core rulebook.
Just to avoid the class dumping that debate onto tables, I think it's best not to have heavy warlord healing. Let them grant temporary hp at range and restore 1 hp at 5 feet. And allow people granted warlord temporary hp to get back up. That has the same function at the table (and allows you to "preheal" people).
8: Improve out-of-combat healing.
This feels too much like a bard ability. There's room for some sharing of class features (see Evasion and Unarmoured Defence) but it should be avoided if possible.
This should be the last ability on the "to add" list. If there's a soft level that needs a boost, add it in. If not, then leave it out.
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn.
I think this was covered above.
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks).
This seems doable and in line with the power curve.
Instead of getting Extra Attack, when the warlord uses their "Grant Attack" ability (or whatever) they can also make an attack themselves.
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).
It kinda works. But it's less interesting than granting an actual attack. And a little similar to bardic inspiration.
Do you agree with this list? If so, how could this be implemented in 5e? I am curious what peoples thoughts are on this.
Okay, my thoughts are complicated.
There is room for the warlord in the game. But there's room for lots of classes in the game. A shapeshifter, a shaman, a dedicated gish class (1/2 arcane), a summoner. My favourite example is, of course, the jester. But I don't want to see them all. We really don't need them all. New classes need to be chosen carefully. Maximum bang for the buck.
(The mystic/ psion is a good one because it's been in 3+ editions and brings in psionic spells that can also be added to other classes via subclasses. The artificer is also handy, especially if it can be merged with the alchemist. The more vastly different characters, archetypes, and roles can be filled by a new class, the stronger the case it should be added.)
The warlord in 4e also overlapped heavily with the bard. Both were often the charismatic leaders that buffed allies. There's already a lot of redundant classes in the game (paladin and ranger, I'm looking at you), so we really don't need more. The other classes get a pass because of legacy. Doubly so as the bard already overlaps with the arcane trickster.
To really work as it's own class the warlord needs to be distinct. Which means dropping the Charisma aspect of much of the class and focusing on Intelligence. Downplay the "inspiring" and double down on the "tactician and strategist".
But, as mentioned above, that's a change away from the 4e warlord, so such a class will be rejected by many warlord fans on sheer principle.
Thinking about the actual design, the best chassis for the warlord is probably still the cleric or the paladin. D8 Hit Dice, medium armour. Throw on martial weapons. Clerics get 3 cantrips and 2 daily spells. That's the class feature benchmark.
The cantrips are necessary as the clerics have no real offence, which isn't the case with our warlord. Those can mostly replaceable with a couple minor powers. Proficiency with initiative checks and the ability to grant an ally a bonus to initiative checks (or reroll) would also fit. And maybe the ability to restore 1hp to fallen allies or grant some temporary hit points.
Looking at the warlock, the 2 daily spells could also be reduced to a power equivalent to a spell that recharges on a short rest. That's our Grant Attack power right there.
From there you can divvy up abilities easily. Help as a bonus action at 2nd level, subclass at 3rd, ASI at 4th, attack after using Grant Attack at 5th, subclass ability at 6th, extra use of Grant Attack/ add movement to that ability at 7th, ASI at 8th, etc. The extra bonuses to the Help action (advantage to AC or a save) could be slipped in along the way. 7th level. Or maybe 5th.
The above covers everything except healing (which could be a subclass).
But it's not a particularly exciting class. It hits all the checkboxes, but doesn't break new ground or do anything amazing.
To me, the most interesting design happens not when you say "let's make a class that does exactly what it did in past editions" but instead ask "what
should a character based on this concept be doing?" And then try to do something unique with the design and mechanics of the class. That's when interesting design happens. Like the hook of making the warlord a 1/2 or full manuever class (assuming the Battle Master is a 1/3rd manuever class in the same way the eldritch knight is a 1/3rd spellcaster).
I had some fun envisioning a tactician class that picked a handful of powers at the start of the day, when spells were memorized, each with their own triggers. Abilities that buffed the Ready action or taking a reaction. So rather than just granting an attack and *saying* the class is a master tactician and practiced with their teammate to find openings, the abilities actually reflected that and an opening being made.
But, again, this is a change.
How can a warlord happened?
Not easily, that's for sure.
Most 5e D&D players don't care. Seriously. More D&D players left during 4e than stuck around (judging by how Pathinder was outselling D&D despite having half the number of sales as 3.0 over more years). And there are more D&D players now than any time since the '80s. So right off the bat, >50% of players are unlikely to have strong warlord feelings. And even many 4e fans were likely apathetic to the warlord.
WotC has hard numbers for warlord players via the Compendium. They know who made a warlord and then levelled that warlord over time, reflecting play. They have a good idea of the ratio of warlord fans. And likely the people who made multiple warlords. They also have the surveys. Had both really shown strong interest in the warlord, we'd have seen one.
Buying and sharing the fan versions is one way. If there are several fan versions that sell *really* well on the DMsGuild, that will help get attention.
Raise awareness. Play or run a warlord in home games and then discussing those home games. Start a blog on your game or stream your game. Get others to play and talk about the warlord. Guest on podcasts and talk about the warlord. Go to conventions with the WotC and politely ask them about the warlord.
Getting Matthew Mercer to profess a love for the warlord wouldn't hurt…