D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[Shardstone]

Artificer didn't get the full reception it deserved because some of its design is really mid, and its Alchemist subclass is freaking trash.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The core Warlord features would be their "Inspiration Heal" and their "You attack instead of me" and their plans/schemes/tactics.

However their subclasses would hone more on the Tactical Genius, Charismatic Commander, Encouraging Princess, Pirate Captain, Infectious Risktaker, Princess of Thieves, etc character archetypes from fantasy

I can't see how those subclasses can't be used on the existing classes.

The only thing not covered might be the encouraging princes, but this was also a bad fit fornthe 4e warlord (ignoring all the fighting capabilities of the base class).

What I could see is having the encouraging princess as a base class instead of a 4e warlord. Especially not having any weapon and armor capabilities of their own. Really embracing the commander concept.

Maybe combine it with the tactical genious. I'd more or less would assume a roguelike/bard like base chassis with charisma and int as their main stats.

 

[Reynard]

The core Warlord features would be their "Inspiration Heal" and their "You attack instead of me" and their plans/schemes/tactics.

However their subclasses would hone more on the Tactical Genius, Charismatic Commander, Encouraging Princess, Pirate Captain, Infectious Risktaker, Prince(ss) of Thieves, etc character archetypes from fantasy

I get where you are coming from with this response, but to me it just underscores the worst aspects of the 5E class/subclass system. Every one of those subclasses you listed sound more like class feats to me, and none except maybe Tactical genius sound like they can support a 20 level (17, I guess, technically) level progression.

 

[Minigiant]

I can't see how those subclasses can't be used on the existing classes.

The only thing not covered might be the encouraging princes, but this was also a bad fit fornthe 4e warlord (ignoring all the fighting capabilities of the base class).

What I could see is having the encouraging princess as a base class instead of a 4e warlord. Especially not having any weapon and armor capabilities of their own. Really embracing the commander concept.

Maybe combine it with the tactical genious. I'd more or less would assume a roguelike/bard like base chassis with charisma and int as their main stats.

Sure you can do them in other other classes if you ignore the issues

And that's why Warlord never gets the design spaces.

There are 2 design paradigm

"Refluff and Ignore"
This is "Play a cleric or bard and pretend Haste and Healing Word aren't magic"

and

"Acknowledge and Design"
This is "Those are magic spells. My ex-General of the Imperial Army doesn't cast spells. They buff troops without magic. We never a new subsystem "

Why is there no Warlord in 5e?

5e is very anti-subsystem beyond magic spells and magic items.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The same people over and over again...

there are plenty of others constantly asking all over various DnD communities

Why not? What does the 4e warlord really have to offer besides using their friends as wepons and a bit of healing?

this is like saying if cleric didn't exist i could make a viable one out of the fighter by giving them religion and medicine skill proficiencies and taking magic initiate:druid for guidance, produce flames or shillelagh(depending if you want to be a magic cleric with 'holy fire' or a warrior one with a 'blessed weapon') and cure wounds.

sure it might vaguely emulate the basic shape of the idea of the class but it massively falls short of actually fufilling the fantasy when you play it.

 

[Minigiant]

I get where you are coming from with this response, but to me it just underscores the worst aspects of the 5E class/subclass system. Every one of those subclasses you listed sound more like class feats to me, and none except maybe Tactical genius sound like they can support a 20 level (17, I guess, technically) level progression.

And that's a you (not you specifically but an individual) problem. Because to me, it would be easy to scale a Warlord and all those classes up to level 20.

And that again goes to design space. If the designers aren't fans of the concept and they don't have a clear image of it, how can they design a class for it?

You can look at the PHB and see which concepts the designers didn't have a clear image of

 

[Undrave]

The biggest obstacle is the return of those bloody saving throws. I’ve tried to build my own Warlord but it’s just a pain in the butt to find ways for a Warlord to still be useful to a 5e Caster when SOMETIMES they roll to attack and most of the time the target rolls to save. Back in 4e, giving a +1 to an ally’s ATK meant the same thing for every class and you didn’t have to contort your fluff and write a full paragraph to grant the Wizard a useful bonus.

IMO, it makes way more sense for the person performing the offensive action to always roll.

Furthermore, 5e is lacking in standard smaller status effects that can be applied or bonus that can be granted. 5e has Advantage and that’s about it.

 

[Stormonu]

The hate for 4E is still strong, and I think Warlord's abilities encompasses every bit of that hate. That, more than anything is why its unlikely a 5E Warlord will ever emerge, sadly.

That said, some of the battlemaster's maneuvers clearly were designed from warlord abilities, and if there was a bard subclass that got battlemaster maneuvers I don't think it'd be very far off from the class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure you can do them in other other classes if you ignore the issues

And that's why Warlord never gets the design spaces.

There are 2 design paradigm

"Refluff and Ignore"
This is "Play a cleric or bard and pretend Haste and Healing Word aren't magic"

I don't favour that.

and

"Acknowledge and Design"
This is "Those are magic spells. My ex-General of the Imperial Army doesn't cast spells. They buff troops without magic. We never a new subsystem "

Why is there no Warlord in 5e?

5e is very anti-subsystem beyond magic spells and magic items.

Battlemaster has a subsystem. If Ivd do a warlord, I'd outsource the battlemaster from the fighter class.

 

[Minigiant]

Battlemaster has a subsystem. If Ivd do a warlord, I'd outsource the battlemaster from the fighter class

Battlemaster maneuvers don't scale with tier.

It's the #1 reason why Battlemaster doesn't substitute for a Warlord. Outsourcing it doesn't work unless you scale it.

Scaling it more means.. More book space.