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

[UngeheuerLich]

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

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.

No. That is some kind of exaggeration.

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.

Please elaborate. What has the 4e warlord really going on besides healing and lending attacks?
I always failed to see the original concept of the warlord and always questioned why they are not fighter... (except for those two abilities I mentioned).

The only really innovative concept was the lazy warlord... which ignored all fighting capabilities of the base class. Some actually trying to miss with a certain power by closing eyeas and falling prone, because the miss effect was better than the hit effect.

So if I'd want a warlord, I'd make the lazy warlord the standard. And then add skills and encouraging auras.

 

[Undrave]

I'm just saying that it isn't some long running archetype that permeates D&D and fantasy, compared to the barbarian or fighter or even bard. It was essentially a set of mechanics built to fill an org chart in 4E.

I would argue the 1e Fighting Man was closer to a Warlord than to a 5e Fighter. They grew to be leaders of mundane men and commanded cohorts. As domain building and underlings fell from favour, the Fighter lost all that leading ability, leaving only 'I swing my sword' behind. The Warlord is just a return to those roots, but this time synergizing with the other PCs.

Instead of having a Warlord class itself, I wouldn't mind the Fighter being improved and fleshed out by more Warlord traits as part of their base class features. A Fighter would not longer be seen as just a town guard or a random soldier, they would be Sergeants and Captains and could make use of their commanding presence and military education in social situations. Reclaim the old status of Lord!

 

[Undrave]

Scaling it more means.. More book space.

Gotta leave that room for MOAR SPELLS.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Yeah. But that is a problem of the battlemaster. It does not have to be in the PHB, so book space is no problem, I guess.

 

[Parmandur]

I can't help but wonder why such a wildly popular class concept

But is it, though...?

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah. But that is a problem of the battlemaster. It does not have to be in the PHB, so book space is no problem, I guess.

Only if they printed Nentir Vale.

5e's designers had a rule. No new classes unless the setting required it.

So Warlord could only appear in the PHB or the Nentir Vale book.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Only if they printed Nentir Vale.

5e's designers had a rule. No new classes unless the setting required it.

So Warlord could only appear in the PHB or the Nentir Vale book.

I'd love that.

I really liked the Nentir Vale.

 

[Laurefindel]

Do a search here on EN World. At last count I believe there have been 53 different attempts by various posters here to create a Warlord class over the last 10 years. And they all end the same way... everyone involved can't agree how it should be built and the thread falls off the front page after like six days.

(See also: Psion / Arcane Half-Caster.)

6 days! I wish my threads lasted that long on the front page!

 

[Undrave]

Please elaborate. What has the 4e warlord really going on besides healing and lending attacks?
I always failed to see the original concept of the warlord and always questioned why they are not fighter... (except for those two abilities I mentioned).

Warlords could also rearrange the Battlefield, buff others, help them shake off statuses, and they had more stat points to put into mental stats (INT and CHA were their major secondary) instead of being dumb meatshields like a Fighter. Fighters were also more powerful in combat compared to a Warlord. Warlords were no slouch amongst Leaders, but were nothing compared to a Defender or Striker. The Warlord had 30 levels worth of powers, with Paragon Paths and Epic Destiny. Surely there's enough material to mine for subclasses and class features. If nothing else, you could have better scaling maneuvers.

Why do we need Fighters anyway? 'Fighter' is such a generic term and doesn't mean squat because everybody fights. I say we get rid of Fighter and just make the Warlord the default martial. Ordinary fighting guys don't become adventurers, but a daring squad captain? Heck yeah they would.

We already have the Barbarian to be the 'I swing my sword' guy, we don't need two beginner's weapon guys it's dumb.

If you insist, because Tradition, we can just slap the Fighter label on a Warlord and call it a day.

 

[Nefermandias]

I'm just saying that it isn't some long running archetype that permeates D&D and fantasy, compared to the barbarian or fighter or even bard. It was essentially a set of mechanics built to fill an org chart in 4E.

The Warlord was actually first introduced in the Miniatures Handbook for 3.5e.

Back then, the class was called "Marshal".