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

[Reynard]

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.

I don't think that is particularly true anymore. Even here people are coming around to 4E's strengths, and Matt Coville actively (and loudly) embracing those strengths for years has gone a long way to getting new players to appreciate it.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

My first 4E character was a Warlord and I enjoyed it for the mechanics. But the problem, narratively, was that the "combat squad commander" concept, and all the abilities that come with it, were now limited to a specific class (that also had a very unpopular name, and some narratives where controversial because people defined HP/meat differently). I felt that ANY class could and perhaps should have those leader options. For instance, I think that Fighter Bannerets, Paladin Commanders, Barbarian Thanes, Ranger Lords, and Mastermind Rogues are all valid squad leader concepts that deserve to opt in to such abilities.

I don't want just one "Warlord" class anymore. I liked the things it had, but the concept didn't deserve exclusive access to those things.

I was a fan of breaking up the Warlord into component parts that multiple classes could choose from, like with a more broad Combat Maneuver subsystem and Feats. We got some of them in 5E, but I wanted them to be more broadly available.

My second preference would be to have Commander-themed subclasses for each class that allow you to pick and choose some Leader abilities from a list of options.

 

[Undrave]

The guy at the front with a sword giving a rousing speech is a fighter, usually (or a ranger, in aragorn's case).

Aragorn should be a Warlord with a Ranger-like subclass.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I have long been a fan of combining the two classes. We don't need another swing a sword class.

And then add a class that is something like a spellless bard and sneakattackless rogue. Using auras to enhance those around them and use their words to rearrange the battlefield.

 

[Reynard]

Aragorn should be a Warlord with a Ranger-like subclass.

Or rousing speeches shouldn't be limited to a class at all.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No. That is some kind of exaggeration.

maybe a fraction of one, but it's not miles away from the truth

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.

it's really not that complicated, your suggestion is giving them the bones of the right abilities but it's massively lacking the proper scale and nuance for playing them, like i said, medicine, religion and magic initiate does not a cleric make, exactly the same way lending an attack per turn and giving your second wind does not a warlord make.

you're stating it yourself that 'you don't see the concept' so of course any warlord you would design will fall massively short for anyone who actually likes the concept.

 

[Undrave]

My first 4E character was a Warlord and I enjoyed it for the mechanics. But the problem, narratively, was that the "combat squad commander" concept, and all the abilities that come with it, were now limited to a specific class (that also had a very unpopular name, and some narratives where controversial because people defined HP/meat differently). I felt that ANY class could and perhaps should have those leader options. For instance, I think that Fighter Bannerets, Paladin Commanders, Barbarian Thanes, Ranger Lords, and Mastermind Rogues are all valid squad leader concepts that deserve to opt in to such abilities.

I don't want just one "Warlord" class anymore. I liked the things it had, but the concept didn't deserve exclusive access to those things.

I was a fan of breaking up the Warlord into component parts that multiple classes could choose from, like with a more broad Combat Maneuver subsystem and Feats. We got some of them in 5E, but I wanted them to be more broadly available.

My second preference would be to have Commander-themed subclasses for each class that allow you to pick and choose some Leader abilities from a list of options.

That's a strong point,

But I would counter with this: We have Arcana Clerics, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters... but we STILL have a Wizard! There's Swordmages and War Clerics but still we have Fighters. The way I see it, the Battlemaster is to the Warlord should be what the Eldritch Knight is to the Wizard. It's a 'multiclass style' subclass. If the maneuver system was fleshed out it would be possible to have those two options side by side.

 

[Alzrius]

Aragorn should be a Warlord with a Ranger-like subclass.

Eh, dude spent decades tromping about the wilderness, and then gives one or two speeches right at the end of his military career. I say ranger with a warlord-like subclass.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

maybe a fraction of one, but it's not miles away from the truth

it's really not that complicated, your suggestion is giving them the bones of the right abilities but it's massively lacking the proper scale and nuance for playing them, like i said, medicine, religion and magic initiate does not a cleric make, exactly the same way lending an attack per turn and giving your second wind does not a warlord make.

you're stating it yourself that 'you don't see the concept' so of course any warlord you would design will fall massively short for anyone who actually likes the concept.

No. I'd just add the abilities needed to the fighter. Why need another guy with a sword?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Eh, dude spent decades tromping about the wilderness, and then gives one or two speeches right at the end of his military career. I say ranger with a warlord-like subclass.

A Ranger Lord. Sounds like an advanced Ranger, leader of men, old-D&D style.