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

[EzekielRaiden]

A class isn't only a list of class features, but also the marks of identity, and also the subclasses should show their themself.

I propose an exercise of imagination:

Thanks a collab between WotC and Japanese novel self-publishing website Shōsetsuka ni Narō there is a literary contest. It has to be a story about a character from Kamigawa: Neon Dinasty who is killed during the Phyrexian invasion (let's be more original than the isekai trope of hit by a truck) and (s)he is reincarnated within a D&D world. This character becomes a warlord, with a group of allies (a harem of monster girls if you want). The goal is to create a warlord character so interesting than players want to play with this new class.

How would you design this warlord? It will be for a "litRPG", and then the background of the character(s) is more important than the gameplay.

I would take it in a direction similar to games Powered by the Apocalypse, such as Dungeon World. That is, I'd consider the core concepts and commitments of such an archetype, and try to figure out how that archetype would both be reasonably manifested (e.g., what things demonstrate being that archetype) and fittingly challenged (e.g., what situations or questions would naturally arise from that archetype.)

The Warlord is a student of war, in some form. They learn from it, adapt to it, experiment with it, and get tested by it. Even if they're terrible at actual chess, they have to be able to predict the beliefs and actions of others in order to be effective. They need to have some understanding of goals and motivations, and how to manipulate them. But a manipulator is also distrusted, while a leader must be trusted. That creates an inherent dichotomy. How does the Warlord balance the undeniable utility of guile with the absolute necessity of trust? Can they thread the needle between loyalty and mind-games?

The Warlord is also a facilitator. They are at their best, not when they do things on their own, but when they leverage allies' strengths to new heights, and exploit enemies' weaknesses with cunning and guile. But that also means the Warlord is, in a sense, unnecessary. If their allies could just tap that power and see the weaknesses on their own, would they even need the Warlord? Having a specialist is great, sure, but there's an internal conflict there, needing others without necessarily being needed yourself. Resolving that conflict is likely to be a long-term thing.

I made a Batman comparison earlier, and I really wasn't joking. Many of these things are themes explored in Batman: the Animated Series.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just don't add needless subsystems.

I have no interest in needless subsystems.

I do not believe Battle Master maneuvers are adequate to the task. I believe something actually designed to do the job is required, not merely beneficial or neat or fun (though I think it is also all of those things.)

All too often these days, I find that the pendulum has swung far too far in the other direction. Unrelenting forced reuse of existing subsystems that don't fit, that poorly implement things that would have been better as actual class features (read: turning damn-near-everything into a spell, for God's sake they tried to turn WARLOCK PACTS into spells!!!)

Yes, it is unwise to create needless subsystems. It is also unwise to doggedly avoid subsystems when they would be the better solution, and sometimes they really are the better solution!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is one those things I don't actually feel the need for the warlord to have (maybe this is one of the points that always causes warlord fans to argue about), is healing.

Yes, it is. For pretty much every outright Warlord fan I've ever spoken to, healing is in fact a requirement. Hence why it's so terrifically infuriating when that's the first thing every proposal puts on the chopping block.

The Warlord needs to be able to fill the support slot, even in parties without a single person who can cast cure wounds or healing word. That means real, actual, honest-to-God healing. It may be less healing than what a Cleric or Bard could produce (in fact, by level 4-6, I would absolutely expect the Warlord to be simply outclassed for healing, unless said Warlord has actively and aggressively pursued being a really, really, really good healer--and even then he should be struggling to keep up.) But it can't be zero healing, "only THP healing," only damage prevention/mitigation, etc. Sufficient amounts of those things that could actually obviate the need for healing would be severely unbalanced--and would make any party that does have magical healing even worse than a party that had to rely on the Warlord alone.

I like the idea of granting temp hit points, I think it's cool for them to bolster their allies, but healing doesn't seem integral to the concept of a warlord, especially with how easy it is to heal up in 5e.

The problem is: it's also quite easy to die in my experience. Especially in the earliest levels, and/or in parties that don't have magic. I would know. I am the (Celestial Warlock) healer of a mostly-5.0, partly-5.5e game (very kindly run by Hussar), and dear God do we need the healing Celestial brings. If it weren't for my spell slots and daily Healing Radiance dice, things would have gone significantly worse for the party...and we've also had to rely on something like 15+ healing potions on top of that.

Hit Dice help, sure. They are emphatically nowhere near enough to keep up with the allegedly-expected 6-8 combat encounters a day, doubly so once you've spent one night out in the field, since you only get back half your HD, not all of them. That's where the Warlord's stuff comes in. It helps keep people off the floor and still in the fight. Temporary hit points cannot do that. They do absolutely, positively nothing for someone unconscious. They don't even cause a person to stabilize.

It is, simply put, utterly non-negotiable that any 5e Warlord be able to provide at least some healing. It doesn't have to be much--I quite liked the idea of "recipient spends a Hit Die and adds the Warlord's Leadership modifier on top"--but it's gotta be something. Linking it to Hit Dice serves the double purpose of calling back to 4e's mechanics (even if 5e Hit Dice have only the thinnest superficial similarity to Healing Surges), and mollifies the rustled jimmies over "no-cost healing" or various other common martial-healing gripes.

I also feel like this should feel like a Warrior, having extra attack, having a warrior's hit die (d10), and training in all martial weapons as well as all armour and shields. I guess I could see them in medium armour with a subclass that specifically grants heavy armour as a bonus proficiency.

See, that's my point here. Warlords should not be comparable to frontline Fighters/Paladins/etc., unless they've invested in doing so. They're tricksy, wily, clever bastards, who should be at a slight distance removed. Pushing too much automatic, inherent warrior-ness into the class is a huge part of why the Fighter chassis doesn't work. It closes off too much other, valid, interesting design space because the Fighter chassis is already so roided out guns-blazing for personal effort. You can't take away core class features, but you can add them in with subclasses (and, as another perk of the Warlock-style/"fractal" class model, "invocation"-type selected features can do this too.)

We already know Extra Attack can be a subclass-specific feature (see: Bard, Blade Pact), as can heavier armor (Cleric, and BG3 offers it to Rangers as well). It makes sense that at least one subclass of Warlord should truly be a front-line warrior, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and/or Paladin. Hence my mention of the "Vanguard" subclass getting +1 HP/class level the way Dragon Sorcerers do, and I'd add heavy armor on top of that.

By leaving those things for folks who want to specialize in full-on warrior badassery, we can give folks who like that stuff exactly what they're hoping for, without forcing EVERYONE to deal with that being baked in.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We should realise boss and leader isn't the same. The boss gives the orders, but the leader is asked (advice about) what to be done.

Here there is a point where I start to feel confused.

The warlord should be mainly a martial class, ready for campaigns for low level of magic, for example John Snow and Daenerys Targaryen, but... a lot of campaigns are epic fantasy style Age of Sigmar or Warhammer Fantasy: the old World. This means monster riders and warmages. How to design a class for those styles of campaing?

Any suggestion? The warlord should enjoy a class feature working like a version of the bastion, the warband camp. With the leveling up more "tents" could be unlocked, for example a monster trainer, or an artificier crafting warmachines.

* Let's imagine a different class, the knight or cavalier, but with a little change. They can heir special legacy items, usually armour or weapons with some magic trait. They don't need atunning but these by others who aren't member of the order or certain bloodlines/noble houses it has to count as two magic objects for the limits. Of course some legacy items could be a banner with healing magic. Would be this knight with a magic banner a warlord?

 

[CreamCloud0]

I have no interest in needless subsystems.

I do not believe Battle Master maneuvers are adequate to the task. I believe something actually designed to do the job is required, not merely beneficial or neat or fun (though I think it is also all of those things.)

All too often these days, I find that the pendulum has swung far too far in the other direction. Unrelenting forced reuse of existing subsystems that don't fit, that poorly implement things that would have been better as actual class features (read: turning damn-near-everything into a spell, for God's sake they tried to turn WARLOCK PACTS into spells!!!)

Yes, it is unwise to create needless subsystems. It is also unwise to doggedly avoid subsystems when they would be the better solution, and sometimes they really are the better solution!

while i don't think BM maneuvres would be enough by themselves i do believe they could go a good chunk of the distance, especially if they're not being hobbled by a miniscule pool of BM dice, this is why one of my first suggestions every time for the warlord is one free BM maneuvre a turn before the dice pool is even a factor for using additional manuveres,

there are lots of maneuvres which disadvantage opponents in some way or support allies and people say often enough that 'battlemaster is to warlord as eldritch knight is to wizard' and i think that suggests the maneuvres are on the right track for warlord, they're just way too scant in useage.

 

[GrimCo]

Comparing 4e and 5e is like comparing apples to tomatoes. Both are fruit ( dnd editions). But they are conceptually very different. 4e is built around small unit tactics and plays more like small scale tactical wargame. Classes have more focused roles and specific area where they shine and whole game is build around party synergy. 5e has more individualistic aproach and classes are more broad in their design. You are bunch of individual heroes.

For example, i played lv 15 champion fighter recently. It could switch from tank to crit fisher damager instantly. Took slasher and dual wielder, defensive and twf fighting styles, 2 longswords. Round one sword and board, then i discover that monster hits damn hard and has solid to hit ( but nothing crazy). Druid drops fearie fire on him. I drop shield (-1 ac) pull out longsword and go to town with action surge. 7 attacks,14 dice rolls, 18-20 crit. Meat grinder goes brrrr. By simple shield to weapon swap it went from tank to dps (defender to striker).

Also, in combat healing is suboptimal choice in 5e after first 2-3 levels. Even clerics have hard time out healing damage monsters do. It's better option to go for fast kill than burn slots for healing in most cases. Guiding bolt over cure wounds so to speak.

Playing support characters sucks for most people. There is a meme for reason back in the day that if you come last, you are stuck playing cleric. 4e was exception cause of design choice to focus on tactical team combat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

5e has more individualistic aproach and classes are more broad in their design. You are bunch of individual heroes.

Adding a Warlord would be a helpful way to bring back some of the playstyle offered by 4e. Wasn't that one of the specific things 5e's designers told us it was about? Bringing together fans of every edition. 4e was included in that list. Mearls himself has even openly spoken about how he struggles to understand why 4e fans would feel excluded from it.

If the addition of literally one class, pushing the boundaries just a little bit and otherwise striving to stay within the structures of 5e, actually did manage to offer that olive branch and bring in a little bit of the magic that made 4e fans love it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be fulfilling the mission statement and ethos behind 5e?

If 5e's design as it is genuinely doesn't offer anything like that playstyle, isn't that a reason to pursue adding that playstyle, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof, rather than one to just throw up our hands and say it's impossible?

Because I fully agree with you. 5e is, for good and for ill, a better-made version of everything 3e tried to be. And one of the things 3e tried to be was "ruthlessly optimize yourself, your own contributions, above all else. You are not a team. You are 4-6 individuals who happen to adventure in the same place at the same time."

But I don't think it is exclusively that. There are things which buck that trend. Wolf Totem Barbarian, for example, is one that I have personal and recent experience with. If there can be little touches like that, which buck the trend of ruthless personal optimization, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable or even all that unusual to suggest that a whole class, designed toward that end, could actually manifest a goodly chunk of that play-feel again.

 

[James Gasik]

I’m curious, What combination of abilities would it take to be a warlord at level 1?

Bare minimum? How about:

Martial Weapons, All Armors, Shields, at least d8 hit die.

*A method to heal/mitigate damage for an ally twice per day.
*A "team field" bonus that can be used once per day.
*A bonus action ability to grant an ally an attack a few times per day.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Bare minimum? How about:

Martial Weapons, All Armors, Shields, at least d8 hit die.

*A method to heal/mitigate damage for an ally twice per day.
*A "team field" bonus that can be used once per day.
*A bonus action ability to grant an ally an attack a few times per day.

I was personally willing to accept bumping that last thing up to level 2 or 3, in line with 5e's "discourage dipping" class design. Having all three things all show up right at 1st level is, to some extent, significantly disfavored by 5e.

 

[GrimCo]

Adding a Warlord would be a helpful way to bring back some of the playstyle offered by 4e. Wasn't that one of the specific things 5e's designers told us it was about? Bringing together fans of every edition. 4e was included in that list. Mearls himself has even openly spoken about how he struggles to understand why 4e fans would feel excluded from it.

Didn't read what Mearls was saying 10+ years ago, but tbh that sounds like pr bullsh*t statement. They did kind of give 4e lip service. Short/long rest recharge abilities are watered down and simplified versions of encounter/daily powers.

If the addition of literally one class, pushing the boundaries just a little bit and otherwise striving to stay within the structures of 5e, actually did manage to offer that olive branch and bring in a little bit of the magic that made 4e fans love it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be fulfilling the mission statement and ethos behind 5e?

5e design structure just isn't that friendly to 4e design structure. They are so different on fundamental principles. 5e was designed to be streamlined and simple, focused on ToTM play, with fast (for dnd) and easy combat, and very simple out of combat mechanics.

If 5e's design as it is genuinely doesn't offer anything like that playstyle, isn't that a reason to pursue adding that playstyle, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof, rather than one to just throw up our hands and say it's impossible?

You can try, but you need to rework core game so much it's just easier to play 4ed. 5e just isn't designed around party as a whole. It's designes around individuals.

Because I fully agree with you. 5e is, for good and for ill, a better-made version of everything 3e tried to be. And one of the things 3e tried to be was "ruthlessly optimize yourself, your own contributions, above all else. You are not a team. You are 4-6 individuals who happen to adventure in the same place at the same time."

Yup. Pretty much that. Simplified and streamlined 3.x with some 2ed sprinkled in, with some very small hints of 4th.

But I don't think it is exclusively that. There are things which buck that trend. Wolf Totem Barbarian, for example, is one that I have personal and recent experience with. If there can be little touches like that, which buck the trend of ruthless personal optimization, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable or even all that unusual to suggest that a whole class, designed toward that end, could actually manifest a goodly chunk of that play-feel again.

Tbh, wolf totem is highly dependant on party composition. Works well with crit fishing champion and rogue. Bear is just more optimal choice since it doubles your hp in effect so you can be damage sponge. I love me some barbarians, played one from lv 1-16.

I think that 5e is in some cases regression from 4e and natural evolution of game is 3.x-5- 4 with aedu system being more advanced version of short/long rest recharge mechanic.