Undrave
Legend
Is has 'lord' and 'war' in the name it's pretty simple. But like... the PCs don't have to obey the guy if they don't want to. If the players can handle it, it can even be part of that character's arc.
D&D 5E (2014) Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
Reynard
aka Ian Eller
No, in the real world, where 4E got the term. It is literally 100% about being the guy in charge.
Undrave
Legend
Sometimes it feels like half-assing a point-buy system. And the synergy between certain classes (or lack thereof) is all over the place. Sometimes your get a Sorcadin and other times you try to make a sneaky Cleric and it falls flat.
If you want the system to lean into it then it should be treated as a core part of the game and not an optional rule.
Undrave
Legend
And? They might have been in charge in the past but it doesn't mean they are now. The party doesn't have to listen to the Warlord like he's their boss if he just isn't. Nobody's giving automatic authority to a guy just because he was a drill sergeant. Do you automatically defer to the Noble background PC?
Kurotowa
Legend
Indeed. It's like Eberron. Eberron was brand new in 3e, and precisely tailored to fit the edition like a glove. But it was so precisely tailored that as new editions have rolled out, with new mechanics and new features, Eberron is torn between having to revise large parts of the setting and introducing a long list of ill-fitting legacy elements to preserve the lore.
The Warlord was, for the most part, brand new to 4e and precisely tailored to the mechanics of the edition. Which meant it fit them very well and thrived under those conditions. But 5e is mechanically very different, and that previous precision tailoring means Warlords would need a great deal of revision to fit. And as several people have pointed out, deciding which direction to take those revisions is not something easily agreed on.
Maybe this all is a warning of the dangers of over-specialization. That when you purpose build something for a very specific environment, as soon as the environment changes it's left high and dry. Meanwhile something designed more broadly will be easier to adept to the new circumstances.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Except you have the 3.5e Marshal too and various mass combat mechanics for PC commanders - which is what the Warlord is, the martial commander archetype done with mechanical effect sans magic.
It's a great concept if 5e can get pass the extraordinary =spells snag
Reynard
aka Ian Eller
Because of all those mass combat mechanics in 5e?
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
??? Have you thought that thought through? Do you really believe that is the definition, whether literally or even colloquially?
If so... do you think the military commanders of any respectable force, would enjoy being called a "Warlord" because it just means they have expert-level experience and knowledge in the art of war?
Here are some publicly acknowledged definitions.
- Oxford Dictionary: a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy.
- Mirriam-Webster Dictionary: 1.) a supreme military leader. 2.) a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area.
- Dictionary.com: 1.) a military leader, especially of a warlike nation. 2.) a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country.
- Some military officer jackhole who works to brutally conquer and/or control a region, and is only successful because he has brutal thugs who agree with him or fear him.
Shardstone
Hero
By the way, as per usual, Laserllama -- a fantastic homebrewer on Patreon -- has created an amazing Warlord class for anyone that's interested in it. Find it, free, here. Maybe @Reynard should read it so he can be sold on the concept?
