D&D 5E (2014) Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[GrimCo]

My experience with 4ed is limited.

This may be hot take, but i don't see warlord as a class. For me, it's more like character concept. One that can be put together using existing classes. Mix and match, bard fighter paladin, depending how much magic you want.

 

[Mecheon]

At some point, fans of the Warlord need to just play rather than waiting for WotC to get around to it. Because by not playing any version, they are tacitly proving WotC right if the company thinks that there aren't enough fans of the class to warrant making one themselves.

If we don't remind them that "Hey, this random homebrew does it better, give us a Warlord", they'll forget. The demand's still there. Just, saying nothing and using a homebrew one works, yeah, but then they're also not hearing "This is a gap in the game that needs to be filled"

Same thing with psionics, the existing solutions don't scratch the psionics itch for quite a few

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In light of Pathfinder 2E putting out a playtest for a Warlord-like class, the Commander, I can't help but wonder why such a wildly popular class concept has not been introduced to 5E.

A number of abilities in the spirit of the Warlord are available throughout 5E, including the Battle Master Fighter's Commander's Strike and Manuevering Strike, the Commanding Rally (a superior Bonus Action alternative to Commander's Strike) feature granted from the Squire of Solamnia and Knight of the Crown feat tree, and the Mastermind Rogue's Master of Tactics feature, but as it stands the game lacks a clear battlefield commander class with multiple options. This is especially odd when a number of monsters, like the Duergar Warlord, have features like Call to Attack that fit this conceptual space that PCs currently cannot.

Because Warlord stinks of 4e, and doing anything nice for 4e fans was verboten as part of 5e. Hence why dragonborn suck, they never ever talk about Points of Light except to reference the Raven Queen, there are no Warlords, and even subclasses that vaguely resemble 4e classes are exceedingly rare.

But I've already spoken at length about how the overwhelming majority of anything in 5e "inspired" by 4e is really a completely different (and usually 100% antithetical) mechanic parading around in 4e's skin.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

After 18 pages (!!) I guess you need to add one to make 54 different attempts...

Let's see how long this particular thread lasts. Could be more than six days; it was quite a while since everybody got the opportunity to declare their vision the only acceptable path forward

No but seriously, you could say the exact same thing about every other class as well. The fact people can't agree is not a good argument for "it can't be done".

If WotC were to suddenly include Warlord in the 2024 PHB, that would become the new defining standard of what a Warlord is.

There is no reason why a 5E Warlord can't have the 4E ability to give out attacks to others, no mechanical rules-related reason anyways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My experience with 4ed is limited.

This may be hot take, but i don't see warlord as a class.

With respect, doesn't that kind of weaken how much you can speak on the subject? "I don't know much of anything about your preferences, but I can say I don't think your preferences deserve representation" is not exactly a compelling argument.

For me, it's more like character concept. One that can be put together using existing classes. Mix and match, bard fighter paladin, depending how much magic you want.

Zero. Zero magic is the only acceptable quantity of magic for playing a Warlord. That's the whole point.

The Battle Master Fighter is not a Warlord. It is a Fighter, that happens to have some utility to give to others.

For Warlord fans, this is literally identical to saying, "I don't think 'Wizard' is a class. I think it's a character concept. One that can be put together using Bard, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster."

How do you think Wizard fans would feel, being told that they could just go play Bard. Bard is right there! It has subclasses ALL ABOUT knowledge and learning stuff. What more could they ask for? But you know what they would ask for. They'd ask for the unique spells that make Wizards different. They'd ask for spellcasting with Intelligence rather than Charisma. They'd ask for research (even though the exisiting 5e Wizard literally doesn't do research...at all.) They'd ask for spell schools as subclasses. Etc.

No Warlord should ever need spellcasting. I am perfectly happy with a Warlord class that offers the option of being a Knight-Enchanter who melds a bit of magic into her strategic brilliance. I, along with the vast majority of Warlord fans, will never accept a Warlord that requires magic to do their job.

The existing Warlord options are to an actual Warlord the way Lore Bards and Eldritch Knights are to actual Wizards: totally inadequate, and often overtly counter to what a Warlord is, conceptually.

No but seriously, you could say the exact same thing about every other class as well. The fact people can't agree is not a good argument for "it can't be done".

If WotC were to suddenly include Warlord in the 2024 PHB, that would become the new defining standard of what a Warlord is.

There is no reason why a 5E Warlord can't have the 4E ability to give out attacks to others, no mechanical rules-related reason anyways.

Precisely.

The problem is not, and never has been, "nobody can agree on what the X should be." The problem is, and always has been, that WotC's "we will only approve concepts which clear an arbitrary hurdle that massively favors a minority of disaffected playtest responders" policy prevents any meaningful progress. That policy was never particularly great to begin with; remember that it took nearly two full years just to nail down the Fighter, with Cleric and Rogue being in a similar boat. They tried version after version after version and nothing stuck. Eventually they had to stick with their guns and refine a concept so that it would earn that popularity rating.

Because that's actually what has to happen. The designer must at some point put their foot down and declare what a thing is. It is good, very good even, for designers to genuinely listen to the feedback from their users and work to implement it. And if, in a well-designed survey, they find that a particular approach really isn't getting better after a refinement pass or two, then yes, it may be good to return to the drawing board. But instantly abandoning an idea simply because it doesn't immediately get 70% approval is the single leading cause of both the incredible amount of wasted time during the "D&D Next" playtest and the dire state several classes (Monk, Warlock, Sorcerer) and subclasses (Berserker, Champion, Beast Master) were in at launch.

The Psion is in exactly the same boat, except there WotC is one of the people putting out an option. Nothing ever will capture 70%+ of the psionics fandom. Nothing can, because everyone is always incentivized to advocate for their view of psionics over everyone else's. They lose nothing they don't already have (which is nothing), but they get the theoretical potential of seeing their perfect idealized vision brought to life. WotC has to sit down at some point and tell us what the 5e Psion is. Only after that does it become possible for that option to reach the arbitrary approval clearance.

So it goes with the Warlord. Fans agree on quite a lot, actually! But they have no reason not to advocate for their specific interests, because there's no reason not to. WotC isn't going to make an actual, honest-to-God, full-throated 5e Warlord ever, so Warlord fans have absolutely no reason to try to unite on what the class really is.

It's the only way to break out of this cycle of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Sometimes, letting things be driven purely by audience interest is a great plan that genuinely leads to huge benefits. And sometimes, audiences are foolish and contradictory and fractious and squabbling, and they can only settle down and actually give good feedback when you push them to do so. This is an unfortunate fact of life.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If we don't remind them that "Hey, this random homebrew does it better, give us a Warlord", they'll forget. The demand's still there. Just, saying nothing and using a homebrew one works, yeah, but then they're also not hearing "This is a gap in the game that needs to be filled"

Same thing with psionics, the existing solutions don't scratch the psionics itch for quite a few

Yeah, but if no one actually plays that random homebrew then it's a bunch of people just talking out their rear ends, saying they want to play Warlords but never actually doing so.

So sure, keep talking about it if you wish... but I think your words would have a bit more weight if most of you talking about how good Warlords are had actual 5E play experience to back up your opinions and desires.

Because the upshot is... even if that doesn't inspire or convince WotC to make a Warlord class, at least you all could actually be playing Warlords in your campaigns right now instead of sitting on your hands for an entire decade waiting and waiting and waiting. Bird in the hand worth two in the bush and all that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because Warlord stinks of 4e, and doing anything nice for 4e fans was verboten as part of 5e.

That's an awfully passive-aggressive way of putting it.

In reality, 4E has just crashed and burned as the least popular edition. What would be more natural than making sure the new deal distances itself from the old?

WotC could not afford anyone going "the new edition is just more of 4E" and so they made a conscious decision to not include anything that made people think of 4E.

This was very likely a very important and very right decision to make. No, 4E didn't fail because of the Warlord - it wasn't the Warlord's fault that the edition tanked. But WotC couldn't afford to include it even though the Warlord was innocent, and that lots of people (me included) would welcome its inclusion.

Of course now in 2024 the same argument doesn't hold. They could totally bring over the Warlord from 4E. Do you know of any thread where this subject is discussed...?

 

[CapnZapp]

Because that's actually what has to happen. The designer must at some point put their foot down and declare what a thing is.

Yes, of course.

The important part is: are you able to see the corrollary?

The reason WotC is going with its "we will only approve concepts which clear an arbitrary hurdle that massively favors a minority of disaffected playtest responders" policy is precisely because they are not interested in actual change one bit.

The 2024 edition is all about getting everybody to purchase the same stuff they already have once more. Each change is directed towards this goal.

Back in the years leading up to 2014's 5th edition, WotC knew they could not apply the same policy. They absolutely had to make a success. Of course they then did NOT ask the players and definitely did NOT go only with what reached 70% or whatever.

Instead they put their foot down and decided what the edition should look like, with only superficial details up for discussion.

And this is precisely what's lacking if we're ever going to constructively move towards a Warlord.

Except WotCs financial future doesn't hinge on an official 5E Warlord getting published, the way WotCs financial future hinged upon the general player base perceiving 5E as something totally different from 4E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, of course.

The important part is: are you able to see the corrollary?

The reason WotC is going with its "we will only approve concepts which clear an arbitrary hurdle that massively favors a minority of disaffected playtest responders" policy is precisely because they are not interested in actual change one bit.

The 2024 edition is all about getting everybody to purchase the same stuff they already have once more. Each change is directed towards this goal.

Back in the years leading up to 2014's 5th edition, WotC knew they could not apply the same policy. They absolutely had to make a success. Of course they then did NOT ask the players and definitely did NOT go only with what reached 70% or whatever.

Instead they put their foot down and decided what the edition should look like, with only superficial details up for discussion.

And this is precisely what's lacking if we're ever going to constructively move towards a Warlord.

Except WotCs financial future doesn't hinge on an official 5E Warlord getting published, the way WotCs financial future hinged upon the general player base perceiving 5E as something totally different from 4E.

The repeated attempts to make a Psion tell me that they do want change, they just don't want it badly enough to do what change actually requires.

 

[Reynard]

It's not no true Scotsman.

@Reynard say that Warlord fans cannot agree.

I said that is wrong.
On the concept of how a Warlord class would look, 90% of them agree. Most Warlord class homebrew follow the same patterns which branch into either an internal or external tactics subsystem.

In this very thread, multiple people who like the Warlord concept are arguing about how it should be implemented.

It seems like you have just sort of decided that they are somehow outliers and "90%" of all the Warlord fans in the world agree with you. Convenient, that.