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

[Micah Sweet]

This seems like the wrong kind of warlord. Notice that no example characters in that article (as far as I can see anyway) match the class description of the warlord.

Look under tabletop games and you'll see what I mean. They don't list the D&D 4E warlord, but they list the Hardholder from Apocalypse World.

People are not looking for a class that controls minions. People are looking for a support character who relies on morale and tactics.

Which is great evidence that "warlord" really wasn't an appropriate name.

 

[Mephista]

That is complete and utter HOGWASH! I have never seen a henchman, hireling or squire in modern D&D (most modern settings aren't even feudal). Aside from 5e having absolutely no rules for them, combat is slow enough with 4-6 PCs.

Pardon the interruption, but I'd like to point out something. We do have SOME rules - Sidekicks, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything p142.

 

[James Gasik]

But mechanically, a class that uses its own buffs to match a fighter's solo combat abilities is just burning resources on himself to do what the fighter already does.

Or, worse, doing it better. Aka, "Clericzilla", something 5e was actively designed to prevent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is complete and utter HOGWASH! I have never seen a henchman, hireling or squire in modern D&D (most modern settings aren't even feudal). Aside from 5e having absolutely no rules for them, combat is slow enough with 4-6 PCs. It really doesn't benefit from having a bunch of hangers-on clogging up the initiative track. Summoning spells where changed in Tasha's so they only summon one critter, because the designers are well aware that 5e doesn't play nice with adding a dozen wolves player side.

Now you may well include that sort of thing held over from 1st edition (which did have rules for it), and you are free to enjoy whatever you like, but don't try and pretend it's anything like standard, because I'm darn sure it aint.

Which brings us back to 3PP. If you want that in your game, use it, or make your own, but don't try and impose it on other players. Most players don't want that shtuff.

Do you speak for most players then? The lack of something in WotC 5e (which does have sidekick rules) is not some kind of final word or referendum on that thing's lack of popularity, and even if it were, there's such a thing as optional rules.

 

[James Gasik]

A warlord who uses his allies abilities to buff himself? Like an anti-warlord?

Oh it's a kind of Warlord all right, and one WotC already created.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not quick, that’s why most tables don’t bother with trash mobs. No point in putting the game into slo-mo unless the fight actually matters.

But nevertheless, it works okay, and lots more people enjoy this version of the game than any other.

Using video game terminology ("trash mobs") in this particular way is, to my mind, rather dismissive of a playstyle that makes use of small, quick combats.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Using video game terminology ("trash mobs") in this particular way is, to my mind, rather dismissive of a playstyle that makes use of small, quick combats.

There are no “quick” combats in 5e. Even rolling for initiative is time consuming. But trash mob has a distinct meaning, there is nothing dismissive about it.

 

[Clint_L]

If you don't allow 3PP at your table YOU SHOULD. If you don't support this you are doing everyone a disservice.

Excuse me? No, folks should allow they enjoy at their table and have no responsibility for what happens at mine.

 

[James Gasik]

Using video game terminology ("trash mobs") in this particular way is, to my mind, rather dismissive of a playstyle that makes use of small, quick combats.

Really? I mean, let's look at some old modules where the party enters a room with say, two orcs. Even back in the day we called them "cannon fodder".

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the flaw in your reasoning, as I have already said, is that this only works as an explanation if absolutely every single thing, without exception, is what the greatest number of people sincerely, deeply want.

Do you know that? Do you know for sure that the greatest number of people is genuinely happy with every single thing in 5e, without exception, without even the slightest complaint or deviation on any point or part?

Because if you don't, then your position remains vulnerable to that simple critique: Just because someone buys something, doesn't mean they like EVERYTHING about it.

And we now have good reason to say that people actively choose to play things that AREN'T well-liked. We literally got statistics from WotC itself showing that there were problems with the satisfaction ratings for various classes and subclasses, despite some of those things being among the most popular options in 5e. How could that be? Is it, perhaps, that people choose things despite their design, even if that design continues to bug them and they just tolerate it because they don't have any other choices? Is it, perhaps, that with 5e being so thoroughly the (literal) only game in town for many people, folks settle for what they can get?


Except the overall culture of play for 5e is by far the most 3PP-hostile culture-of-play I've ever participated in. Even 3.x, which was notorious for its TERRIBAD 3PP (and even some terribad 1PP!), was more amenable to 3PP and outside homebrew options than 5e has been.

People celebrated how 5e was allegedly made for integrating 3PP in a way 4e wasn't. I've used more 4e 3PP and homebrew than I ever have in 5e. And at this point, I've actually played MORE 5e than 4e!

That's interesting. I love 5e 3pp (more than 1pp) and use it all the time.