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

[Vaalingrade]

It's also important to understand the Battlemaster in the context of the Warlord situation.

In the D&D Next playtest what is now the Battlemaster was the base fighter. Fighters all got maneuvers and superiority dice and it was possible at that point for the various warlord builds to have been something you could build out of the fighter in subclasses.

But then came the Champion. The Champion is the simple, newbie friendly class that can't have interesting choices or abilities; it's got to be all passives. And a subclass can never replace or override class features for whatever design philosophy reason (the demon 'Simplicity', probably).

So the entire Fighter part of the fighter class got dumped to Battlemaster and there's not such thing as a subclass subclass. There's just two bad maneuvers to make up for four distinct mix and matchable suites of warlord abilities; no save boosting, not ally positioning, no sacrifice plays.

And for people who don't like or aren't familiar with the class, that should be enough. Part of the proud tradition of certain 'unwelcome' concepts being handed a subpar version that doesn't really reflect the desires of those who ask for it. I call these 'now shut up' options. Like the awful MadCatz controller you hand to your little brother when he wants to play your videogame that is guaranteed not to work and frustrate him into going away and leaving you alone.

 

[Yaarel]

im sure we could trim out enough spells for three pages of space for the warlord, and the game would probably be better for them being gone.

Oppositely, one of the "schools of magic" could be a strictly nonmagical Martial school. Where the "spell" format grants benefits that are always-on maneuver-like "cantrip", or have a 24-hour duration whose benefit recharges after a short rest. One of these Martial cantrips can be the "you attack instead of me" benefit.

Then Bard, Cleric, Paladin, etcetera, can choose these nonmagical Martial spells, to be a completely nonmagical class. The selection of these Martial spells could mechanically redefine Bard songs, Cleric restorative features, and Paladin aura as strictly nonmagical exhortations.

 

[Mistwell]

Just multi class Fighter and Bard

My first bard, I played it like a Warlord.

I would hand people my inspiration d20 (I think people forgot the Inspiration rules allow the player to give someone else their inspiration, thus freeing up your single Inspiration slot to be able to get another*). I would hand people my d4 for guidance and resistance. I would hand people my d6 for bardic inspiration. I kept handing people my dice during the game (very distinctive large dice so nobody confused them as being their own), and once they rolled it as a bonus for something they did they'd hand it back to me.

It felt very Warlord. People loved it. I planned to multiclass with Fighter (Battlemaster) and take a bunch of Maneuvers that had been Warlord powers like Rally and Commander's Strike, but we ended the campaign before we got to that point.

*"Additionally, if you have inspiration, you can reward another player for good roleplaying, clever thinking, or simply doing something exciting in the game. When another player character does something that really contributes to the story in a fun and interesting way, you can give up your inspiration to give that character inspiration."

 

[Arilyn]

Pretty much right, except the Miniatures Handbook was one of the first things released for 3.5e, not one of the last. It is where the Swift Action was introduced, as well as the Favored Soul and Warmage classes as well.

Memory not so reliable... It really felt like the end...

 

[Minigiant]

Ok. So everyone who does not agree does not know the true way of warlord design?

So a no true scotsman fallacy?

Again
Warlord fan mostly agree on the design of the Warlord class.
Most of the 3PP and homebrew Warlord classes look the same.
What Warlord fans disagree on is the compromise of making a Warlord subclass.

Because there are 4 main Warlord archteypes

1. The Brains, the Tactical Genius
2. The Heart, The Inspiring Leader
3. The Mentor, The Insightful Veteran
4. The Mascot, The Beacon of Support AKA Cheerleader AKA The Prince(ss) AKA "Lazylord"

but subclasses typically can only support one character archetype.

It's kinda like trying to make the Warlock a Wizard subclass when Invocation choices and Patron flavor is the point.
The Fiendlock fans would argue with the Hexblade fans and the GOOlock fans. And everyone would fight over which invocations get in and which one of the three pacts are use.

 

[James Gasik]

Possibly a not-hot take: the Warlord has a stronger identity than the Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

Possibly a not-hot take: the Warlord has a stronger identity than the Ranger.

Possibly not-hot-take: The Ranger was 2 Warlord archetypes. The Escort and the Guerilla

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I imagine the future D&D warlord class like a martial adept (from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords) focused into the school of the white raven.

If WotC wants a future D&D wargame then the warlord should be reserverd for then. And how would be the subclasses? I guess someones focused into the time of minions: beasts, elementals, undead, constructs..

If there is a D&D wargame then the warlord should can work in two different levels, the mass battles, in the "skirmishes" during the dungeon crawling. A warlord designed to buff a little number of allies could be totally overpowered in a mass battles where the "allies" are literally dozens, and enjoying the warlord's buff.

Other point is if some videogame studio could be creating a strategic D&D game style Total War: Warhammer then the game designers could start from zero a warlord class for the game, and this could be better designed than one by the superbusy WotC team.

And what if in the future the VTT-D&D Beyond add a solo mode, where the AI is the DM and the solo players test mass battles or skimishes games?

And WotC should "hurry" because when players want a new class, they are willing to buy 3PPs sourcebooks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again
Warlord fan mostly agree on the design of the Warlord class.
Most of the 3PP and homebrew Warlord classes look the same.
What Warlord fans disagree on is the compromise of making a Warlord subclass.

Because there are 4 main Warlord archteypes

1. The Brains, the Tactical Genius
2. The Heart, The Inspiring Leader
3. The Mentor, The Insightful Veteran
4. The Mascot, The Beacon of Support AKA Cheerleader AKA The Prince(ss) AKA "Lazylord"

but subclasses typically can only support one character archetype.

It's kinda like trying to make the Warlock a Wizard subclass when Invocation choices and Patron flavor is the point.
The Fiendlock fans would argue with the Hexblade fans and the GOOlock fans. And everyone would fight over which invocations get in and which one of the three pacts are use.

I think you fail to see what I propose:

You can easily split those concepts in two halfs:

- Those that resemble what the 4e warlord actually was: a halfway capable fighter.
The heart and the mentor fall into this category. You can easily integrate them into the fighter class, by adding leadership abilities to the class. They could depend on int and cha, so if you want to be good at them, you drop a bit of all other attributes (you are an old veteran or inspire more than anything else... which is already halfway possible with feats and the battlemaster subclass).

- those that actually don't resemble the 4e warlord: those that won't use weapons and armor at all.

Make a class, that actually does this without going through unnecesary steps.

So while you say it is impossible to make one subclass that does justice to all of those 4 concepts, which I not once proposed (remember: I said I add a fighting style as a start), I say that it is impossible to make a class that does justice to all of your warlord archetype (which true warlod fans seem to agree with because they can't agree how to do a real warlord class).

So maybe accept it, that what you want out of a warlord are actually two different concepts, which the 5e designers did get. This is why they have split warlod abilities over several classes.
It is just that the bard has magic, which rubs warlord fans the wrong way (rightly so). So I say: just add more warlord abilites to the fighter (which would make them finally be able to compete with magic) and make a real tactitian/mascot class.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you fail to see what I propose:

You can easily split those concepts in two halfs:

- Those that resemble what the 4e warlord actually was: a halfway capable fighter.
The heart and the mentor fall into this category. You can easily integrate them into the fighter class, by adding leadership abilities to the class. They could depend on int and cha, so if you want to be good at them, you drop a bit of all other attributes (you are an old veteran or inspire more than anything else... which is already halfway possible with feats and the battlemaster subclass).

- those that actually don't resemble the 4e warlord: those that won't use weapons and armor at all.

Make a class, that actually does this without going through unnecesary steps.

So while you say it is impossible to make one subclass that does justice to all of those 4 concepts, which I not once proposed (remember: I said I add a fighting style as a start), I say that it is impossible to make a class that does justice to all of your warlord archetype (which true warlod fans seem to agree with because they can't agree how to do a real warlord class).

So maybe accept it, that what you want out of a warlord are actually two different concepts, which the 5e designers did get. This is why they have split warlod abilities over several classes.
It is just that the bard has magic, which rubs warlord fans the wrong way (rightly so). So I say: just add more warlord abilites to the fighter (which would make them finally be able to compete with magic) and make a real tactitian/mascot class.

You proved my point.
You are suggesting a warlord within the fighter.

Because multiple designers have created a homebrewed Warlord class that has those main archetypes as it's subclasses. It's an agreed upon concept among most Warlord fans.

2 big homebrewers did it. ENWorld Publishing did it. MCDM is doing it. Paizo is doing it.

WOTC just wont do it as they are anti-new-classes and anti-subsystems.

This purely a WOTC problem. They won't dedicate real page space to a well made subsystem except for magic spells, magic items, and feats unless absolutely forced (see Artificer Infusions).