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

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

In order to reach 90%, you would need to have 10.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Where do those 90% come from?
So anyone who disagrees (except for the 10%) are no true warlord fans?

I was a warlord fan. I do disagree that the two expamples you gave warrant their own class. One even has fighting styles like the fighter (and the paladin and the ranger).

Most Warlord class homebrew follow the same patterns which branch into either an internal or external tactics subsystem.

Which could equally well belong to the core fighter.

However if you try to bridge the Fighter and the Warlord into one class, there is nothing but disagreement.

Really?

Which is why WOTC won't do it. Because the Warlord fandom will never agree on design that combined fighter and Warlord, bard and Warlord, or makes a Warlord subclass. They will fight over how much fighter and how much Warlord. They will fight over supporting a simple build. They will fight over Int, WIS, or Cha build. They will fight over Inspiring, Tactical, Insightful, or Mascot focus.

Because mascot focus and probably tactical belong into a seperate class.

Which is exactly what your preference is.

Which is wrong. I wrote repeatedly that I don't think warlord should be a subclass of anything. This really a big problem with "true warlord" fans. They just want a warlord class that has elements the 4e warlord never had (lazylord/mascot was not a 4e design, it was a certain way of playing it, ignoring half the abilities of the actual warlord). No compromise. No taking of 5e designprinciples into account.

So stop telling me what my preference is, if you are incapable of reading.

 

[GrimCo]

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.

Not if that change brings risk of pissing off large pool of current paying customers.

They did psions in line with 5e design philosophy, aka subclasses, not classes.

 

[Undrave]

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.

No DM I ever played with remembered Inspiration felt like a very underdeveloped concept compared to 4e Action Points. If it had a bit more 'oomph' mechanically and each class had a specific feature that keyed off it, I think it wouldn't be so forgettable.

 

[Minigiant]

If you know this is the situation regarding WotC... have you moved on from waiting for it and just went with one of LaserLlama's or EN World's, or Kibblestasty's versions and used that one instead?

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.

It's mostly a DM vs Player issue.

Most homebrew isn't widely known.

So a DM knowing of Laserllama's Warlord allowing is is more likely to happen than showing a 5+ page nonCore PDF file in your DM's face as a player.

 

[Reynard]

No DM I ever played with remembered Inspiration felt like a very underdeveloped concept compared to 4e Action Points. If it had a bit more 'oomph' mechanically and each class had a specific feature that keyed off it, I think it wouldn't be so forgettable.

In one of my groups, we came up with a rule intended to increase the cinematic energy of the game as well as mitigate swinginess.

At the end of a PCs turn in combat, they get a point of inspiration. It can be used to reroll any d20 roll that character makes, or damage. You always take the second result. You can have a maximum of 3 Inspiration. If you do have 3, you can spend them all to either automatically crit, or to action surge (ie take another turn immediately).

Yes, it powers things up, but that means we can throw bigger, scarier monsters at the party (we have rotating GMs). It has worked really well for us.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Not at all.

Unlike the Psion comparison I made above, most Warlord fans want pretty much the same thing. The differences are generally quite small, often focused on:

Is the class more "lazy" or more personally active? (The former leads to "Noble" type preferences; the latter proceeds to the next question)
Are its tactics infinitely reusable, or resource-based? (The former leads to something more like an At-Will based Warlord; the latter proceeds)
Are its resources whittled away by spending, or built up before spending?

My preference is more personally active (with laziness as a specific option), and a mix of both infinitely-usable and resource-based things. I still have my stalled-out Summoner homebrew (writer's block is a real #@$&% sometimes), but the concept-sketch uses the 5.0 Warlock "split subclass" model of pact vs patron, short-rest resources, and high customizability. Minor subclass defines your Leadership Style (different overall approaches based on Int, Cha, or Wis), while major subclass defines the unique way you approach tactical efforts (e.g. a skullduggery-based "kingpin" type, an always-works-through-proxies mastermind, the aforementioned "Knight-Enchanter" who masters the tactical use of spellcraft, a wilderness-survival commando, a "captain and her crew" type, etc.)

The Invocation structure would then be repurposed for "Tactics" or "Machinations," stuff you can do essentially all the time but that requires knowledge, training, or practice to use (read: most have prerequisites). Instead of short-rest spell slots, you have short-rest Strategems, which are things you've rehearsed with your teammates; both Warlord and party can't really do a bazillion different tactics all concurrently, so there's only a small number you can drill on and draw upon at a moment's notice, but with a short rest, you can easily drill a few new ones as needed. I'd want to keep the list of Strategems relatively short, unlike a spell list, and most likely the Warlord would choose a set they'd learned by heart.

The only sticking point was (and remains) how to replace the Eldritch Arcana, since those are spells proper and, as stated, no baked-in spells is an absolutely mandatory requirement. When, or rather if, I get around to this, I'd need to do both brainstorming and testing to see what kinds of things would be worthwhile.

I've also had the idea that better Strategems require the Warlord to build up a resource first, call it "Gambit" or the like, so that there's a reason why the Warlord doesn't just deploy "Attack Pattern Delta" every single time--you have to "get into place" first, as it were. These are, of course, abstractions that simplify away the specific behavioral details, but we do that with all sorts of elements within D&D as it is, so I don't take that as much of a criticism.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

Seems kind of OP at least at lower levels.

Which really seems par for course. Warlord fans want to be able to cause the damage of a barbarian/fighter/ranger/paladin while healing like a cleric, while having high cha and/or int for skills, while buffing party initiative, attacks rolls and positioning allies. All in the 3-4 rounds of combat a typical encounter lasts.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Seems kind of OP at least at lower levels.

Not really, but strongbow should be a fighter feature. Or a general longbow trait.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not really, but strongbow should be a fighter feature. Or a general longbow trait.

Yes really. At level 1 you get the equivalent to 3x healing words per short rest. Along with good armor and weapon proficiencies. (Up to heavy armor if desired).