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

[Mephista]

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?

If, by defer, you mean sneak attack into the neck while they're asleep? Then yes, yes I do.

 

[James Gasik]

The Class name was Warlord. It is not possible to get away from the connotations of that word. It means what it means.

Yes, just like how any Barbarian is a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent.

 

[James Gasik]

Theses are my Warlord class recollections:

Near the end of 3.5 WotC published a miniatures/warfare type supplement. It introduced the Marshall and Healer classes. The book was not well received, except for the Marshall class. 4e came out not too long after, and the Marshall moved into the new edition, renamed Warlord. During the 5e playtest, people asked about the Warlord class because it had been popular in 4e. They were told the Bard and Battle Master fighter could fill the that role. This did not sit well with the Warlord fans at all. Much angst and anger and squabbles with fans who didn't care about the Warlord.

Eventually, word came out, (or maybe just rumours) that Mike Mearls did not like the Warlord, so not going to happen.

5e has only ever added one full class since it's publication because it relies on subclasses. So, no Warlord. Whether there's a subclass that can satisfy the commandery itch is subjective.

Many 3rd party publishers and D&D adjacent games have created Warlord type classes, so there's definitely a demand. And if you are a fan, it's easy enough to track one down for 5e. WotC's not going to do it. Personally, I like Commander style classes.

The healer class was great! You got a free unicorn!

 

[Cadence]

The Class name was Warlord. It is not possible to get away from the connotations of that word. It means what it means.

"The Warlord is Travis Morgan, a USAF lieutenant colonel who crash landed in Skartaris, a world inside the hollow Earth. He is a modern man injected into a world of sword & sorcery. The character avoids a bad cliché by not becoming Skartaris’ leader and attempting to impose his values on it. Morgan enjoys the role of an adventurer far more than that of a king." (from MikeGrell.com)

 

[James Gasik]

View attachment 361751

Ah yes, having a .44 automag in a fantasy setting makes for an excellent class feature!

 

[Arilyn]

The healer class was great! You got a free unicorn!

Really? I don't remember that. Let's bring the healer back!

 

[Cadence]

Ah yes, having a .44 automag in a fantasy setting makes for an excellent class feature!

If my Halfling and Dwarf in the early 80s* got to bring back F-14s when they visited earth, seems fair that the USAF pilot transferred to adventure land gets to keep his gun!


* I was much younger then!

 

[Staffan]

Theses are my Warlord class recollections:

Near the end of 3.5 WotC published a miniatures/warfare type supplement. It introduced the Marshall and Healer classes. The book was not well received, except for the Marshall class. 4e came out not too long after, and the Marshall moved into the new edition, renamed Warlord. During the 5e playtest, people asked about the Warlord class because it had been popular in 4e. They were told the Bard and Battle Master fighter could fill the that role. This did not sit well with the Warlord fans at all. Much angst and anger and squabbles with fans who didn't care about the Warlord.

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.

 

[James Gasik]

Really? I don't remember that. Let's bring the healer back!

 

[Undrave]

??? 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.

And here is just one colloquial definition.

• 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.

Yeah yeah yeah... we talked about it back in the 4e days and... I don't care. In everyday parlance, a Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock and Enchanter are the same thing.

One other thing about Warlord that would be a problem in 5E is that leveraging or buffing allies is a central design element of it as a class.

I don't think that is flexible enough for 5E where classes are intended to be able to stand on their own. The only other class that carries this "need others to work right" baggage is Bard with Inspiration and the subclass options let you even use that for other things once 3rd level comes around.

Ask yourself this - Can a Warlord play effectively in a solo adventure or in a party full of only Warlords? I don't think so and for that reason I don't think it works with 5E.

Hot take: Design class to be able to stand on their own is why they all feel a little flat. I much rather they interact more. I don't think classes should be designed for solo play. That said, a 4e Warlord was still a Martial Class capable of wielding martial weapons and wearing armor and could thus buff each other very well. A party of Warlord would actually be extremely efficient.

I would agree with you.

"5e CAN do it" and "5e does it well" are two very distinct arguments.

Fair enough. I don't think it does it well but it could do what you want with the limited MC classes.

Rallying Cry. When using Second Wind, allies within 60 feet regain hit points equal to your Fighter level.

I don't like this ability. The Fighter would be most likely to be one of the first to suffer damage so it would be super unoptimal as healing and it's less likely you would want to use it if YOU didn't get it.

It's a very specific build and with few decision points other than the exact order you take the feats in, but between these you get high AC along with the means to heal allies non-magically as well as let them attack and move out of turn.

I was a little bit surprised to find that Battle Master and its most Warlord-like options are actually trap options. You don't need Commander's Strike or Rally because you've already gotten superior versions from Knight of the Crown and Knight of the Rose. Commander's Strike is made obsolete by Crown's Commanding Rally, which lets you use only your Bonus Action instead of requiring both one of your attacks and your Bonus Action. Rose's Bolstering Rally lets you add your proficiency bonus whereas Rally does not, plus you can use Constitution instead of Charisma to avoid MAD. Martial Adept also only gives you a single d6 for your superiority die, whereas Crown and Rose have built-in d8's and let yiu use both a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier.

It's a decent build for sure, Magic Item needed is a bit annoying but I could live with that. I do wish it had something that was either always on or at will. Every class needs something the can bust out consistantly at level 1 (glaring at you, Paladin). Personally I've always been fond of the Warlord buffing every ally's initiative in a certain range. It's a simple yet effective ability. If you could put all those abilities in a class progression we'd have something pretty solid.