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

[Minigiant]

There's no hostility towards the people who say they want a Warlord for 5E... it's much more about being amused by it.

It's been TEN YEARS. An entire decade of people wanting a Warlord. And yet despite being told they aren't going to get it from WotC, and being told there are plenty of 3rd Party designers who have made usable Warlords for people... they still just keep saying the same things again and again, year after year.

We've moved on. It has been 10 years.

At this point we do have a dozen options to throw at a DM to say "Pick one".

But the thread is about why doesn't an official one exist.

The answers is the 2014 WOTC designers were biased favorably toward wizards and a lesser extent clerics and every single class suffered.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I can see what you're saying, other than the fact, they do scale. From d8 to d10 to d12 (A). And you get more of them (B). And wizards don't get a free 1st level spell slot any time they don't have one (C). Or the fact that fighters are not actually dependent on their maneuvers to keep doing what they do best (D). And that wizards don't eventually cast multiple 1st level spells a round (E). And that wizards can't simply cast 1st level spells on top of their other spells to make them more effective (F).

Other than that, it's exactly the same.

A: Dice increases damage, and damage is irrelevant for a Warlord. Which is the point of this discussion. It doesn't matter if damage scales. Sure some maneuvers actually benefit from this like the one that boost AC, and that is cool.

B: This is a quantity issue.

C: Is this some new feature from the play test or something because I don't know what this is referring to.

D: Yes, except we are talking about a hypothetical Warlord class which relies much more on maneuvers than on attacks.

E: Same as D and B. That's an issue of quantity. It doesn't improve the individual use of the ability, it just allows you to burst the ability more often.

F: I don't think fighters can stack maneuvers either. They are limited to one die per attack.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not really seeing any whining tbqh. I'm seeing some people saying "plz add this thing" and other people saying "we have this already" or "we don't need this" or "we don't want this".

This thread is proof of it.

I don't even care about the darned class myself. It's just baffling to me that people are opposed to having it. There has to be some kind of underlying reason for why this thing always becomes a debate.

Part of the hostility against a 5e Warlord is the "tradition" that Fighters (and by extension a nonmagic Warlord) "cant have nice things".

Only spells can have nice things.

The Warlord Charisma/Intelligence effective powers rips thru this "Fighter must suck" tradition, like a crowbar.

 

[Mephista]

The Battlemaster fails at providing the Warlord because the top priority of Archetypes that the Fighter was designed to provide is the Champion.

And the Champion was designed to be simple as possible by pushing most of the class power into attacks multiple times. This leaves little room for design for vertical design or alternative verticals.

The warlord was designed to attack to, you know. There's a reason its a STR-based class by default. Even if you're using a bow, its a STR based class.

The lazy-lord was actually an accident. An exploit. The archetypes were based around using melee (or a bow) and using them alongside other abilities. Eventually, however, WotC printed enough abiltiies that didn't involve an actual attack from you and... people made a character using them. Thus was the lazylord born, using only mental stats instead of the intended STR.

So, if you want to stay true to the lazylord, you're going to need the extra attacks and find a way to exploit them into being lazy. Its tradition at this point, ya

 

[Undrave]

I can see what you're saying, other than the fact, they do scale. From d8 to d10 to d12.

That's just numbers going up.

And you get more of them.

You get more from the pool of choice you DIDN'T want at level 3. How exciting is that, exactly?

And wizards don't get a free 1st level spell slot any time they don't have one.

They don't need it, they get to turn a level 1 spell into a cantrip and have a ton of different slots.

Or the fact that fighters are not actually dependent on their maneuvers to keep doing what they do best.

Exactly, the FIGHTER, not the Warlord. What they do best is just big numbers. You don’t actually get to stay a Warlord -style Battlemaster once you lose access to the 2-3 maneuvers that actually serve a support style of play.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Okay then, find a better name, I don't care.

I'm curious. Do you really not care what things are called? Would you care about the name showing up in a book if you didn't like it?

For instance, we can rename Clerics as Spellbeggars, which is closer to what they do than "clerical work."
Warlocks can be "Invokers" because that is literally what they do, and "Warlock" has too many conflicting definitions.
Druids can be "Wildshapes" (a la DnDHAT) because Druidism is a real religion.
Fighters can be "Weaponeers" Because everyone fights, but they focus on weapons more than anyone else.
Paladins can be "Avowed" because they are all about vows, and we don't want them confused with Charlemagne's crew.
Barbarians can be "Ragers" because that is what they do. You can have a Rager from the city.

et cetera.

 

[Minigiant]

The warlord was designed to attack to, you know. There's a reason its a STR-based class by default. Even if you're using a bow, its a STR based class.

The lazy-lord was actually an accident. An exploit. The archetypes were based around using melee (or a bow) and using them alongside other abilities. Eventually, however, WotC printed enough abiltiies that didn't involve an actual attack from you and... people made a character using them. Thus was the lazylord born, using only mental stats instead of the intended STR.

So, if you want to stay true to the lazylord, you're going to need the extra attacks and find a way to exploit them into being lazy. Its tradition at this point, ya

I hate the lazylord.

The Point of the Warlord was the buffs and heals. If all of the classes power is hardwiring in the "High Damage Attack Action!" there is no room for buffs and heals.

I want Warlords to attack. I want the Fighter and Rogue to attack as well with Triple Team Technique!.

But a character with both HDAA and TTT is OP.

Give the Warlord Rogue or Warlock like damage and I'd be fine.

 

[Undrave]

The warlord was designed to attack to, you know. There's a reason its a STR-based class by default. Even if you're using a bow, its a STR based class.

The lazy-lord was actually an accident. An exploit. The archetypes were based around using melee (or a bow) and using them alongside other abilities. Eventually, however, WotC printed enough abiltiies that didn't involve an actual attack from you and... people made a character using them. Thus was the lazylord born, using only mental stats instead of the intended STR.

So, if you want to stay true to the lazylord, you're going to need the extra attacks and find a way to exploit them into being lazy. Its tradition at this point, ya

The Paladin and the Ranger only get 2 attacks. The Warlord would be fine with two.

 

[Undrave]

I'm curious. Do you really not care what things are called? Would you care about the name showing up in a book if you didn't like it?

As long as it fits, it's fine. I'd rather hammer out the mechanics before brainstorming a replacement name. Warlord is just what it's most well known as right now so we might as well use it while we discuss it, it's not a big deal. If the Battlemaster is just a watered down version of a full commanding class, we could just go for Warmaster to keep a continuity between them.

 

[Minigiant]

The Paladin and the Ranger only get 2 attacks. The Warlord would be fine with two.

Extra Attack with none to few base built in damage boosts beyond Fighting style is the norm in most homebrew and 3pp Warlords.