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

[Undrave]

Do you know what a Warlord is?

Is has 'lord' and 'war' in the name it's pretty simple. But like... the PCs don't have to obey the guy if they don't want to. If the players can handle it, it can even be part of that character's arc.

 

[Reynard]

Is has 'lord' and 'war' in the name it's pretty simple. But like... the PCs don't have to obey the guy if they don't want to. If the players can handle it, it can even be part of that character's arc.

No, in the real world, where 4E got the term. It is literally 100% about being the guy in charge.

 

[Undrave]

Level-by-level multiclassing is totally fine, as long as the system leans into it.

Sometimes it feels like half-assing a point-buy system. And the synergy between certain classes (or lack thereof) is all over the place. Sometimes your get a Sorcadin and other times you try to make a sneaky Cleric and it falls flat.

If you want the system to lean into it then it should be treated as a core part of the game and not an optional rule.

 

[Tonguez]

It's the coastal Wizard conspiracy to keep the management of crowds for themselves and only give single targeted niche space for Martials

 

[Undrave]

No, in the real world, where 4E got the term. It is literally 100% about being the guy in charge.

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?

 

[Kurotowa]

However, even ignoring that I do not think 5e works very well for a 4e-style Warlord, because many of their abilities relied on specifics of how 4e worked

Indeed. It's like Eberron. Eberron was brand new in 3e, and precisely tailored to fit the edition like a glove. But it was so precisely tailored that as new editions have rolled out, with new mechanics and new features, Eberron is torn between having to revise large parts of the setting and introducing a long list of ill-fitting legacy elements to preserve the lore.

The Warlord was, for the most part, brand new to 4e and precisely tailored to the mechanics of the edition. Which meant it fit them very well and thrived under those conditions. But 5e is mechanically very different, and that previous precision tailoring means Warlords would need a great deal of revision to fit. And as several people have pointed out, deciding which direction to take those revisions is not something easily agreed on.

Maybe this all is a warning of the dangers of over-specialization. That when you purpose build something for a very specific environment, as soon as the environment changes it's left high and dry. Meanwhile something designed more broadly will be easier to adept to the new circumstances.

 

[Tonguez]

I'm just saying that it isn't some long running archetype that permeates D&D and fantasy, compared to the barbarian or fighter or even bard. It was essentially a set of mechanics built to fill an org chart in 4E.

Except you have the 3.5e Marshal too and various mass combat mechanics for PC commanders - which is what the Warlord is, the martial commander archetype done with mechanical effect sans magic.

It's a great concept if 5e can get pass the extraordinary =spells snag

 

[Reynard]

Except you have the 3.5e Marshal too and various mass combat mechanics for PC commanders - which is what the Warlord is, the martial commander archetype done with mechanical effect sans magic.

It's a great concept if 5e can get pass the extraordinary =spells snag

Because of all those mass combat mechanics in 5e?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I already feel like 5e multi classing is really wonky is all.

Heh it implies experience and knowledge in the art of war, it doesn't confer automatic authority.

??? 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.

 

[Shardstone]

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?