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

[Undrave]

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?

The biggest obstacle is that 5e doesn't have a lot of non-spell type of mechanics to use as inspiration beyond Maneuvers. That's why implementation is a sticking point.

 

[Undrave]

So... a fighter.

Then I guess the Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue are also fighters.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, I agree. The paladin lvl 1 is no match for a fighter. No fighting style. only 5hp/LR instead of 1d10+1/short rest and more MADness.

It's true. But level 1 is the least balanced level in the game, at least until 17+. There are quite a few classes that don't really come online until levels 2-3. It's not great design, IMO. Level 1 is the domain of fighters, rogues, and especially barbarians. But it only lasts one game, in most campaigns. And I still like level 1 play.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I guess that means my rogue should start committing crimes and stealing from everyone including the party then, given its impossible to get those connotations away from the word that’s their class name too right?

You define "Rogue" as "someone who commits crimes and steals from everyone including their own?

Weird. That's not what the dictionaries tell me, nor my personal colloquial experience.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

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

Yeah. That's a problem that many people bring up. It's not the defense you think it is.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

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

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).

I fail to see how it is a problem. People have the Warlord classes they want, through 3rd parties. Apparently all those "Warlords" are good to perfect. If that were the case, the only thing WotC could do is make their own version that people will criticize as not as good as the third party offerings. Want proof? Reading the fans in the forums here, apparently LU is in every way better than D&D. No contest.

I wonder how many Warlord fans are also WotC fans and really trust WotC to do it right. I doubt that it is a large population.

WotC's heart is obviously not in it, so pushing them to make their own version of a warlord is pushing them to compete in an arena they aren't interested in, hence they would likely fail to pass muster for the warlord fans' expectations.

What I hope happens, is that a 3rd party that makes a perfect warlord could try to get it published in a book to purchase, and then then work with the fans to encourage Wizards to adopt that publication as a 3rd party DDB offering.

I want people to have their Warlord. Wizards doesn't have to be the ones to make it.

 

[Reynard]

I want people to have their Warlord. Wizards doesn't have to be the ones to make it.

There is a significant portion of players, maybe even a majority, that will not accept anything non WotC.

 

[Undrave]

I don't care about the "lazylord." It's not something I'm interested in seeing in the game. I'm saying for a vanilla warlord, what would they have that is not already represented by a Battlemaster Fighter with Inspiring Leader and team-friendly maneuvers?

For one thing you'd have stuff to look forward to beyond level 3. the Battlemaster is like a Wizard who only gets Level 1 spells!

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I don't care about the "lazylord." It's not something I'm interested in seeing in the game. I'm saying for a vanilla warlord, what would they have that is not already represented by a Battlemaster Fighter with Inspiring Leader and team-friendly maneuvers?

The fact that they don't scale.

Battle master maneuvers are problematic because they don't scale properly. The fighter as a concept is designed with a primary focus on their attacks scaling. They have the fastest multiple attack scaling after all.

"Why don't maneuvers scale?" you ask.

Because when you get to pick more maneuvers as you level up, you pick from the same pool of maneuvers as you did last time you made a choice. It is like playing a wizard who never gets spells above level 1.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah. That's a problem that many people bring up. It's not the defense you think it is.

And the name is like the least important aspect.