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

[Hexmage-EN]

In light of Pathfinder 2E putting out a playtest for a Warlord-like class, the Commander, I can't help but wonder why such a wildly popular class concept has not been introduced to 5E.

A number of abilities in the spirit of the Warlord are available throughout 5E, including the Battle Master Fighter's Commander's Strike and Manuevering Strike, the Commanding Rally (a superior Bonus Action alternative to Commander's Strike) feature granted from the Squire of Solamnia and Knight of the Crown feat tree, and the Mastermind Rogue's Master of Tactics feature, but as it stands the game lacks a clear battlefield commander class with multiple options. This is especially odd when a number of monsters, like the Duergar Warlord, have features like Call to Attack that fit this conceptual space that PCs currently cannot.

 

[CapnZapp]

Time to open up the Warlord sub-forum again?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Do a search here on EN World. At last count I believe there have been 53 different attempts by various posters here to create a Warlord class over the last 10 years. And they all end the same way... everyone involved can't agree how it should be built and the thread falls off the front page after like six days.

(See also: Psion / Arcane Half-Caster.)

 

[TwoSix]

Time to open up the Warlord sub-forum again?

“The Wheel of Editions turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Fourth Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind arose in the Mountain of Warlords. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Editions. But it was a beginning.”

 

[MichaelSomething]

Just multi class Fighter and Bard

 

[payn]

I think the warlord was sacrificed along with modularity during NEXT. I dont blame WotC for not trying, every single attempt ive seen online has been deemed as insufficient by warlord fans. PF2 is pretty much in the clear after they modeled much of the edition after 4E. Seems WotC is ok with letting Paizo eat that lunch.

 

[Reynard]

In light of Pathfinder 2E putting out a playtest for a Warlord-like class, the Commander, I can't help but wonder why such a wildly popular class concept has not been introduced to 5E.

Emphasis mine.

Is it? I know people that like it REALLY like it, but it isn't like it is a fundamental fantasy archetype. The guy at the front with a sword giving a rousing speech is a fighter, usually (or a ranger, in aragorn's case).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In light of Pathfinder 2E putting out a playtest for a Warlord-like class, the Commander, I can't help but wonder why such a wildly popular class concept has not been introduced to 5E.

Because it probably is not as widely popular as some people believe?

A number of abilities in the spirit of the Warlord are available throughout 5E, including the Battle Master Fighter's Commander's Strike and Manuevering Strike, the Commanding Rally (a superior Bonus Action alternative to Commander's Strike) feature granted from the Squire of Solamnia and Knight of the Crown feat tree, and the Mastermind Rogue's Master of Tactics feature, but as it stands the game lacks a clear battlefield commander class with multiple options. This is especially odd when a number of monsters, like the Duergar Warlord, have features like Call to Attack that fit this conceptual space that PCs currently cannot.

I think there is room for more warlordy abilities in the PHB. I'd say, adding a warlord fighting style would be my preferred choice.

Just give it 2 bullet points:
-when you take the attacl action you can forfeit one single attack to have an ally spend a reaction to make a single weapon attack.
-second wind can be used on an ally within 30ft of you.

That's it. Warlord done. And the nice thing is, you can benefot from all the fighter subclasses including the battle master to expand your abilities to bolster allies. And the only thing you sacrifice is not having a damage enhancing or protecting fighting style.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Emphasis mine.

Is it? I know people that like it REALLY like it, but it isn't like it is a fundamental fantasy archetype. The guy at the front with a sword giving a rousing speech is a fighter, usually (or a ranger, in aragorn's case).

but the fighter class doesn't provide the capability to indulge that fantasy though, the aesthetic of 'fighter' is incredibly generic appearance wise but there are many ways to play one each with their own nuances.

 

[Reynard]

but the fighter class doesn't provide the capability to indulge that fantasy though, the aesthetic of 'fighter' is incredibly generic appearance wise but there are many ways to play one each with their own nuances.

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.