What's a Warlord?

[Sharur]

Okay, yes, I know some things about warlords. I know they orginated in 4th edition, I know that they were "Martial Leaders", with some healing and a lot of benefits to the other PCs around them.

Now, I've seen multiple threads, both here and on other forums, either complaining about the lack of a warlord, or trying to home brew it. However, it seems to me that a warlord can be built either as a college of valor bard or a battlemaster (or a combination of the two).

What is essence of Warlord is missing from these existing classes?

[Davrix]

What's a Paladin?

Sorry coulnd't resist.

To be honest I think you could get most of it using those two classes but it still would not be as cool as the warlord from 4th

[Asmotherion]

What's a Paladin?

Sorry coulnd't resist.

To be honest I think you could get most of it using those two classes but it still would not be as cool as the warlord from 4th

Practically this; If one does not want to play a Vanilla goody-two-shoes Paladin, 5e has options for you:

Oath of Devotion; Vanilla Paladin.

Oath of the Ancients; You are basically a Druid Paladin.

Oath of Vengence; Is basically the tactical Warlord you are looking for (mechanics wise), with some Self-Righteus RP going on.

Oath of Conquest; No longer need to be any kind of good. You're just a terryfying monster on a quest for making grown up men and women crying for mercy like 18 year old girls (no xxx material reference intended).

Oath of the Crown; It's a thing. I swear it is. It involves you being the King's Sworn Lakey, and that pact being Blessed by the Gods. No wonder nobody does that. Well, I guess some do that, but usually they end up becoming the King, or the King is of enough Significance for it not being a bad thing (see Final Fantasy... ok, bad example for spoilers)

Oath of Redemption; Remember the medieval town crier in some games who shouts "Repend-Repend". Yeap, you're that guy.

Oathbreaker Paladin; You are a SOB who made an oath and could not even keep it. Insted of loosing your powers and abilities, 5e is cool towards you, as it gradually turns you into a Death Knight, by first becoming a Fallen Paladin. You make a Pact with a Fiend (like Warlocks) and get to become a Death Knight. You'll probably eventually become one of those who are eternally undead (a true Death Knight). Good Job, considering it's cheaper than becoming a Lich or a Deity, and all you had to do to get it is abandon a lifetime of ideal and beliefs and betray yourself. Ouch.

PS: Sorry, I got carried away descibing the subclasses, and derived from the thread. To answear the question, I think the best way to play a Warlord in 5e is a Vengence Paladin.

[mephnick]

What is essence of Warlord is missing from these existing classes?

4th Edition. That's what the Warlord was built for, a system about moving pieces on a chessboard. The Warlord doesn't belong in 5e and we'll never see it, so people should stop asking for it.

[Laserlight]

4th Edition. That's what the Warlord was built for, a system about moving pieces on a chessboard. The Warlord doesn't belong in 5e and we'll never see it, so people should stop asking for it.

That is, ”You're having fun wrong, and you should feel bad”.

The essence of the warlord was that he granted attacks to other characters, and to some extent could move them.He could heal and melee himself, but those were less defining; the usual explanation was ”the barbarian attacks with his axe, the warlord attacks with his barbarian.”

[mephnick]

That is, ”You're having fun wrong, and you should feel bad”.

No it's "it doesn't fight the design concept of the system very well, so will probably never be made."

[randomodo]

I don't see the vengeance pally as remotely filling the warlord niche. It doesn't do much if anything that was the warlord's role.

Agreed that we aren't likely to see an actual warlord in 5e, because (not trying to start an edition war here), 5e is thankfully not an individual-scale tactical wargame.

That being said, much of the key aspects of the warlord can be found in the Battle Master fighter and Valor bard. Other than the "lazylord" build, you really can do a decent job of scratching the warlord itch with those classes (individually or in multiclass).

[DivisibleByZero]

Okay, yes, I know some things about warlords. I know they orginated in 4th edition, I know that they were "Martial Leaders", with some healing and a lot of benefits to the other PCs around them.

Now, I've seen multiple threads, both here and on other forums, either complaining about the lack of a warlord, or trying to home brew it. However, it seems to me that a warlord can be built either as a college of valor bard or a battlemaster (or a combination of the two).

What is essence of Warlord is missing from these existing classes?

What is missing from the essence?
Absolutely nothing. But players like to complain when the released material doesn't perfectly match their own personal hopes.

The truth is that the Battlemaster was explicitly designed to fill that space (and a few others as well, just like EK was designed as a catch-all for EK/Duskblade/Swordmage/etc). When you multiclass it with Bard, as you already figured out, it becomes almost exactly what it desired. But it still doesn't fit the players' hopes/desires/expectations from the past, so they complain.

[Afrodactyl]

I've used a battlemaster fighter/lore bard as a warlord stand-in. Most of your abilities debuff enemies and/or buff allies, and you're no slouch on the frontline.

[Vogie]

I think the closest would be a blend of Battlemaster Fighter, Valor Bard, and Vengeance Paladin. That way you'll get Combat Inspiration, Commanding & Distracting Strike, and the rest of Paladin goodness.

[Naanomi]

Purple Dragon Knight (Banneret) also has a few warlord-esque parts

[oxybe]

1- Proper non-magical healing. The warlord could replace the cleric in a party when it came to keeping them on their feet. The cleric was better at the sheer volume of healing available, but the Warlord was no slouch at giving first aid.

2- A Barbarian uses his axe, a Warlord uses his Barbarian. The gist of playing a warlord in combat was effectively giving up your actions to grant them to your allies with a boon. The problem with the Battlemaster is that he also requires the target of his command to give up their reaction (or even multiple actions of his own: commander's strike requires the fighter to give his attack & bonus action and the recipient to give up their reaction), which the warlord did not. In fact, i found it was common to create a sort of pincer maneuver by yelling at your fighter buddy to move a bit to the left so that he could block exits with his reaction/Attack of Opportunity... something maneuvering attack cannot do unless the target of the maneuver falls between the Battlemaster and the person they want to block in, as the recipient needs to use their reaction to move... at which point the enemy can just dance around them and leave.

3- consistency in how often he can use his abilities. Many of the warlord's core abilities were at-will and were used on every turn if possible, as opposed to the battlemaster that requires a short rest to regain his four uses, the paladin of venegence's one channel divinity before he has to rest, or the valor bard who needs a full night's rest to get his inspiration back.

4- a different kind of party face. Simply put, where the rogue and bards have their silver tongue, the barbarian his ferocious nature and the paladin & cleric spouting off the glory of [INSERT DIVINITY HERE] the warlord was a more martial face. We all know that a character's class is more of a tool and not all rogues are sneaky liars, but the stereotype is still there: the veteran of countless skirmishes who stood shoulder to shoulder aided not by gods or magic, but his sword and his allies.

And of these he could do from level one (well, level 3 in 5th ed since that's when your class starts being interesting). No multiclassing required. No mucking about with feats. No waiting until level 7/8 for a combo of feats/classes/whatever to come online. Further levels expanded the scale of his abilities.

As for the

What is missing from the essence?
Absolutely nothing. But players like to complain when the released material doesn't perfectly match their own personal hopes.
comment...

Why do we need a Paladin when we have a war Cleric? Do we really need a Fighter? The barbarian is big scary guy with big weapon, the rogue is sneaky guy with stabby sneaky weapon and the ranger is your two/weapon or archer guy... do we really need a Fighter? Couldn't we just give the transforming stuff to the Transmuter wizard and have the nature Cleric be your Druidic stand-in?

I would say they were put there for legacy's sake: because some people would have complained when the released material didn't perfectly match their own personal hope.

Yes some people have their own hopes for how some material comes out: big surprise, that people have opinions.

5th ed is not a perfect product by any stretch (nor is any other version of D&D) and dissuading people from making their own classes that better fit their vision of a concept instead of using a cobbled-together multiclass that only comes online at level 7 or whatever is a detriment to the game that supposedly wants you to make it your own.

Let the kids make their warlords, it's not like they're playing them in your game.

No need to actively walk over to their table and take a wee in their cornflakes if they're trying to have fun.

And who knows, maybe they'll end up making something you can draw inspiration from.

[Naanomi]

In all fairness; Paladins can be a ‘martial face’... they have the charisma and are absolutely not tied to the Gods anymore.

(And if we are citing ‘classes that don’t need to exist because they can be thematically represented by other classes, Ranger is absolutely at the top of my list)

[DivisibleByZero]

Let the kids make their warlords, it's not like they're playing them in your game.

No need to actively walk over to their table and take a wee in their cornflakes if they're trying to have fun.

And who knows, maybe they'll end up making something you can draw inspiration from.

When did I say that people shouldn't make Warlords?
When did I "actively walk over to their table and take a wee in their cornflakes?"

He asked a question.
I answered it.

[Sharur]

So to summarize, the difference is a different action economy and resource paradigm, from 4th to 5th edition?

[Arkhios]

So to summarize, the difference is a different action economy and resource paradigm, from 4th to 5th edition?

Essentially what a Battle Master (which is meant to be "the warlord" in 5th, whether or not people agree with that) lacks from 4th edition warlord is the chance to move other player characters around and tell others what to attack, when to attack, and how to attack. That doesn't fit into 5th edition design space, and I tend to agree it shouldn't be a thing. Battle Master can do this to a certain extent, but it still requires the other PC to expend their reaction to do so, so it's not as "free" as it were in 4th.

What Battle Master is missing is that warlord is more than just a leader who tells others when and who to attack. A warlord could also grant bonuses to defenses, and that part of their 4th edition function has been given to bards. A Battle Master Fighter/Bard (I'd actually say Valor due to its combat oriented features - even though it gets Extra Attack which doesn't stack with Fighter's) is a great combination to pull that particular concept, but in games where multiclassing isn't allowed (those can and do exist, mind you) both Battle Master and Valor Bard are lacking something.

Which is why I made a Warlord Homebrew combining features from Battle Master Fighter and (mainly Valor) Bard. You can check it out from my signature.

[alchahest]

Battlemaster is the closest thing to a Warlord we have now, and it's not that close. Vengeance Paladins aren't anything like Warlord, so I don't know where that idea comes from?

-edit- closest official thing. Arkhios' homebrew is absolutely a way better respresentation of the idea than battlemaster.

[Kane0]

For context 4e split its classes into four categories: Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker. Most classes had one primary and one secondary role.

Warlords were leaders, just like clerics and bards. The difference between them is how they went about fulfilling their role and what secondary role they took. Where clerics could also do a little striking and bards a bit of control Warlords did a little defending, of course not as well as the classes who majored in those areas. Most of the warlord's major abilities focused on getting his allies moving and acting rather than healed or buffed, though they could do those as well depending on how they were built. They could fight on their own but their best abilities featured getting an ally to move and/or attack, often better than the warlord could himself. More importantly this was his function from level 1 and did not require investment from the allies affected. The somewhat infamous 'lazylord' was a warlord build that did virtually nothing himself in combat, each and every round he let someone else act instead and it was actually totally viable.

In 5e bards still buff and clerics still heal, mirroring their 4e roles, but we can't just have the fighter fill in the gap of the warlord since it's busy being half defender, half striker already and its core chassis is too strong for a dedicated warlord subclass to do it justice. The concept still exists in a battlemaster maneuver or two but it's just not the same caliber with a far less efficient action economy, limited uses and little benefit over just doing it yourself given the rest of the tools the fighter has at their disposal. For someone that has played a fully fledged warlord it's like taking a dip in warlord, or more accurately a lackluster warlord feat.

[Tanarii]

4th Edition. That's what the Warlord was built for, a system about moving pieces on a chessboard. The Warlord doesn't belong in 5e and we'll never see it, so people should stop asking for it.The lack of 4e's designed-for-battle-mat combat maneuvering certainly closes out a huge chunk of what made the 4e warlord a warlord. Especially the Tactical Warlord.

But it did the same for Fighters, Rogues, and PHB2 onwards era controllers too. Tactical maneuvering on the battle mat was a huge part of the 4e game that 5e just doesn't have to the same degree. And yet we still have those classes in the game in one form or another.

The real question is: is there enough design space for a healer/buffer with secondary combat capabilities that isn't already covered by the Cleric and Valor Bard?

[Sigreid]

Never played 4e as when I read the rules they didn't jive with me. That said, the way Warlord is being described would make me hate to be in a group with one. I would personally severely chaif at feeling like my character was another character's playing piece.

[Tanarii]

Never played 4e as when I read the rules they didn't jive with me. That said, the way Warlord is being described would make me hate to be in a group with one. I would personally severely chaif at feeling like my character was another character's playing piece.
Their powers mostly enabled allied characters to do specific things out of turn (on the warlords turn). Do you feel like another characters playing piece when a battlemaster uses Commanders Strike or Manuevering Attack? The former is named for an at-will Warlord Power.

[Sigreid]

Their powers mostly enabled allied characters to do specific things out of turn (on the warlords turn). Do you feel like another characters playing piece when a battlemaster uses Commanders Strike or Manuevering Attack? The former is named for an at-will Warlord Power.

I'm just going by the "move here, attack him" description I'm hearing. We've never actually had a battle master but my understanding is those maneuvers give the recipient additional actions but it's their decision what to do with the opportunity like any other buff. Not the battle master's.

[Drascin]

I'm just going by the "move here, attack him" description I'm hearing. We've never actually had a battle master but my understanding is those maneuvers give the recipient additional actions but it's their decision what to do with the opportunity like any other buff. Not the battle master's.

I mean, you have Radical Freedom, if you really, really resent being told what to do to that level you can just not use the extra attack action the Warlord gave you.

It'd be silly (to put it lightly), but you can.

[Morty]

Some warlord powers let other PCs move around or take extra attacks. Others simply gave them bonuses, usually against a specific target, but not always. None of them forced them to spend their normal actions in any particular way.

[Sigreid]

I mean, you have Radical Freedom, if you really, really resent being told what to do to that level you can just not use the extra attack action the Warlord gave you.

It'd be silly (to put it lightly), but you can.

And I provably would.

[Kane0]

Fear not, the ally pretty much always had to be willing. A warlord could not simply take control of the party wizard and make him run up to a demon and take a swing at it. He just gave the wizard the option of doing so, usually at a bonus, without using his regular turn. There was also shifting as opposed to moving, which allowed you to ignore opportunity attacks.

So a lot of the base mechanics are perfectly replicable in 5e.

[Laserlight]

Never played 4e as when I read the rules they didn't jive with me. That said, the way Warlord is being described would make me hate to be in a group with one. I would personally severely chaif at feeling like my character was another character's playing piece.

When I joined a new group and started 4e, I discovered that none of the other players had a clue about tactics (or optimization). So as not to outshine them, I built a lazylord and spent the next five months doing almost zero damage on my own; instead I gave the other PCs extra attacks (and moved them if they were in a bad position).
Without exception, they loved it. If anybody hadn't, of course I'd have left him alone; but the guy who got moved the most was also the guy who was most excited about extra attacks. Win win.

[Drascin]

And I provably would.

As a note, I do believe that in doing so you would be being a jerk. I mean, what would that look like?

P1:"Okay, I'll spend my action to let Sigreid's character do an extra attack against this dude here"
GM: "Okay, roll"
S: "No, I refuse to attack"
P1: "...wait, what? Why?"
S: "You can't tell me what to do"
P1:"It's free attacks, for heaven's sake!"
S: "Nobody moves me or chooses my targets for me. I'm not attacking"

...and you can't see how this might make the other players think you're being a wee bit unreasonable? Like, if I was GMing there, that seems grounds to stop the game and ask what the heck is going on, did P1 hit on your girlfriend or something :smalltongue:.

[Jama7301]

Playing alongside a Warlord as a Paladin in 4E was super fun. Getting to move off my turn to get between me and another character was great, as was getting attacks with bonuses to hit or damage. Not to mention the Temp HP and regular healing provided.

[Luccan]

Someone told me it was basically directing others, being a decent fighter, and non-magic healing. While I don't really understand why the non-magic part is so important, I figure if you give a Battlemaster Medicine (and let it actually do some healing) and they pick the right Maneuvers, you've basically got what you're looking for. However, Warlord does seem to be a very 4e class; 5e doesn't have the same expectations or focus on battle grid tactics, so I can imagine an official one WotC is happy with will take some time, if it come out at all.

Edit: That being said, I'm coming to like the idea of a support-warrior. I like the idea of a character with a lot of class abilities that reflect leadership, not just a character with magic and a high charisma (or a single feat, like in 3.x).

[Kane0]

Well, to be fair I know people that will not allow you to touch their minis.

Depending on the game and table a PC that doesn't want to attack seems fine. It's just that 4e is highly tactical by design so the notion is out of place for the system.

[Laserlight]

if you give a Battlemaster Medicine (and let it actually do some healing) and they pick the right Maneuvers, you've basically got what you're looking for.

In the sense that an arcane trickster is basically the same as a wizard, yes.

[Jama7301]

It'd be a tough port, simply from the action economy standpoint. Letting people make free actions doesn't seem to be common in 5e.

[Luccan]

In the sense that an arcane trickster is basically the same as a wizard, yes.

No one has yet to actually explain to me what a Warlord does that can't be done in this edition, except non-magical healing. Which is fair enough and I plan on introducing a houserule in my own games to allow it and make Medicine more useful anyway. So I can't really say from your response what I got wrong. And as a result, I'm less inclined to agree that making a similar character is impossible. If someone could lay out exactly what they are prevented from doing, then I'd probably agree with them.

[Kane0]

'When you take the attack action, you can replace one attack to allow one ally that can see and hear you to make an attack instead.'
'As a bonus action, choose one ally within 30' that can see and hear you. That ally can spend one hit die and move up to half their speed without provoking opportunity attacks. You cannot use this ability again until you finish a short or long rest'
'As a bonus action, choose one ally within 30' that can see and hear you. That ally can make one weapon attack at advantage. You cannot use this ability again until you finish a short or long rest'

That sort of thing.

[Sigreid]

As a note, I do believe that in doing so you would be being a jerk. I mean, what would that look like?

P1:"Okay, I'll spend my action to let Sigreid's character do an extra attack against this dude here"
GM: "Okay, roll"
S: "No, I refuse to attack"
P1: "...wait, what? Why?"
S: "You can't tell me what to do"
P1:"It's free attacks, for heaven's sake!"
S: "Nobody moves me or chooses my targets for me. I'm not attacking"

...and you can't see how this might make the other players think you're being a wee bit unreasonable? Like, if I was GMing there, that seems grounds to stop the game and ask what the heck is going on, did P1 hit on your girlfriend or something :smalltongue:.

I'm very individualistic. Rather than deciding I'm a jerk, I would expect said player to get the hint and use his abilities on another target. win win.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm very individualistic. Rather than deciding I'm a jerk, I would expect said player to get the hint and use his abilities on another target. win win.
Uh... D&D's a cooperative, party-based game. I mean, not always I suppose, but if you've got a living person sitting next to you that is attempting to help you, it sure is.

You're talking about someone asking you to be a team player, spending their own resources (not your's), and attempting to accomplish the same task. You'd have a point if they try to make you attack someone you don't want to attack at all, but when they say "Hey, here's a portion of my turn so you can hit that orc you were already hitting one more time!" and you say no, that's completely ridiculous.

[Sigreid]

Uh... D&D's a cooperative, party-based game. I mean, not always I suppose, but if you've got a living person sitting next to you that is attempting to help you, it sure is.

You're talking about someone asking you to be a team player, spending their own resources (not your's), and attempting to accomplish the same task. You'd have a point if they try to make you attack someone you don't want to attack at all, but when they say "Hey, here's a portion of my turn so you can hit that orc you were already hitting one more time!" and you say no, that's completely ridiculous.

I cooperate very will with my group. There's a difference between cooperating and feeling like another player's puppet. I got no strings to hold me down. To make me fret. To make me frown.

I'm not generally too accepting of of telepathic mind reading on my characters either.

So again, teamwork is great. Providing an opportunity is fine. Most of the descriptions of the warlord in action sound like control. That's not fine.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm very individualistic. Rather than deciding I'm a jerk, I would expect said player to get the hint and use his abilities on another target. win win.

...and then the monster you refused to attack uses its next action to kill your character. The Warlord points out that he tried to help you. Everyone who's still alive gets a good laugh. WIN WIN!

[Sigreid]

...and then the monster you refused to attack uses its next action to kill your character. The Warlord points out that he tried to help you. Everyone who's still alive gets a good laugh. WIN WIN!

That's ok too.

[Luccan]

I cooperate very will with my group. There's a difference between cooperating and feeling like another player's puppet. I got no strings to hold me down. To make me fret. To make me frown.

I'm not generally too accepting of of telepathic mind reading on my characters either.

So again, teamwork is great. Providing an opportunity is fine. Most of the descriptions of the warlord in action sound like control. That's not fine.

Based on what has been posted, it doesn't seem like that at all. The Warlord uses their action, in some form, to allow you an extra action, in some form. So, yeah, they give you an extra attack, but it doesn't seem like they get to decide who you attack. Now, if they know it goes against your wishes (you didn't want to kill this guy and they're trying to force you), that's one thing. But just giving you an extra action isn't remotely controlling. It's basically what Haste does, though it has to be decided on a turn by turn basis. Or do you not accept buffs from your teammates?

[Waterdeep Merch]

I cooperate very will with my group. There's a difference between cooperating and feeling like another player's puppet. I got no strings to hold me down. To make me fret. To make me frown.

I'm not generally too accepting of of telepathic mind reading on my characters either.

So again, teamwork is great. Providing an opportunity is fine. Most of the descriptions of the warlord in action sound like control. That's not fine.
They aren't doing anything through telepathy or mind control. As I recall, they all use language like 'allow', and 'may'. The idea is generally that they are just such great tacticians that they can open up unique opportunities to maneuver around or damage things through distractions, clever planning, etc.

If we're playing to flavor, then the inference is that the warlord found a way to grant you an opportunity to strike at a foe while they're a bit off balance, or to maneuver around to safety. That last part usually has no deliberate instructions that the warlord can give, merely that they grant the immediate chance to move. You get to choose where, if at all. The attacks are a little more specific, but only in who they're focused on.

Not taking the attack is the equivalent of playing basketball, getting passed the ball because you're in a good place to make a basket, and letting it bounce right past you. Telling your team you're too individualistic to accept a pass isn't going to go over well.

[Sigreid]

Based on what has been posted, it doesn't seem like that at all. The Warlord uses their action, in some form, to allow you an extra action, in some form. So, yeah, they give you an extra attack, but it doesn't seem like they get to decide who you attack. Now, if they know it goes against your wishes (you didn't want to kill this guy and they're trying to force you), that's one thing. But just giving you an extra action isn't remotely controlling. It's basically what Haste does, though it has to be decided on a turn by turn basis. Or do you not accept buffs from your teammates?

That's fine if that is what it is. But most of the time I've heard warlord exhalted in this thread and others the description is "move my party around like chess pieces", perhaps you can see the difference. If it's just give x a boost and part of my action to do what he can, there's no problem with that. If it's I use my ability to move x there and have him attack Y, that's very different.

Edit: I don't actually know which way it works as I've never once played 4e.

[Kane0]

Warlord can be played like a chessmaster, my father made a dragonborn much like that actually. He was also played as uncharismatic as possible, so despite his tactical brilliance nobody wanted to listen to him because of his arrogance and belligerence. This was played up on purpose so we all got a good kick out of it, whether we obeyed his commands or not. It was especially funny when he went last in initiative.

But that isn't the only way to play a warlord. Same thing with a bard handing out inspiration or a cleric healing words.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Warlord can be played like a chessmaster, my father made a dragonborn much like that actually. He was also played as uncharismatic as possible, so despite his tactical brilliance nobody wanted to listen to him because of his arrogance and belligerence. This was played up on purpose so we all got a good kick out of it, whether we obeyed his commands or not. It was especially funny when he went last in initiative.

But that isn't the only way to play a warlord. Same thing with a bard handing out inspiration or a cleric healing words.
Come to think of it, the only warlords I remembered always asked their allies who they wanted to hit. It was, I suppose, a bit metagame-y, but worked pretty well for letting the receiver feel really good about getting that extra attack.

I never remember a warlord ever even trying to dictate movement when they granted it, either. They couldn't anyway, but it was more 'be free, my fellow players!'.

Purely my experience, of course. I have no idea how everyone else did it, but it seems my experiences aren't too far off from the majority.

[Luccan]

Come to think of it, the only warlords I remembered always asked their allies who they wanted to hit. It was, I suppose, a bit metagame-y, but worked pretty well for letting the receiver feel really good about getting that extra attack.

I never remember a warlord ever even trying to dictate movement when they granted it, either. They couldn't anyway, but it was more 'be free, my fellow players!'.

Purely my experience, of course. I have no idea how everyone else did it, but it seems my experiences aren't too far off from the majority.

I'm not even sure why you'd want to dictate it. I mean, I know some people like to be The Most Important Player and there are those horror stories of tables that bend over backward for one PC, but for the most part, trying to control other PCs is going to make people not want to play with you.

Edit: Also, this is tangential, but I find it funny the seemingly very popular Warlord shares a few things in common with the Aura-mancers of 3.X, specifically the Marshal, all of which were mediocre at best.

[alchahest]

"How dare a cleric give me hit points? I only use my own hit dice for that"
"That bard is full of himself, casting haste on me to give me an additional attack and more movement. what a pompous self righteous ass"
"That paladin dared to lay on hands and cured the poison that was giving me disadvantage, he made me attack more effectively. what kind of metagaming chess playing power gaming is that????"

Warlord let you do things. Warlord could heal a bit, could move a willing ally, grant a willing ally additional attacks, at higher level, multiple willing allies could attack! some things were conditional (Warlord chooses the target) but most weren't. It's no different in terms of controlling other players than any other class. if you don't want to do a thing then someone else will have more off-turn fun instead.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm not even sure why you'd want to dictate it. I mean, I know some people like to be The Most Important Player and there are those horror stories of tables that bend over backward for one PC, but for the most part, trying to control other PCs is going to make people not want to play with you.

Edit: Also, this is tangential, but I find it funny the seemingly very popular Warlord shares a few things in common with the Aura-mancers of 3.X, specifically the Marshal, all of which were mediocre at best.
Yeah, in hindsight it was more weird that the warlord could specify anything. Thematically it makes some sense, but in play? Much better to just let them hand a player a freebie and let them figure out how they want to use it. It's how most people played anyway, and given the popularity of the class, a good idea for a 5e recreation.

And yeah, the miniatures handbook classes of 3.x were pretty terrible. I appreciate what they were going for, but even in the far niche that they existed for (skirmish-to-war scaled tactical combat) they were overshadowed by... you know, it'd be easier to write a list of what they didn't overshadow. Samurais and NPC classes? I might be done already.

[Naanomi]

I think the idea was that warlords saw an opening to attack *that specific monster right now!*; so they dictated (to some degree) the flow of the battlefield... they were not just cheerleaders giving you an energy boost to do whatever you want with it; but rather specifically leading people to take advantage of situations they wouldn't be able to without such guidance

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think the idea was that warlords saw an opening to attack *that specific monster right now!*; so they dictated (to some degree) the flow of the battlefield... they were not just cheerleaders giving you an energy boost to do whatever you want with it; but rather specifically leading people to take advantage of situations they wouldn't be able to without such guidance
It totally was, and it makes sense. But it's not much different to say that's what they were doing after they offer the option of what to attack to the other player. It's not as clean from a story and verisimilitude standpoint, but it's a lot smoother and more fun for gameplay.

[Naanomi]

In a perfect tactic simulator it may not matter... but in a campaign where players may have different priorities (stop the fleeing thief who has the loot, or kill the guy casting the ritual of evil? Players may disagree) or Gods forbid... actual PvP... and the distinction can be pretty important

[MxKit]

I figure if you give a Battlemaster Medicine (and let it actually do some healing) and they pick the right Maneuvers, you've basically got what you're looking for.


Purple Dragon Knight (Banneret) also has a few warlord-esque parts

Yeah, I feel like a 5e version of the Warlord wouldn't 100% resemble the 4e version of the Warlord, but would actually be a Fighter subclass that's mostly Banneret with some specific Battle Master maneuvers and a fitting proficiency or two.

-Take the abilities to share your Second Wind, Action Surge, and Indomitable with your allies from the Banneret; these all seem very fitting for a 5e Warlord.
-Give specific maneuver options—I'd say definitely Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally, and maybe Disarming Attack as well. Not as many maneuvers can be learned, so part of Combat Superiority isn't applicable, and maybe Improved Combat Superiority only goes up to d10, or is simply replaced since dealing damage yourself isn't so much the goal. Maybe instead of your superiority dice ever increasing in damage, some of the maneuvers are slightly changed so that you don't have to spend your bonus action as well as your action to do a thing. Maybe your superiority dice just don't grant extra damage at all. There should definitely be ways to tweak this.

With a feature that grants proficiency in Medicine and herbalism kits, I think a class that's about on par with the Samurai in strength could be made from this. Having it focus around granting allies things instead of itself, while still having a solid Fighter chassis; drop any of the bits that require battlemat play.

[Kane0]

Level 3: Tactician
When you take the attack action, you can forego your attack to allow one ally within 30 feet that can see and hear you to make one weapon attack. If you are able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Level 3: Aura of Discipline
You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have advantage on Strength checks and saving throws to avoid being forcibly moved or knocked Prone.

Level 7: Great Leadership
You gain proficiency in either Persuasion or Intimidate. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make using this skill.

Level 10: Inspiring Word
When you use your Second Wind, Action Surge or Indomitable feature you can instead provide the benefits to a friendly creature that can see and hear you within 30 feet. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Level 15: Battlecry
As a bonus action you can rally up to three allied creatures within 60 feet that can see and hear you. These creatures can use their reaction to spend one or more hit die up to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1) and move up to half their speed. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Level 18: Lord of War
When you see an ally make an attack you can use your reaction to grant advantage on the attack roll.

Eh?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Level 3: Tactician
When you take the attack action, you can forego your attack to allow one ally within 30 feet that can see and hear you to make one weapon attack. If you are able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Level 7: Great Leadership
You gain proficiency in either Persuasion or Intimidate. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make using this skill.

Level 10: Inspiring Word
When you use your Second Wind, Action Surge or Indomitable feature you can instead provide the benefits to a friendly creature that can see and hear you within 30 feet. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Level 15: Battlecry
As a bonus action you can rally up to three allied creatures within 60 feet that can see and hear you. These creatures can use their reaction to spend one hit die and move up to half their speed. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Level 18: Lord of War
When you see an ally make an attack you can use your reaction to grant advantage on the attack roll.

Eh?
It's not bad, I like it! It could use some oomph, though. The original version had commander's strike add +Int to the damage their ally dealt with the attack they gave them; that doesn't seem like overkill to me.

[Kane0]

It's hard to allocate a key stat as a Warlord could lead by tactics, example, inspiration, insight or any combination thereof. Another reason a full class would be nicer and cleaner than tacking it onto the fighter IMO.

Edit: Tweaked it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

+Int or +Cha, variable according to user? But yes, a full class could probably handle the minutiae better. It's just an awful lot more work, and the fighter's a great chassis.

I've always felt like the fighter class was just barely missing this completely killer subclass, something that would push the envelope and let them really shine by offering something completely new. So many of them are so close, and just barely fall short. Eldritch Knight, Battlemaster, Arcane Archer, Samurai- they're all really solid, if only they got a slight twist here or there to really bring out the potential.

EDIT: I love the aura effect, that's cool.

[Sigreid]

+Int or +Cha, variable according to user? But yes, a full class could probably handle the minutiae better. It's just an awful lot more work, and the fighter's a great chassis.

I've always felt like the fighter class was just barely missing this completely killer subclass, something that would push the envelope and let them really shine by offering something completely new. So many of them are so close, and just barely fall short. Eldritch Knight, Battlemaster, Arcane Archer, Samurai- they're all really solid, if only they got a slight twist here or there to really bring out the potential.

EDIT: I love the aura effect, that's cool.

Getting way off topic here but I would like a subclass along the lines of the planar warrior from 3.x. Maybe with subclass features that let you attune to a plain to get resistance and damage types associated with the plain you attune to. I'd also like a fighter subclass that could use normal weapons to over come resistance just because he's that flipping good at finding and exploiting weaknesses their opponent didn't even know they have.

[Mith]

+Int or +Cha, variable according to user? But yes, a full class could probably handle the minutiae better. It's just an awful lot more work, and the fighter's a great chassis.

I've always felt like the fighter class was just barely missing this completely killer subclass, something that would push the envelope and let them really shine by offering something completely new. So many of them are so close, and just barely fall short. Eldritch Knight, Battlemaster, Arcane Archer, Samurai- they're all really solid, if only they got a slight twist here or there to really bring out the potential.

EDIT: I love the aura effect, that's cool.

My thought is to merge Champion and Battle Master into one class, give the new "Battle Champion" 2 extra Superiority Dice, and then give all other subclasses 2-4 dice that stay at d6. Also, make the Combat maneuvers list fully available to everyone. Plus, all fighters can switch between fighting styles. This gives fighters the ability to adapt to any situation, and can manipulate the fight.

It does give the fighter more options, and it gives them the niche of being skilled enough to pull off fancy maneuvers mid combat. If a Fighter doesn't want to use the maneuver, they can just add the dice to their damage rolls similar to Orcish Fury.

Perhaps it's too much, or the wrong direction, but I will give it a try with an Eldritch Knight in my upcoming campaign.

[NiklasWB]

I think there are some things that define a Warlord to me:

1. The flavor/fluff. Some people don't want to play a multiclassed bard/fighter/paladin because then you get the whole spell/magic aspect to the character that either has to be fluffed as something it isn't, or simply neglected. Also, both Bard and Paladin comes with some rather hard to explain away lore-connections that might not fit the "battle-hardened general"-concept. I think most people interested in a warlord wants to be a non-magic (martial) support frontline character. Throwing spellcasting into the mix just breaks immersion. This aspect shouldn't be forgotten.

2. The ability to give up your actions (or attacks) to grant attacks or other benefits to your allies. This could be an attack, non-magical healing, some defense, movement etc. This is a core aspect of the warlord, and I actually disagree that it doesn't fit 5e. The mechanics are already there and is used as core-rules or by other classes, it's just a matter of tailoring the concept to the rules of 5e. I think the important part here is that the other character gets a choice/option to use their reaction to do what the Warlord is offering. One should never be forced to use one's reaction if you have a different idea of what to use it for.

3. Consistency in how often the Warlord can use his abilities. Mentioned earlier in this thread, I think this is a major point that is often overlooked when talking about Battlemaster/Valor Bard etc. The Warlord needs to be able to use his schtick every single round. If he isn't commanding others or giving them benefits, he's just a normal fighter (or worse). While Battlemasters can use their maneuvers now and again, they have too few superiority dice to give you that Warlord "feel". They work if you play a standard Battlemaster, because you are just augmenting your own attacks, and that often works out well and has a nice feel. However, commanding someone else to move or attack 1-2 times per fight? Not enough.

4. Martial Party Face. The Warlord should be good at inspiring others and/or frightening others, so he should have some sort of advantage to Persuasion and Intimidation.

I actually created a Warlord homebrew as a Fighter Subclass last year. You can find it on DMs Guild. http://www.dmsguild.com/product/224529/Warlord-Fighter-Archetype-for-5th-edition-DD?term=warlord&test_epoch=0

Me and my group have been playtesting it recently and it actually works really well. It actually gives you that "Leader of men" feeling that the Warlord of 4e had, without being too complicated or mucking up the 5e rules. If anyone wants to try it out, feel free.

[Snivlem]

That's fine if that is what it is. But most of the time I've heard warlord exhalted in this thread and others the description is "move my party around like chess pieces", perhaps you can see the difference. If it's just give x a boost and part of my action to do what he can, there's no problem with that. If it's I use my ability to move x there and have him attack Y, that's very different.

Edit: I don't actually know which way it works as I've never once played 4e.

It works like this:

Your character is in the midst of battle, together with your allies. You have just made your turn and struck your enemy. THen your warlord-ally calles out to you: "Strike at his legs, now, there's an opening". You can see that it is right, there is an opening, you can make an extra attack, but then you go "Na-a, I won't, I'm very individualistic..."

Warlord was an excellent class because it excelled at making the other character shine. In fact it was pretty much the only thing I liked about 4th edition.

[CantigThimble]

Mastermind Rogue/Battlemaster Fighter with the healer feat.

Every round, he can use the help action at range. He has 4 maneuvers that can be used to give extra attacks or movement. He has a limited, but very significant supply of non-magical healing.

Thoughts?

[Naanomi]

That mastermind can take expertise in persuasion as well

[Sigreid]

It works like this:

Your character is in the midst of battle, together with your allies. You have just made your turn and struck your enemy. THen your warlord-ally calles out to you: "Strike at his legs, now, there's an opening". You can see that it is right, there is an opening, you can make an extra attack, but then you go "Na-a, I won't, I'm very individualistic..."

Warlord was an excellent class because it excelled at making the other character shine. In fact it was pretty much the only thing I liked about 4th edition.

What you're describing is very different than the "I'm going to play your character the way I think is best" many on this boars have made it sound like. I don't have a problem with what you describe. That's cool. I thought I was pretty clear that my issue was the people making it sound like they got to be the chess master and the rest of the party were just their pawns.

[Snivlem]

What you're describing is very different than the "I'm going to play your character the way I think is best" many on this boars have made it sound like. I don't have a problem with what you describe. That's cool. I thought I was pretty clear that my issue was the people making it sound like they got to be the chess master and the rest of the party were just their pawns.

Ok, it was just a misunderstanding then. The "I strike with my barbarian" - thing is just hyperbole

[Tanarii]

Ok, it was just a misunderstanding then. The "I strike with my barbarian" - thing is just hyperbole
Yeah. Afaik, the warlord always hands out something free, possibly with restrictions, that another player may do. Sometimes it's very restricted, like the other player may make a basic melee attack vs a specific target. But it's still the other player's choice. It's an opportunity that is given to them to make an extra attack. If they want to be all bullheaded "nobody tells me what to do", in character or out, then they are free to do that.

The "I strike with my Barbarian" is just Warlord players trying to explain how they still get a lot of satisfaction out of them giving up their attacks so that someone else can make a more effective attack than they can, usually with some extra bonuses from the warlord's power used. Because some people don't understand how that can possibly be satisfying to play without making attacks themselves. (Said people often play Rogues or Barbarians for big dice attacks IMX. :smallamused: )

[Sigreid]

Ok, it was just a misunderstanding then. The "I strike with my barbarian" - thing is just hyperbole

Fair enough. It was interesting in its own right how much hate I got for basically taking what people say at face value. 😁

[Naanomi]

Ironically not too different than the beastmaster mechanic people complain about so much

[Sigreid]

Ironically not too different than the beastmaster mechanic people complain about so much

Eh, my only real problem with either BM or beast conclave is the current lack of any way I know of to get your pet around resistances.

[Tanarii]

Ironically not too different than the beastmaster mechanic people complain about so much
That's the kind of thing that just reinforces the idea that the Warlord is controlling the other players action.

Edit: I get what you mean, in terms of action economy it's similar. But in terms of control, it's significantly different.

[Mith]

Eh, my only real problem with either BM or beast conclave is the current lack of any way I know of to get your pet around resistances.

This quote made me go and check, and I have always assumed that Magic Fang had carried over for this specific purpose.

[Sigreid]

This quote made me go and check, and I have always assumed that Magic Fang had carried over for this specific purpose.

If it had, I'd have no problem. I don't mind if a resource has to be spent to overcome resistance.

[Ralanr]

Honestly, I think because of the action economy, a warlord wouldn't work as fully intended. Which is a shame, because I like the warlord concept and hate purple dragon knight for how reliant it is on fighter levels and how small the bonuses themselves feel.

The feeling of having a non magical commander on the frontlines issuing orders and buffing allies is a nice one but I don't think it's been well achieved, even with the battlemaster.

[Mith]

If it had, I'd have no problem. I don't mind if a resource has to be spent to overcome resistance.

Why not just give Druids and Rangers access to a 2nd level transmutation spell that does the same thing as Magic Weapon (which is a 2nd level transmutation spell)?

[Sigreid]

Why not just give Druids and Rangers access to a 2nd level transmutation spell that does the same thing as Magic Weapon (which is a 2nd level transmutation spell)?

My group has been doing a pretty good job of keeping our game to the books. Really, I don't know why they dropped the spell. But then I don't know why they dropped the lyre of building either. One of my favorite magic items.

[Mith]

My group has been doing a pretty good job of keeping our game to the books. Really, I don't know why they dropped the spell. But then I don't know why they dropped the lyre of building either. One of my favorite magic items.

Fair enough. I am going the opposite route and looking at expanding spell selection through making a spell card template and accumulating spells.

[MeeposFire]

Funny enough in 4e the true chess master was the bard since you could move your allies and enemies sometimes at the same. You could also apply control to enemies and give your allies bonuses and attacks. Warlords did more with allies and less enemies.

While I have had people not want to move their characters where the warlord would hope I do not think I have ever had a player refuse the extra attacks and that includes wizards being asked to make weapon attacks (the power was not used specifically to give the wizard an attack but sometimes they are in the AOE so you might as well use it).

I remember playing a mostly lazy warlord. He was mostly lazy because he did have a decent basic attack (that used int for the win) and I chose powers that tended to grant myself and allies basic attacks. I had to pick powers with basic attacks because my str was low (10 I think which means it is not attack stat quality) so that meant that warlord attack powers that did not specifically use basic attacks would require me to use my str bonus on the attack. It was fun letting my party move their characters all over the place on my turn and then granting them extra attacks to wreck the enemy heck one of my encounter powers was a immediate action (interrupt or reaction I do not remember right now) called "Vengeance is mine!" where an enemy attacks the warlord and then I get to make a basic attack against that enemy and I can tell an ally to maneuver and also attack the enemy. That was my favorite 1st level encounter power.

[sambojin]

While they're not as good in combat as a Battlemaster, a Mystic can make for a pretty good Warlord.

Yes, you can target your allies with plenty of these disciplines. And even if some cause a tiny bit of damage, they're still remarkably useful. In fact, Mystic comes closer to Warlord than anything else in 5e, even if it is a weird sort of way of using the powers.

Good disciplines for Warlord Mystics: Crown of Rage/Primal Fury (get into combat you horrible little man), Mantle of Awe/Invoke Awe is *brokenly good* when used on your party (they do as you say), Mantle of Courage/Pillar of Confidence (group haste!), Mantle of Fury/Mindless Charge for group charges, and Mantle of Command/All Of It (if you're being nice to them) would make for a pretty good Warlord. You get just enough to do straight away that you'll feel like the class, and it scales rapidly from there.

Even disciplines like Mastery of Force/Grasp(Move) to throw party members or enemies around, Mastery of Ice/Ice Sheet to keep enemies or allies where you want them, Mastery of Water/Water Whip for pulling people out of harms way (or enemies into it), Mastery of Weather/Whirlwind for musical chairing allies and enemies into the right positions (or use Wall of Thunder if you're feeling really mean), Nomadic Step/Transposition for position switching, Precognition/Victory Before Battle for init boosting. Any of these or the above will mess with people's movement on your turn or do Warlord'y buff thinga, without really hurting them much. This is on top of the various walls, summons and bless-likes that various disciplines have, to really mess up the battlefield or break the action economy even more.

While the same could be said for plenty of spells, these disciplines are flat out wrong when used on party members. They give you control of movement or actions. Here they are: Psychic Inquisition/Phantom Idea is *busted* when used on party members as they sleep (you WILL always obey everything I say to do), same with Psychic Phantoms/Phantom Riches (you WILL move where I say), same with Telepathic Contact/Broken Will *and* Psychic Domination (choose movement and actions :) ). No bueno, but it's there.

You could go Avatar, or just choose two of the disciplines mentioned and pick your favourite Mystic subclass, but mostly use them as a way of being Warlord'y.That way you can still do some blasting or melee if you want, when you're not busy doing mind-fookery to your party members (and, I guess, the enemies too. If you really wanted to).

I mean, you'd be an evil mind-controlling Warlord, but you'd still be an awesome one. I'm sure the odd d6 of damage will be inconsequential to the poor sap you just gave half a free turn or more to. Won't it?