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

Reynard said:

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).

Click to expand...

Minigiant said:

Depends

The basic build of the Warlord isn't a popular fantasy archetype

But

Many popular fantasy archetypes would be subclasses of warlord.

Click to expand...

UngeheuerLich said:

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

Click to expand...

UngeheuerLich said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hexmage-EN said:

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.

Click to expand...

CreamCloud0 said:

despite people constantly making threads like this one and it appearing at the top result of most every 'what classes should we add to 5e' polls?

Click to expand...

CreamCloud0 said:

yeah no, this would not be anywhere near an adequate solution for the people who actually want to play a proper warlord.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

That is interesting.

What would you consider the Warlord's core mechanics (the class abilities) versus what would be under various subclasses?

Click to expand...

ECMO3 said:

I think there is two reasons:

First, there are a lot of classes already, many argue too many classes already. I think WOTC is hesitant to add another. The reception from Artificer was lukewarm at best. I think this is the biggest reaason.

Second, there are a lot of people who want a Warlord class, but those people can't agree on what the class should be.

I think these are the same reasons we will not get a Swordmage.

Click to expand...

ECMO3 said:

Second, there are a lot of people who want a Warlord class, but those people can't agree on what the class should be.

Click to expand...