• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
A speculation 5e Warlord would need to be written within 5e's mechanics and paradigms.

But again to me the biggest hurdle is that with as a class or subclass...the Warlord would never be a lot of the pain space to be fully complete in one book unless it was the Nentir Vale setting guide.

Even the battle master wasn't finished and completed with necessary maneuvers until Tasha's.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


A big reason warlord discussions often fail to go anywhere is that the warlord is, in some cases, just a shibboleth for "I prefer how 4e did things." So, the convo just becomes grousing about how 5e doesn't have 4e's model of martial powers, or how 5e doesn't officially support a purely morale vision of hit points, or how 5e's Fighters "can only do one thing," or how 5e doesn't cleave tightly to 4e's role grid, or how 5e resists option bloat (especially at low levels), or how 5e favors big effects rather than granular options. The warlord had a lot of tethers to 4e's systems, and the transition away from many of those systems is going to leave any 5e version of a warlord quite a different beast. That can be OK, if what you're looking to do is play a character who fits a warlord archetype - who is an inspiring leader and brilliant tactician. There's an abundance of options in official 5e to play a character like that. There just isn't much of a way to get back to some of 4e's assumptions.
Everything bolded is basically an issue of taste
So, like, healing word. That spell is very warlord-coded. It's literally a shout that restores hp. But, the flavor is "you're casting a spell." So a certain segment of warlord fans are never going to be happy with using that as part of their inspiring commander. If you duplicated the effects of casting healing word (and maybe a bunch of other healing and restorative spells), but called it an inspiring shout or battlefield medicine, you might get some people on board. And, after a few rounds of this and adding some more class features (let's add command to the list of nonmagical spells, oh, and here's a 4e power I really liked that could make a good nonspell, too), congratulations, you've basically recreated the core of cleric or the bard or the paladin or whatever, and all you've done is file the serial numbers off and call the magic skill/inspiration/narrative juice/etc. And it still wouldn't satisfy people who want more low-level options, for instance ("That's not a real warlord, look, I can't XYZ at 1st level in addition to other things, this is just proof 5e is bad at this, if only the devs would realize this...").
The problem is that it is still magic. You can't flavour the magic away, because healing word and whatever things you would reflavour would still not work in an anti magic and they can still be countered by counterspell.

If that part could be resolved I would be pretty fine with that solution.

Except it's, of course, never going to happen.
There isn't a lot of apparent appetite in the 5e developer tower to spend their limited budget and pagecount for the year on something that is basically "the bard, but replace magic with inspiration, disappoint about 1/3rd of the people in the process, and maybe open up the hit point debate for a brand new generation." And I can't really blame them for that. The risk/reward just doesn't pan out. I'm sure their surveys have given them this feedback, too - the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze.
The 5E developer tower has no appetite for anything that is mechanically interesting. 5E barely has any new classes and it has several classes that would work better if they were divided up into separate ones because they are so ridiculously bloated with features (Druid).
But I do enjoy playing my college of swords bard as an inspiring leader whose words can lift armies and curse my enemies. And I enjoy playing my battlemaster fighter as an action economy thief who can lock down big threats until they decide to pay attention to him. And I enjoyed playing my alchemist artificer as a non-magical healer who brewed medicinal tonics in the heat of combat. And I enjoyed playing my devotion paladin as a tactical genius / blowhard who always thought he knew what was best for people and who enjoyed using his party members as his weapons most of all. Just like I enjoyed playing my 4e warlords as team dads, lazy drunken bosses, and literal princesses.
No objection from me.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
I didn't realize that spells had a monopoly on "disposable resources" and "lists".
They don't, but if what you really want deep down is for martials to have powers that are equal to spells again, you're not talking about the Warlord, you're talking about 5e's choice to not open the can of worms that is martial dailies.

Mechanically, this is a fix:
========================
Martial Exploits
You know how to produce extraordinary effects that don't rely on magic. Though the effects mimic spells, you produce these wonders using your personal charm and training, not magic. For you, spells are called exploits, and instead of casting a spell, you use a martial exploit. Using a martial exploit follows all the rules for casting a spell, except as discussed below.

It's Not Magic
Martial exploits are not subject to effects that interfere with magic or spellcasting.

Required Components
You produce your exploit's effects through your own charismatic appeal and ability to command others. You must be able to speak when you use an exploit with this feature (meaning the exploit has a V component when you use it). Your exploits only require verbal components.

At-Will Powers (0-Level Exploits)
At 1st level, you know two at-will powers of your choice chosen from the warlord martial exploit list {this list includes warlordy spells}. At higher levels, you learn additional at-will powers of your choice, as shown in the At-Will Powers Known column of the Warlord table.

When you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the at-will powers you know with another at-will power from the warlord exploit list.

Exploit Slots
The Warlord table shows how many exploit slots you have to use your warlord exploits of 1st level and higher. To use one of these martial exploits, you must expend a slot of the exploit's level or higher. You regain all expended exploit slots when you finish a long rest.

Knowing Exploits of 1st Level and Higher
You know two 1st-level exploits of your choice from the warlord exploit list.

The Exploits Known column of the Warlord table shows when you learn more warlord exploits of your choice. Each of these exploits must be of a level for which you have exploit slots. Additionally, when you gain levels in this class, you can choose one of the warlord exploits you know and replace it with another exploit from the warlord exploit list, which also must be of a level for which you have exploit slots.

Exploit Ability
Charisma is your martial exploit ability for your warlord exploits, since the power of your exploits relies on your ability to inspire and lead others. Your martial exploit ability functions as your spellcasting ability for your martial exploits. You use your Charisma whenever an exploit refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Charisma modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a warlord exploit you use and when making an attack roll with one

Exploit Save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier
Exploit Attack Modifier = your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier
=======================================

Slap that on a bard or a paladin and maybe lightly curate your spell selection to rule out anything with special effects (or not! the 4e principle of martial powers being the same as magic can still hold and there's no reason your warlord can't use faerie fire and call it "cover everyone with flour" if you want.)

I don't think this would be an acceptable solution, but I present it to highlight that we're not just talking about "warlords," here, we're talking about martial powers, and that's a different conversation.
 
Last edited:

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Everything bolded is basically an issue of taste

The overall point is that warlord conversations go around in circles because they're not really about warlords, they're about other things.

The problem is that it is still magic. You can't flavour the magic away, because healing word and whatever things you would reflavour would still not work in an anti magic and they can still be countered by counterspell.

If that part could be resolved I would be pretty fine with that solution.

Except it's, of course, never going to happen.

It's actually relatively trivial, and I could see it happening, but there's some good reasons why it might not, partially related to some issues some people had with 4e's resource model being applied to all power sources.

The 5E developer tower has no appetite for anything that is mechanically interesting. 5E barely has any new classes and it has several classes that would work better if they were divided up into separate ones because they are so ridiculously bloated with features (Druid).

This is all "5e bad!" There's reasons for these choices. Talking about these reasons is not talking about warlords, though.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
I agree that you can't just port the 4e Warlord, you need reinvent it through the 5e prism. I think, if the Warlord is to endure beyond 4th edition, it NEEDS to show it can be reinterpreted for a different rule systems. When I went through my various versions of the Warlord I realized I had to focus on what I wanted it to FEEL like to play the Warlord and not how it worked in previous incarnations. I hit on a system that focused on reactions to help allies (including extra reactions), a few core abilities you can actively do, handing out bonuses at initiative, being effective at helping with skill rolls, and then I added a couple ribbons to fluff up the class. I don't think it would play like a 4e Warlord, at all, but it should feel like a good support class.

There is indeed some options already in 5e, but they're not all in the same class. I actually tried not to copy any of them word for word.

In the tradition of warlord conversations not being about the warlord, this is a conversation about why 5e might be reluctant to officially add classes, and there are reasons for that beyond "Make warlord fans suffer." This is actually the SAME conversation that the psion fans want to have.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Obviously it can be done. Anything else is just POV-pushing.

Again, the reason WotC has not made a Warlock can be many and varied. But "it's impossible" sure ain't one of them.
I pointed out that Wizards of the Coast has published a 5th Edition Warlord (twice) as a NPC/monster, and I suggested that from their stat blocks we could infer what Wizards of the Coast might consider "a warlord" to look like.

Then I promptly got shown the door, and that's fine, but my point still stands: if WotC were to make a playable version of a Warlord class in 5E, it would probably look a lot like the non-playable versions they have already published in 5E. They've made playable versions of monsters and NPCs before, it's not like there isn't a precedent for this.

Anyway, that's all I really had to say about it.

Im Out See Ya GIF by Aminé
 


GrimCo

Adventurer
@I'm A Banana

Your idea of Martial exploits look a lot like manouvers and stances from 3.5e Bo9S. Not magic per se, but bordering supernatural ( going on wuxia style of fighters).

It's basicly spellcasting mechanic with levels, slots and explits know, just not magic. Personally, i like it. I'm big fan of Bo9s and wouldn't mind if they do proper martial "casting" system. That would give room for Warlord.

4e and 5e are complete oposites by design philosophy and intended play style. In AEDU system, everyone was caster. Yes, your power source was listed as martial, but it functioned more or less the same.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
There's no Psion because they gave all the potential psionic effects to Wizards because god forbid the Wizard be forbidden from effects for the sake of another class' niche.
What do you mean "gave"? The Wizard / Magic User has had all the psionic effects as spells in their repertoire way before psionics even existed in the game as thing.

If anything... the psionics system horned in on Wizards and stole their functionality, not the other way around. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top