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

[Undrave]

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

That's not a principle of 4e.

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, it would probably look a lot like the versions they have already published. 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.

You're right, there is a ton of Warlord-like mechanics in 5e, including on the Monsters side. The monsters are a little bare bone but I can see it. Really, the issue is pulling them all into a single class progression.

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.

... I'm not sure how this relate specifically to what I said?

As a side note, my Warlord was specifically built to NOT use a limited resource like superiority dice. It's basically a Rogue chassis with a second attack and a bit more AC in place of the usual Rogue abilities. Even the subclass use the same patterns with 2 abilities at 3rd level and 1 of each at 9th, 13th and 17th, with 9 being more ribbon-esque.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

And that's why the WOTC version of the Warlord doesn't exist. Because the top priority would not be recreation of the feeling nor tropes....

it would be reusing as many assets as possible to save page space for more wizard spells

 

[Undrave]

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.

Hey, it was a new edition it was the perfect time to slay some sacred cows, even just a little. I guess you could reframe it as saying ‘they refused to take any specialty away from the Wizard to protect the Psion’s niche’. This is just more Pro-Wizard bias where it ABSOLUTELY has to be able to do everything all the time. A Psion can’t exist if all the things you’d want it to do are just stuff from the Wizard’s spell list.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

100% this.

People don’t design warlords for 5e as it currently exists. They design warlords for 5e as the wish 5e existed.

You can clearly see this when the justifications for overturned warlords are that the rest of the martial classes are undertuned.

Or when people propose warlord abilities that are too ‘magical’ or ‘supernatural’ or whatever. The underlying premise is to push 5e in that direction when clearly a significant portion of 5e fans are not on board with that.

Or when there’s insistence that the 5e warlord must feel the same as the 4e one, when no other 5e class really feels the same as the 4e version.

You are 100% right that this discussion isn’t really about the warlord. Its about 4e vs 5e, caster vs martial, supernatural martials and their place in the game, how to justify the fictional for non-magical abilities, what is overtime’s in 5e, etc.

 

[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).

Making martial characters more like spellcasters has been an idea that got a lot of traction in late 3e, which laid the groundwork for what happened in 4e. As you point out, "everyone was a caster."

There's a few really good reasons 5e didn't go with this. For instance, one of the issues that arose with that model is that it didn't actually feel all that hugely different to play a Warlord vs. a Cleric (for instance). I think 5e could get away with this a little bit better, since it already has options for martial characters that aren't like spellcasting, so it could add some mechanics that are a bit like spellcasting without giving the impression that everything in the game needs to be like spellcasting.

That's not a principle of 4e.

What I'm getting at there is that Exploits and Spells were the same mechanic with different set dressing. There's a lot of spells out there that could just be martial in nature, but there's also some that might have desirable effects that are more supernatural...but just like artificers justify their effects as being object-related, a "warlord" could justify their effects as being mundane.

... I'm not sure how this relate specifically to what I said?

Just reinforcing my thesis.

Why do you think WotC might not want to add a new class? (Psion, Warlord, or whatever)

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Wizards say this about respirating oxygen and expatriating carbon dioxide though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have nothing further to say to you on this topic @Mephista. I don't believe you are engaging in this conversation in good faith. Particularly since you are demanding extremely detailed specifics when I explicitly said, repeatedly, that this is literally concept-draft-stage stuff, genuinely incomplete, depending heavily on execution for something I haven't written, and which is not currently my primary focus even if I were actively writing homebrew right now.

 

[Minigiant]

100% this.

People don’t design warlords for 5e as it currently exists. They design warlords for 5e as the wish 5e existed.

You can clearly see this when the justifications for overturned warlords are that the rest of the martial classes are undertuned.

Or when people propose warlord abilities that are too ‘magical’ or ‘supernatural’ or whatever. The underlying premise is to push 5e in that direction when clearly a significant portion of 5e fans are not on board with that.

Or when there’s insistence that the 5e warlord must feel the same as the 4e one, when no other 5e class really feels the same as the 4e version.

You are 100% right that this discussion isn’t really about the warlord. Its about 4e vs 5e, caster vs martial, supernatural martials and their place in the game, how to justify the fictional for non-magical abilities, what is overtime’s in 5e, etc.

The core problem is that the warlord that is designed within the 5e paradigm and mechanics is not worth printing.

A warlord class that is worth printing that anyone would be satisfied with requires more paperwork than 5E is willing to do.

It's the exact same problem the beastmaster ranger had. Tasha had to add two more pages to the beastmaster to make people somewhat satisfied with it.

You will never be able to fit a big gameplay changing or narrative changing character concept in a 1/3rd of a page.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hey, it was a new edition it was the perfect time to slay some sacred cows, even just a little. I guess you could reframe it as saying ‘they refused to take any specialty away from the Wizard to protect the Psion’s niche’. This is just more Pro-Wizard bias where it ABSOLUTELY has to be able to do everything all the time. A Psion can’t exist if all the things you’d want it to do are just stuff from the Wizard’s spell list.

I dunno... maybe there just aren't enough people who want those sacred cows slain? Maybe the number of people hung up on the Wizard "getting everything" isn't big enough to warrant a change? Don't ask me. I have no idea.

I just know I couldn't care less if a Psion or isn't in the game. I'm perfectly fine if WotC decides to make one at some point, just like I'm okay if WotC doesn't and I have to use a 3rd party psionic system or update/use the UA Mystic rules for it if I ever feel the need to have a psion class at one of my tables.

 

[Yaarel]

I dunno... maybe there just aren't enough people who want those sacred cows slain? Maybe the number of people hung up on the Wizard "getting everything" isn't big enough to warrant a change? Don't ask me. I have no idea.

Heh, we did succeed at slaughtering vancian casting. Mostly.