What do you think of the D&D 4e warlord and its descendants?

D&D 3.5's Tome of Battle laid some of the groundwork with the White Raven discipline. D&D 4e's warlord, though, really captured the package of a nonmagical leader/support/buffing/healing class. It was one of D&D 4e's strongest leader classes.

Since then, other tactics-oriented games have followed suit: 13th Age's commander, Strike!'s warlord, Fabula Ultima's commander, Pathfinder 2e's commander (and, to a lesser extent, Starfinder 2e's envoy), and Draw Steel's tactician, among others. Draw Steel is notable in that it has no generic "soldierly fighter" class, instead folding the concept into the tactician, particularly its vanguard subclass.

All of these have an ability that lets an ally make an attack instead of the warlord themselves. This is strong and flexible because it allows exactly the right PC to make exactly the right attack against exactly the right enemy (and possibly with accuracy/damage buffs, perhaps from the warlord). Flavor-wise, this represents being a leader so incisive and inspiring that they can point out an opening an spur an ally to push past their limits, for just one crucial moment.

These warlords have a narrative aspect to their abilities. They are not manipulating time or shouting wounds closed. The game allows the player to declare that, yes, there is an opening right here and right now, and that the warlord can point it out; or that the injuries are not so bad after all, and that the warlord's words are enough to let an ally ignore the pain.

D&D 5(.5)e has yet to produce a first-party warlord. At best, some Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight features can splash a vague facsimile of warlord-like abilities, but the character is still a fighter first and foremost, better at personally fighting than at barking out orders.

Daggerheart does not have a warlord. It seems hard to implement warlord-like mechanics into the system, given its lack of a traditional turn structure.

They are trash. The people who like them are also trash, largely because the idea of a mechanically-imposed "Leader" is awful, and also because they generally just exploit action economy which is why they were so powerful. They're for little people with big egos, the napoleons of the table.

They don't fit in a skirmish scale game, especially one where each player is encouraged to make their own decisions and not be lead by an appointed "tactician."

If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be done not because they're so brilliant at shouting orders, but in a more humble and perhaps even humiliating fashion where the player is forced to acknowledge their character's own actions are mediocre in comparison to the people they depend upon, and that they are less the mechanically-appointed de-facto leader and more of a glorified cheerleader.

Rather than a "Warlord", I'd prefer Fire Emblems take on a class that grants extra actions.

>>96298744
>even humiliating
And the mask falls off.

They are great. The people who like them are also great, largely because the idea of a mechanically-enabled "Leader" is awesome, and also because they generally make use of the action economy which is why they were so powerful. They're for big people with small egos, the Cincinnatuses of the table.

They fit in a skirmish scale game, especially one where each player is encouraged to work together and not scatter to the four winds.

If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be because he's so brilliant at issuing orders and inspiring his men, and not in a humiliating or demeaning fashion, but one that emphasizes the synergy and camaraderie between leader and led, not like a cheerleader but as a mechanically-enabled and authentic leader.

Rather than a "Dancer", I prefer D&D 4e's take on a class that grants extra actions.

>>96298744
>no, player characters CAN'T have in-universe hierarchies supported by mechanics
>no, TTRPGs can't have a designated main character EVER, it can NEVER be done right
>no, boosting other people CAN'T make you look cool, you HAVE to do it yerself to get any respect
Not gonna make it for Domain play.

>>96298364 (OP)
Frankly, I don't like the attempt to fluff Warlord or any of the other 4e martials as being purely mundane. It stretches suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point. However, as a design, I think the Warlord is great. Force multipliers are fun.

>>96298364 (OP)
The Warlord is the best class D&D ever had.

>>96298744
FPWP

>>96298792
If you're gonna play a character that has powerful abilities that exploit action economy, it needs sufficient trade-offs.

The Warlord was the most played Leader in 4e, even moreso than Clerics, and it being considerably stronger than all the other Leaders was a big part of that. Attaching the flavor of "You're a Fighter but with charisma so high that you can virtually heal people by shouting at them" while also putting the original high-charisma-fighter Paladins in a primarily defensive/reactive position in 4e, and the Warlord's popularity doesn't come as a surprise. Kind of like how the Avenger rapidly outpaced the Paladin in popularity, largely just by being one of the best Striker Classes in the game and similarly flavored to a Paladin, while the Paladin was mechanically just a not-as-good-as-a-Fighter Defender.

Action economy manipulation is inherently strong, and if there's going to be a class with that as its primary activity, it can't overlap with the other classes or it will overshadow them. Ideally in D&D, the Bard would be retooled as less of a half-assed "little bit of everything" class and actually given a proper identity via a focus on AEM at the exclusion of everything else, but since the Bard is already established as an awkward version of a Red Mage that happens to play an instrument, a new class would probably be more appropriate. Something like a Jester perhaps.

>>96299071
What're you even talking about? Avengers and Paladins occupy the same spot: good but behind the top classes of their niche. People like Avengers because they're cool and mechanically competent.

>>96298744

>If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be done not because they're so brilliant at shouting orders, but in a more humble and perhaps even humiliating fashion where the player is forced to acknowledge their character's own actions are mediocre in comparison to the people they depend upon, and that they are less the mechanically-appointed de-facto leader and more of a glorified cheerleader.

I have played and DMed for a few warlords who were flavored as scaredy cats begging for others to rescue them.

>>96299115
Except Avengers are Strikers, which are a more popular role than Defenders, and their signature mechanic is borderline broken and only overshadowed by how broken Rangers can be.

>>96299253

>their signature mechanic is borderline broken
I really, really would not call the avenger all that good a striker class, particularly at the heroic tier. It has plenty of problems that hold back its potential.

>only overshadowed by how broken Rangers can be.
Rangers are definitely good strikers out-of-the-box. I certainly would not discount monks, rogues, and sorcerers, though.

>>96299314
What makes Avengers great is their unrivaled consistency and reliability, which is often underappreciated because it's not quite as explosive.

>>96298364 (OP)
I hate buffing other players because they never remember their fucking buffs. Even when I do my best to remind them, put up index cards, let them know not to forget X or that Y applies. The worst was 5e bardic inspiration dice, that was absolutely shit design. Abilities that aren't persistent or situational but instead are a Happens Right Now type that you resolve as instantly as they come up are fine. Same with healing. But shit you need to remind people about or specifically time are fucking annoying.

>>96299354

>unrivaled consistency and reliability
I do not even find them that consistent, particularly when Oath of Enmity turns off while adjacent to multiple opponents.

It is as this particular tier list says:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gSVBnsirn5lt3blMR7g7JWP2s80rdP5FeF6z6qBPr8c/edit
>Avenger (2/5 stars): R&D overvalued accuracy

Earlier this year, I played a level 7 avenger with all manner of house rule buffs to improve the class, and still struggled with encounters.

As far as homebrew avenger reworks are concerned, I like absolitude's package:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CsDl5FzwSUXi0E0pEqHfG8j0_BgGnE_j4D4aXPaVMss/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.g1g5ubl5f7jn
+ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f0_Gd5Xu86rXgsZ-f7vII-jLVotFdVI5dGuG6j1fBtg/edit?tab=t.4jbtrywbtk2k#heading=h.pasp747a0mw1

I also like erachima's rework:
https://pastebin.com/J3xJTzxR

>>96298744
Labeling the support classes as "Leader" was just the way to convince people to actually give them a chance and not assume they were all just passive support/healbots.

You'll notice that something being labeled as a Leader doesn't actually demand anything of their role in the party. Unless everyone agrees ahead of time that they're in an official military unit, one guy being an army captain doesn't change anything. He might be better at calling the shots in a tactical situation, which is mechanically represented by the buffs and extra actions, but it isn't as if players are then required to listen to him on their turn or out of combat.

And using Fire Emblem as an example of a game that does this right is laughable when those games have plenty of princes and nobles who are designated main characters.

>>96299566

>army captain

Warlord classes offer a good deal of flexibility in this regard, I think. Sure, many of them are actual military officers, but a warlord PC could also be a gang leader from the mean streets, a noble with a knack for bossing people around, a country hick with so much élan that they galvanize the people around them, or a crybaby unusually good at getting people to defend them.

>>96298364 (OP)
>What do you think of the D&D 4e warlord and its descendants?

Chiefly, I don't.

They're not really the same mechanically since EO Sovereigns are more about AoE buffs, but, thematically, it's a perfect fit.

>>96299539
Wrong link.

>>96299566
>He might be better at calling the shots in a tactical situation, which is mechanically represented by the buffs and extra actions, but it isn't as if players are then required to listen to him on their turn or out of combat.

The idea that his abilities are coming from him calling the shots is at issue. What if, for example, someone else with higher tactical intelligence and stronger leadership decides to issue orders to the warlord to grant them attacks? We're talking about a class with supposedly borderline supernatural leadership, being cowed into "leading" characters into doing effectively what they're telling him to make them do. It's several levels of "what the fuck is going on", and it all comes just from players actually not treating the Leader role as a "leader" role.

>it isn't as if players are then required to listen to him
It's a firm expectation and the entire class breaks apart if that expectation isn't followed, as illustrated above. If the party does not play around the idea the the Warlord is the leader, the Warlord class becomes almost entirely nonsensical, in a way beyond even what the other Leader classes would. You're right in saying that the "Leader" moniker was just something to make "Healer" sound more attractive, but the issue with the Warlord is that they actually took the "Leader" name to heart.

In character, if your party contained a tactical genius, it doesn't make sense not to have him lead the battle. Players picking Warlord are essentially counting on that, to the degree where I don't think you even imagined a situation where another player would issue orders to the Warlord.

>And using Fire Emblem as an example of a game that does this right is laughable when those games have plenty of princes and nobles who are designated main characters.
They're single-player video games. You might as well be pointing at something else FE does because it's a single-player video game, such as using controllers.

>>96298744
OP BTFO FOREVER AND EVER
/THREAD

>>96298364 (OP)
I find amazing that 4e is compared to Word of Warcraft, while it actually feels way more videogamey.
WoW managed to give a flavorful dimension to warriors as fighters but also as something more with those shouts, warcries and such.

4e D&D and its derivatives are the worst thing that could happen to RPGs.

>>96299846
>while it actually feels way more videogamey.
No

>>96299866
NTA. It's a problem of dissociated mechanics. Lots of things that work a certain way for game reasons but don't make sense in the fiction. I like 4e for its character building and combat, but it is very gamey.

>>96298364 (OP)
They're lots of fun, but they kind of demand a large-ish party and a DM that is going to be throwing a lot of encounters your way. I wouldn't play one in a 3 or even 4-man party, nor in a roleplay/intrigue focused campaign, but if those two things don't matter then I'd be happy to roll one

>>96299832
>What if, for example, someone else with higher tactical intelligence and stronger leadership decides to issue orders to the warlord to grant them attacks?
A Rogue might have a better Arcana skill check than a Sorcerer. That doesn't mean they're going to be better at casting spells than the Sorcerer.

>You might as well be pointing at something else FE does
Like having a dancer class? Because that was the initial example the other anon brought up. Glad we can safely dismiss it due to FE being single player then.

>>96298364 (OP)
The Fighter should always be the one who buffs the team in fighting by leading from the front. I hate the Purple Dragon Knight because it's sparse in nature and the Battle Master naturally fits the role of Warlord better then it ever could or would.

There is also a wealth of PrCs from 3.5 you could draw inspiration from like the Legendary leader or the Dread Pirate among others

>>96299922
The Battle Master is a shit tier Warlord. It's shit tier compared to White Raven too.

>>96299825

Which link is wrong?

>>96299832

>What if, for example, someone else with higher tactical intelligence and stronger leadership decides to issue orders to the warlord to grant them attacks?
That would be a higher-level warlord.

>>96299922

Draw Steel's approach was to completely remove the "generic soldierly warrior" as a class, and to fold it into the tactician, mostly under the vanguard subclass.

>>96299933
White Raven was hilariously busted, it is not a good measuring stick to compare things to

>>96299912

I have seen warlords work very well in three- and even four-PC parties in 4e. Most groups will want a leader class anyway, and a warlord synergizes well with most party compositions.

>>96299948
No it wasn't.

>>96299921
>A Rogue might have a better Arcana skill check than a Sorcerer. That doesn't mean they're going to be better at casting spells than the Sorcerer.

But they will be expected to know more about Magic and be a better expert regarding Magic, and be more relied upon with any questions or concerns regarding magic beyond actually casting, something the sorcerer does via supernatural bloodline.

Hell, in a battle facing against a spellcaster, people would be expected to turn towards the high Arcana skill rogue in regards of what they should do, rather than the sorcerer.

>Because that was the initial example the other anon brought up
As a example of flavor. Pretty sure a class that can't do anything except refresh another unit was never put on the table for consideration.

>>96299846
>>96299891
Let's be fair. 4e is video-gamey, but nowhere near as video-gamey as WoW.

>>96299963
>Hell, in a battle facing against a spellcaster, people would be expected to turn towards the high Arcana skill rogue in regards of what they should do, rather than the sorcerer.
Yes. That's an example of how one character might give out a broader order, and then other characters use their abilities to capitalize on it.
Much like how another character could tell the Warlord the battle plan, and then rely on his tactical experience to execute it with the timing and precision needed via his class features.
A charismatic Warlord might serve as the hypeman for a more charismatic Paladin. An intelligent Warlord might be the tactician where the smarter Wizard is the party's overarching planner and strategist.

Again, nothing requires the Warlord be in charge just because he has abilities that lean into that idea. In the same way that a Sorcerer having magic doesn't require that he also be the party's foremost expert on every aspect of magic.

>>96298744
>having another player character shout orders at mine makes me feel uncomfortable, I think they should be the ones feeling uncomfortable instead!

Alright buddy

>>96298364 (OP)
Neat idea honestly. I like the general concept of a tactical master type character. The problem is most systems treat this idea as a sergeant that barks orders with zero mechanical benefit, and most parties treat the concept like a military commander with sweeping authority to shit on their parade. Even when dealing with NPCs, a lot of people forget that character skill can contribute to troop management, and leave most or all of the decision making to the player behind the character, with mixed results.

>>96300011
>In the same way that a Sorcerer having magic doesn't require that he also be the party's foremost expert on every aspect of magic.
Except we're not talking about not-fully understood and ambiguous Battle Magic that comes from an innate bloodline, are we?

The mental gymnastics you have to perform to explain why a warlord would not be the de-facto leader of a group is what players who gravitate towards Warlords rely upon in order to try and use the class to be the de-facto leader of a group. It really takes the greasy lie that 4e tried to tell about how "The Leader role is not supposed to come with the expectation of issuing orders to the rest of the party" and throws it out the window. Having WoW roles was a bad idea, renaming the "Healer" to "Leader" was also a terrible decision even if just done in name only, and then just doubling down and making an actual Leader class was by far the worst decision of all.

I've never seen anyone opposed to the Warlord who was not straight up That Guy.

>>96300011
>An intelligent Warlord might be the tactician where the smarter Wizard is the party's overarching planner and strategist.

Why would the wizard have anywhere near the combat experience of the Fighter especially if being a soldier or warrior of any sort isn't in their background?

>>96300154
Wizards have been dedicated quest givers for a long time. Its perfectly thematic for a wizard to decide the what and a martial with actual military experience to decide the how.

>>96298744
worst post I've ever seen

>>96300154
Not all combat experience involves swords and shields. Wizards originally being a replacement for artillery and cannons, they would have their place in a dedicated combat unit, which is known for having different roles because it needs to cover a wide range of problems.

>>96299071
I'm not going to bother to read this and dispute the topic since your mask already slipped: you want this to be some weird pyscho-sexual degradation thing.