Sacrosanct
Legend
Now I want to play a paladin, but with paladin "spells" being fueled by inspiration and leadership rather than divine benefits
*edit* I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the BM's actions effectively increase the effectiveness of casters' spells, that's pretty darn important and of equal magnitude to the spell itself. 25 pts without the BM, or 50 pts with. So the BM's actions are equally important to the spell itself, damage wise. For save or suck, it certainly helps because then without the BM, the spell wouldn't have any effect.
I haven't yet played a warlord-ish character in 5E, but speaking personally... if I wanted to I'd either use the Battlemaster and its maneuvers like you mentioned, or I'd play a War Cleric and strip the fluff off of it. Spells are basically a pool of maneuvers just like the Battlemaster's are, just in a different pyramidal scheme.
After all... when it comes to the game mechanics itself, there's really no difference between the 4E Warlord and the 4E Cleric. They both use the same AEDU format, their powers accomplish the same exact sorts of things (granting bonuses to hit, bonuses to AC, extra attacks, the regaining of HP, penalties to enemy attacks and AC etc. etc.) It's just the fluff that was different that dressed up these powers as "magical" or "mundane". Which is why using the spell slot pyramid and just stripping off the "magic" from them and calling them mundane maneuvers doesn't bother me a bit.
It's also the same reason why I've never seen the need for a "non-magical" paladin or ranger... because I can just as easily strip the magic off of their spells and call them mundane abilities (editing a bit of fluff in the process.)
My biggest problem is that almost all of the warlord-y features must compete against regular fighter-y features. This is not just an issue of lack-of-direction. It's a fatal weakness when you feel you must sacrifice plain better options in order to get the look and feel right for your intended class concept.
Then there's the issue of healing and buffing. Not only does magical effects destroy the core attractiveness of a warlord (and spells are the only way to gain healing and buffing currently in the game), they - by definition - can't be handed out to the Battlemaster; since that would destroy niche protection.
In conclusion; to really work, the Warlord concept absolutely must be its own class, where warlord-y features doesn't compete with or have to be balanced against the features of other classes.
Also, for many, a successful Warlord means breaking the core assumption of 5e brought along from 3e, namely that non-magical abilities can't get access to the really good stuff.
Specifically, I want healing on par with perhaps bard or druid healing (if not life Cleric levels of uber healing!), but this needs to work perfectly fine in an antimagic field. Same with Warlord buffing. I'm just saying this, so nobody expects otherwise. My guess is that a Warlord class won't ever become part of 5e core (at least not one that would satisfy the above). But perhaps it could be akin to a "DMG class" (like oathbreakers and death clerics) and be added to the forthcoming 4e compatibility articles?
What are your opinions on 5E's martial support options? Are they adequate to represent a 4E-style Warlord character? Do they fit within the 5E framework well?
After all... when it comes to the game mechanics itself, there's really no difference between the 4E Warlord and the 4E Cleric. They both use the same AEDU format, their powers accomplish the same exact sorts of things (granting bonuses to hit, bonuses to AC, extra attacks, the regaining of HP, penalties to enemy attacks and AC etc. etc.) It's just the fluff that was different that dressed up these powers as "magical" or "mundane". Which is why using the spell slot pyramid and just stripping off the "magic" from them and calling them mundane maneuvers doesn't bother me a bit.
Are you talking about 5e? Non magical healing and buffing do exist in 5e. Many of the BMs maneuvers can grant bonuses to allies, and between second wind, inspiration, healer feat, and how hit dice work, there are plenty of non magical healing options.
Well, it did use one of it's reactions to tail swipe me, smashing me against the wall. But the larger cavern we were all in wasn't big enough to keep it out of bow shot (or eldritch blast shot) range. It first tried to freeze us with breath weapons, and used it's freezing fog (which worked quite well to mess up our plans). We were all spread apart and in position when it first came out. And to be honest, it just missed us when trying to grapple. Such is how the dice fall.
We accept in 4E that martial and casting classes have the same power format of at-wills, encounters, and dailies acquired at the same times and in the same quantities (with just the fluff being different)... so why is the idea of a 5E "Warlord" using the same power format of the cleric or bard (IE the spell slot pyramid) harder to accept? I realize that for some people it is... but I'm just not one of those people. I can just handwave the fluff off of a 5E War Cleric and just use the mechanics if I need a Warlord with more options than what I would get with the Battlemaster that badly. But that's just me.
Warlock is IMO the better chassis to build upon.