I'm a little confused, myself. I did see this thread in one spot, didn't see your posts in it, replied to a post, and got an error. I assumed it didn't really post, but now I've gotten a reply, a mention & xp, so I guess it took, right?
They've argued that, but they've been wrong. ( For one thing, I'm a bit more qualified than others to know what I want. ;P ) I think I outlined why fairly clearly, in a general sense - and, though this is a 'Warlord Thread,' I think the general case is more relevant to the objection to dissecting the poor fighter into narrower and narrower spin-off classes.
And yet, you are not the decider of who is right and who is wrong.
That is very true. But by the standard you are establishing by your want, no 4e class exists in 5e. Not a one. Not even a vanilla fighter. Because, for example, a 5e fighter cannot Come & Get it!. And until one can, 5e has failed to provide a "true" fighter. Obviously, that is preposterous. Or, at least, I hope you can see that it is.
The standard is merely 'is the class there' and 'can I do as much with it.' Most 5e classes far exceed that standard: the 5e Druid, Wizard, Cleric, & Bard, for instance, all leave their 4e versions looking on enviously.
You don't even have to get as specific as Come & Get It (though it should be perfectly clear that 16 maneuvers, all 3rd-level-appropriate, can't be compared to 300+ over 30 levels). The 5e fighter has failed to adequately reprise the 4e fighter - and the 3.5 fighter, for that matter. Indeed, there's little to indicate the attempt was even made - the 5e fighter is a 'simple fighter,' focused primarily reprising the old-school and 2e designs (including the old-school fighter/magic-user in the EK). It's great at what it does, but there's a lot it doesn't do.
Negatory. Also, not the job of a new edition to mimic its predecessors. Are you suggesting that the other 5e classes besides Druid, Wizard, Cleric, & Bard, do not adequately represent their archetypes, within the context of the 5e ruleset's design parameters and paradigm?
That's a heck of a lot of opinion. And given the realities of 5e's massive popularity, and sustained growth, I'd say a fringe minority opinion at that. Sorry if that's a bit blunt, but I don't see the sky falling on 5e like you apparently do. If anything, it has the potential now to grow towards a stratosphere never seen by its like before. Not even any of its predecessors. If the classes, and system by a larger view, were as flawed and inadequate as you suggest, I don't see how any of that could have come to pass. So, no. I just don't see your opinion as viable at all.
I didn't mean to suggest that 'mimicking' was required. Obviously, mechanics in 5e differ from those of prior editions. Proficiency is not BAB, for instance, but as the fighter levels, he still gets to attack more than once/round - OTOH, the level of customization possible with the 3.5 fighter isn't fully realized.
Those were examples (thus "for instance"), not meant as an exhaustive list.
And yet you have been consistent in taking such a stance. 5e's warlord options aren't good enough because it doesn't do all the things the 4e one did. Or, in other words, 'mimic'. Because until it looks a lot like a 4e warlord, its a failure in your, and certain others', eyes.
Dancing? Okay, fine. Lets get specific then, shall we? It is your opinion that the 5e fighter does not do an adequate job of representing the iconic archetype? Yes or no.
