It was at-best a serviceable patch. You still had problems with ending conditions
Plenty of save-granting or save bonuses, so, no, not really.
In a very low-magic game, there's unlikely to be afflictions only removable with actual magical rituals, and less likely you'd use the kind of monsters or magical traps that would require such. More likely a skill challenge would be used if something like that did come up. In a higher-magic world, rituals could be obtained as scrolls, commissioned from NPCs, or even learned via a feat. Lots of parties, though, did entirely without rituals - or had them but never used them - they were a neat idea, but just didn't go over well with players at most tables, it seemed. 5e rituals are a little better that way, being more readily player-accessible, though character-accessible only so long as you do have a caster with the right one on his list.
In a hard-enough-core low-/no- magic campaign, you won't be bringing anyone back from the dead, either, but then, doing so wouldn't fit the campaign concept, anyway. And, it's not like 4e was deadly enough to necessitate that.
and their never was more than four options for classes. (Every other power-source got more than four, and had one per role. There never was a martial controller
Three's all you need, really (Roles were not quite the necessity they were made out to be, and controller was the most nearly-dispensable role). And they were some of the best-supported classes in the game, each with six or more distinctive builds. Some could play the secondary controller role, well enough to get by.
It'd've been even better if they'd've made the Ranger a martial controller from the beginning, instead of waiting years and then hybridizing it with Primal, sure. But it didn't render low-magic games or all-martial parties non-viable.
That said, it worked because the same mechanics were used to make a cleric's Divine powers and a Warlord's Martial powers work.
4e was pretty good at keeping mechanics that accomplished similar things in different 'fluff' ways, consistent, yes. That made it a little clearer, and, gave it a shallower learning curve. All to the good, but not really relevant. It /could/ have made the class designed tighter and simpler to create if it had actually re-cycled whole powers, but it didn't. Each class got it's own distinctive list. Set the bar for new-class creation pretty high.
There is no simple swap that turns a 5e cleric's spell list into some non-magical, non-spellcasting martial equivalent.
Very true. It is much easier to create a new caster class in 5e than a new martial class, because you can simply pull most of its abilities from existing caster classes by using extant sells in it's list. Give it a different name, a few features, and an few unique spells and you're done. May have something to do with there being so many caster classes & sub-classes in 5e. It's efficient, in the way 4e powers were, just less flexible, since it's of little value in designing non-casters supernatural classes (like psions) and none at all in developing a non-caster.
I /hope/ it's not too much work for the professionals at WotC, it's certainly a daunting task for any would-be homebrewer.
Most of the ones I've seen end up making warlords clunky, feeble, or OP. I'm not saying its not doable, but I've yet to see anyone successfully do so.
You've yet to see a gifted professional game designer take a crack at it, too. All the more reason for one to do so, say in UA, and get the Warlord on the development track for some playtesting, rather than counting on homebrew attempts.
Oh, I could give you a laundry list of things that ranked higher than "lack of caster supremacy" in my "Why I hate 4e" list, but I won't.
Thank you for that. My remark was about "h4ters" in the past, though, not directed at any current participant in the thread. Your idea that 4e failed to deliver capable martial classes, when it so clearly did, just reminded me of it because of the subject, I didn't mean to imply that it was an /example/ of it.
So we may yet see some martial subclasses for rogues and (presumably) fighters that have more social/exploration elements in it. A warlord alone will not fix that imbalance, not is it needed TO fix the imbalance.
I'd think the Warlord mostly address the social side of that imbalance, but, yes, there's so much 'design space' left on the martial side that it'd take multiple classes - full classes, not mere sub-classes of the high-DPR-specialized Fighter & Rogue - to really open up player options (we have 5 non-caster options, all dedicated to high-DPR, there's /lots/ of room to grow). But I disagree that the Warlord isn't a necessary part of that in a practical sense, not unless there's some other viable concept that can take up it's practical functions. Not that such an alternative would be grounds to deny fans of the class.
Now, then...
We want an Illusionist. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
The Illusionist was never a full class. It was a school specialty in most editions, and a sub-class in one PH1.
It is a sub-class in 5e, and fully as capable as in any of it's prior incarnations.
We want an Assassin. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
The Assassin was never a full class until 4e, and even then, it was in an on-line DDI-only form until post-Essentials in HoS, and a weird 'Shadow' Source re-imagining of the concept, as well. It was only in one PH1, and that as a sub-class. You could argue that the name and concept aren't appropriate or conducive to good RP or would cause intra-party conflict - there was some of that in the early days of 1e, IIRC, and it was cut from 2e, which took a much more cautious approach to such things. But I don't find that a compelling argument against it.
In spite of name/RP issues, the Assassin is a sub-class, again, in 5e, and quite a good one, being decidedly good at killing individuals by surprise.
If anyone genuinely liked the Shadow-Assassin, though (someone must've), I could see bringing it in. Maybe in some supplement with expansions of the Monk and other thematically similar material. Maybe in some shadowlands/fell/whatever supplement.
We want a Priest of Specific Mythos. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
Not a full class (more some vague suggestions of possible sub-classes), and it seems like Domains in 5e do change both your 'spheres' and 'granted powers' - or the equivalents thereof. Though, I admit that's not quite the same thing. I wouldn't object at all to a well-done rendition in some sort of supplement. It was one of the better ideas to come out of 2e, though I personally preferred the version in the 2e Complete Priest's Handbook, as much better-balanced. CPH could be the supplement, even.
We want an Elf class. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
I was really hoping for an Elf (maybe even dwarf & halfling) 'class' in the Basic Game, instead of the full race/class dichotomy. Would have been super-simple, and a great call-back for fans of Basic D&D. Even though there technically was not Basic "Player's Handbook," I think it'd be a fine idea to bring back race-as-class for fans of those early D&D experiences. If there's any way to finagle 'em into the basic game, that'd be all kinds of nostalgic awesome, IMHO. If not, a supplement with race-as-class treatments of the full range of PC races would be something, wouldn't it?
And, of course, there's Psionics. While there wasn't a Psionic class in any PH1, the 1e PH1 did have Psionics in an Appendix, and cutting psionics from the 5e PH was arguably unfair in the light of that. It's a stretch, but fans of Psionics still absolutely deserved to seem them included.
Thankfully, we've seen Psionics in a UA, and they're clearly in the pipeline for development.
I think every one of these classes has as much chance of seeing print as a warlord these days.
I hope you're right, since they've either seen print in forms worthy of their original appearances, promise to soon, or deserve to.
