I think all the "It's almost there, but..." responses pretty much make my case - all the warlord I'd be happy to accept isn't enough warlord for some players.
Why are you unwilling to go those last few inches, though? Why can't you accept a Warlord that has the option of restoring hps or giving away it's actions more often than not? It's not like you'd have to allow those options as a DM, nor choose them as a player? Why can't you go those few more inches and accept a Warlord that's up to handling the same things the Warlord did originally, let alone be open to the possibility of exploring all the design space that 5e has opened up?
I'm not a big fan of this because it basically ensures that the warlord's damage output is always equal to the damage-dealing-est character's damage output
Any at-will action grant needs to be limited in the kinds of action it grants. For instance, Wolf Pack Tactics was an at-will which allowed an ally to shift - in 5e, that'd be a Disengage action, probably at the price of the ally's reaction, and there are already mechanics that let a character Disengage as a bonus action, at-will, so that's hardly beyond the pale.
without the tradeoffs that that character needed to go through to get that high damage spike.Warlord doesn't have to dump INT to take advantage of a high STR, forex, they just give their attack to the barbarian.
Besides, most classes /don't/ need to be MAD just use their main shtick and also have the option to dish out damage, either spike damage some of the time, or modest damage at-will.
The 4e warlord didn't have this problem - any at-will attack-granting power was less powerful than another character's at-will attack-granting power because basic attacks were usually less powerful than at-wills.
In 5e, it just has to be spelled out in a more natural-language way, in accord with the 5e design philosophy. A limited attack-grant might unleash the target ally's (or allies') full power (allow extra attacks, SA, a bonus action or whatever), while an at-will might grant less potent options (a single attack with no extra damage bonuses or riders). That could require some convoluted wording to take into account the different ways different classes pile on damage, but that's the price 5e pays for using less jargon and differentiating classes with varied mechanics that accomplish basically the same thing.
Additionally, I played a princess warlord in late 4e for a few (~8) levels, and choosing who to give the attacks to was basically a calculation more than an interesting decision.
That's true of any decision where you're only concerned with maximizing damage. There are a lot of 'em.
I'm cool with granting attacks in fights, but when that moves to "I don't take actions, I give actions," you're not playing your character anymore, you're playing the rest of the party. If you wanna do that, go play games where you control a party rather than a character.
Yeah, the whole "go away, D&D is not for you" thing isn't helpful.
Y'know, thinking about it, maybe I could be sold on at-will attack-granting if it was something like "Your ally makes an attack with a melee or ranged weapon, and on a hit deals 1d6 damage, plus damage equal to your Intelligence bonus, instead of the damage they normally do," or something else clearly worse than "hit it with your own damn sword, if you can."
You can't count on /always/ having an ally in the right place to attack the right target at the right time, so having the option of making your own attacks is always a good one, characters who skimp on that option too much will find themselves in situations where they'll feel the lack. Just like any other character that lacks a decent attack option.
At-wills are fall-back things you do that still evoke your character concept. Simply attacking would probably be that fall back for most warlord concepts. For some, though, it might be action-granting is more central to their concept, so they have a 'weaker' but still interesting/useful, at-will action-grant or two (depending on the sort of action). They'd still need to be viable, the way cantrips, for instance, are. Not spectacular or powerful, but still useful and supporting the character's concept.
But at any level, it'd be more than the warlord could do themselves, which is part of the problem - no reason to ever NOT give an ally who hits harder your attack.
Hey, if you're choosing between casting Fire Bolts and poking someone with your dagger, it's not a hard choice, either. There's not much point to choosing an at-will class ability that's not as good as a universal ability you've done nothing to improve.
In the spirit of 4e's at-will attack granting, a granted attack should be weaker than what the warlord could do with their own at-will ability.
Actually, they weren't, they were on par - and it was possible to concentrate on one or another of your at-wills to make it a little better than your others, if you wanted to, for instance by pumping a secondary stat a little. Commander's Strike, for instance, added INT bonus to the ally's damage. If you were higher INT than CHA, it was going to be a better choice for you than Furious Smash which granted bonuses based on CHA.
In 4e, giving up your at-will power to use an ally's basic attack was trading your damage + effect for an ally's simple damage.
And anything the ally might have going on a basic attack. Fighters, for instance, still marked when they made a basic attack. So a granted basic attack, even if it didn't do as much damage as giving it to a striker, would mean the Fighter got to mark an additional enemy, possibly saving an ally from being attacked that round. It could get very 'tactical,' indeed. 5e is often derided as being less-tactical, but it really isn't, it's just less table-top, and that only in attitude.
No I don't think the damage of characters is skewed that badly but it's arrived at in different ways. Like our Ranger vs. our Barb... I'd say their damage is comparable (can't say it's exactly so but close enough) but it's derived in different ways... the Barb is a two-hander rerolls 1's and 2's, etc. The Ranger is a dual wielder, who uses hunters mark... when performing they are roughly equal... but the ranger's damage drops drastically if he only attacks with one weapon vs. the Barb's 2-hander.
Yep, and the Barb can rage. Paladins smite while fighters unleash multiple attacks. Every class that can contribute high DPR is essentially doing one thing, but using different mechanics to do it, to create the illusion that they aren't all just doing the same thing. It can be a very effective illusion, and it can make the tactics and choices that surround each class a little different.
That's not necessarily a bad thing for an action-granting or facilitating or buffing warlord. Some maneuvers and tricks may work better when executed with a rogue than with a barbarian or with a paladin rather than a fighter or whatever. That'll make it interesting.
For whatever at-will ability or few might grant offensive actions, though, it's more a matter of putting a solid enough restriction on what sort of action is granted to avoid /all/ the various things classes do to jack up their DPR.
For instance, a 'basic' attack-grant meant to be reminiscent of Commander's Strike might do prescriptive damage rather than grant the wielder a regular attack. Something like "the ally makes an attack roll using his usual bonuses to hit, on a hit the attack inflicts the Weapon's damage die, plus the Warlord's INT mod." That would still make two-handers a better target than dual-wielders, but it's just a spit-balled example, not a complete solution... maybe... "If the attack misses, and the subject is using an off-hand weapon, he may repeat the attack with that weapon?"
Something along those lines. It'd need a longer description than Commander's Strike did in 4e, because 5e doesn't use as much consistent jargon, preferring natural language, and that can just take a few extra words to spell something out clearly, but that's a trivial obstacle that everything in 5e deals with.
A class option shouldn't have to determine your game's HP narration
And it wouldn't. Rather, your game's hp narration would determine the available options. If you use visualization of HPs as accumulating serious wounds, for instance, you'd eschew HD and overnight healing in favor of DMG 'slow healing' options, and, if you added the Warlord, would toss Inspiring Word in favor of other alternatives that grant temp hps or do something else that fits with that particular variation.
The choice of an archetype needs to be, in the spirit of 5e, something that say something about your place in the world.
Background seems to say a lot more about your place in the world. Two Folk Heroes, for instance, have very much the same place in the world, even if one is an archer and the other a monk.
"I also focus a bit on tactics" vs. "I am maybe a bit reckless" is not a character archetype like "I harness wild magic" or "I harness the power of dragons." Rather than fine nuance, the archetypes need to be dramatic and significant statements of who you are as a character. Lets not fall into the same trap the fighter did and get defined primarily by your mechanical fobs.
That's a nice thought, but some classes do cover multiple heroic fantasy archetypes. The less support their is large related groups of such archetypes, the more they tend to get shoved onto one class. Currently, for instance, if you have an arcane archetype in mind, it probably fits neatly into one of the 17 sub-classes (8 wizard tradtions, 2 each for the Sorcerer & Bard, 3 Warlock pacts, plus the EK & AT) that emulate specific sub-categories of 'wields arcane power'), while if you want a fairly capable hero who doesn't resort to supernatural powers, there are only 5. The latter end up trying to cover a lot more possible concepts each than the former. The Warlord wouldn't be any different, even if it had as many sub-classes/archetypes as it had builds in 4e (though, if it did, it'd more than double the number of non-caster archetypes available in the game - which wouldn't suck at all).
Magic, by its definition (anywhere, but specifically in this context for the Dungeons & Dragon [table top] Role-Playing Game), breaks the "laws/rules" of the [fantasy] universe...
It'd be more accurate to say that, say, spell-casting follows the laws/rules of the fantasy universe, they're just different laws/rules than the real world. The same is true of anything else in a fantasy universe, it follows the laws/rules of that universe.
Typically, in genre, magic follows very restrictive and immutable laws that make it every difficult or very dangerous or both. Creating a magical effect or item, for instance, might require long, perfectly-executed rituals, with exotic ingredients, performed in a specific place at a specific time, and so forth. Fate or the Gods might have chosen a particular mortal to be the only one who could perform or receive the benefits of some particular magic or magical item. And, it's mostly all in service to the story.
The idea that the genre demands that caster archetypes be strictly superior to other heroic archetypes is not only contrary to genre, it's contrary to good game design and enjoyable play.
Personally I think there is too much focus on healing and attack granting.
They are only two of things the Warlord could do, and there's even more possibilities in 5e, when freed from an explicit role...
It think the warlord should focus on the warlords' other feature: Commanding Presence.
It was a build-defining foundation, but really never developed that much in 4e. When an ally chose to use an Action Point he gained a bonus from the Warlord just being there. Actually a very passive ability.
Essentially, it would work like Bardic inspiration or the MM's Leadership action.
By default it would give him and each nonhostile creature a d4 to add to a attack roll or saving through. Then the power increases by level and application and bonuses incleases based on style and subclass
That'd be a neat little feature, hardly a 'main thing,' though. Though I guess it depends on how & how often that d4 refreshes. If it were just on all the time, you're talking comparable to Bless (a very good 1st-level spell) w/o concentration, 24/7 and getting better from there. If you can use the die 1/round, that takes it down a notch; 1/encounter or short-rest-recharge, and it's getting pretty minor; refreshing like Inspiration and the DM could inadvertently make it all but disappear.
