It was a defining feature because it was unique, and at-will at level 1.
Other classes had the ability to buff and heal. So that aspect wasn't special.
Yeah, I'm being a dink.
Mostly, I'm mostly poking at the idea that "all warlords grant actions" when the vast majority actually kinda don't. But there is a point to me being a dink. (At least this time.) When designing a class, you don't always look at what
most warlords do or even what
all warlords do, you look at what
only warlords do. The unique stuff.
So, yeah, a 5e warlord should absolutely grant bonus actions of some kind. Not because "warlords grant actions" but because it's a cool mechanic that fits the class and is unique.
Similarly, the 5e warlord should do things that the 4e warlord could not or did not, because they fit the concept and are unique.
Which I'm totally game for, it just seems that mearls and many others don't accept that possibility, because they keep giving them shallow do-nothing abilities and trying to cram it into the fighter chassis.
But, however, most warlord fans on this forum are not, and are pretty instant the warlord remain a leader.
Just to clarify, you're saying you think there aren't enough abilities to merit the warlord being its own class? Not sure I buy that if so.
Such as?
You do not. The Bard, Barbarian, and Ranger off the top of my head all launched with 2 subclasses. Saying that the warlord can't do the same because the other classes now have expanded material is a bit disingenuous, but I don't think that's what you were going for to be fair.
The key word there being "launched". The intent was ALWAYS to have more subclasses after the PHB.
Now every class has at least four, with most having five or six. And you can bet when they launch the artificer and mystic in a published book, they won't have the minimum two subclasses.
What are six possible warlord subclasses?
Tactical, Bravura, and Inspiring are all different archetypes that can play and narratively present a broad range of story options. Some of the past options like resourceful might also be included if you swapped their focus to a more skill or exploration focused path.
Those are names. What's their story? What's the two or three paragraphs of flavour that precedes those subclasses?
When someone says they're a "bravura warlord", what does that mean What does it look like? How would you describe that to someone interested in D&D who knows none of the mechanics?
As mellored said, action granting was something they could do at the start, and many of the best rated powers from the optimization side of things were centered around that concept.
I agree. See above in my response to Mellored
While I mostly agree with the balance argument, class balance itself has always been somewhat shaky in 5e and I would rather they focus their efforts on being evocative and unique at this point. A great example I think of this is the pacifist paladin option in Xanathars. I think that subclass is crap, because it doesn't do enough to change how the paladin plays to fit its supposed narrative space, and was even trimmed down from its playtest version. I'd rather have a less-balanced option that more accurately represents the concept and changes the playstyle of the paladin than a few ribbon abilities that don't amount to much, and same thing for the warlord. They were willing to experiment with that ridiculously OP Lore Wizard, how about Mearls tosses out an overpowered warlock and we can try walking it back for once.
Well, Mearls is never going to do a warlord beyond a "thought experiment" on a podcast.
Any warlord is going to be 3rd party. Which means it has to be that much tighter. WotC can get away with "close enough" balance as they're official. But a 3PP has to nail the balance.
Personally, I've long been an advocate of attacks not actions. An action is too much, but an attack can work. The warlord uses their action to direct a character to action. The ally uses their reaction to move half their speed, make a single attack, or cast a cantrip.
