That's like asking how close a Thief with the Charlatan background could get to wizard if you just ignored that they have no spells.
That's like asking how close a Thief with the Charlatan background could get to wizard if you just ignored that they have no spells.
But, if you're talking ability, not concept, Cleric and Bard far exceed the ability of a faithful 'port of a 4e Warlord, they do everything it reasonably could when translated to 5e, and far more, besides. The Paladin would just give you too much offense, via Extra Attack and Smite.
In 5e, the deal is mainly spells, spells are a very specific mechanic, that is very explicitly magical, comes thru the Weave, can't be cast in anti-magic zones, etc. Not using spells makes a class not magical, but needn't make it remotely mundane - whether it's a hypothetical martial that performs feats of superhuman strength/luck/skill/etc or a hypothetical psionic using a supernatural power like telekinesis. That's prettymuch a quality of 5e and it's obsession with spells (every class uses spells in some way, even just in the PH), other editions have broader or narrower de-facto litmus tests for magic implied by their mechanics.
The mantra of many at this point is that is a solution involves math beyond adding one number, it is functionally impossible.
I've a degree in maths. I can handle most things in my head. But that doesn't mean I consider it good design.
Then we need to remove dice and move to a coin flip system.
Why? Reductio ad absurdam?
If math is bad design, get rid of math.
