Ratskinner
Adventurer
Of course in the novel I can't tell who's a PC.
Yup. We can't tell who's a PC. Who has HP, or how many. Who has what game-abilities (except perhaps broadly). We don't know who has what aspects or when they are being tagged...sorry, wrong board.
I don't agree. A former class that is now being supported by integration into an existing class, in circumstances where other equally-integrable classes are not being integrated, is likely to have fewer of its former abilities replicable, less ongoing support (both at the mechanical and the story level), etc.
Nor will any class compared to their 4e version. 5e is (so far) stripping down the number of fiddly bits and their fiddliness. (Despite what has been recently said, I will be stunned if alternative or additional sets of spells, maneuvers and the like don't appear in later products. Though they may be reduced.)
Well, quite. That's the real reason why I think the 4e-style warlord won't figure in D&Dnext.
<snippage>
You can tighten up the warlord's abilities to make them less-metagamey: for instance you could say that the extra attack is always due to alerting an ally to an opportunity (some will still say that's too metagame-y, because it's a player occupying director stance), so that use of the ability corresponds to a PC choice and an ingame causal process. But it will follow from that that the ability must be at-will. And hence must be limited in power. And hence probably won't recover the full scope of the existing warlord's operations. And that's before we get to healing!
I've tried to explain above why I think the warlord brings metagame mechanics along with it. Also see posts 202 and 203 above (my post, @Campbell 's reply).
I didn't know that Mearls had talked about fate points. I agree that integrating that sort of stuff into classes is pretty key to 4e, so a generic fate point system is likely to play fairly differently.
That seems to be mostly how people use it. I just find it odd since "abstract" is a perfectly good word and seems to cover that better. (Heck, if it didn't have the baggage, "dissociated" would be better.) Especially since D&D can involve issues and problems that are actually "metagame" by the usual usage. e.g. "We need a cleric." or "We're not using that supplement."
I (along with everyone else) am not really sure how adding blanket "metagame" mechanics to the game will make it play. Certainly its possible. People have been adding FATE aspects and FP to D&D since sometime shortly after FATE first came out. ::shrug:: I've been surprised before, though.