I do actually agree with you that there's little chance that WotC will actually release a class named warlord, or a class that attempts to really fill that niche.
Sadly, I can't strongly disagree with that estimate, myself. It seems realistic to think that fear of a renewed attack on WotC & their IP by it's most militant fans would make that the more prudent move.
I'm just not ready to give up on the noble-sounding goals outlined in the playtest, and so hope that we may yet be pleasantly surprised.
Yep. I'm not asking what the warlord might use if it is made an official class. I'm asking you what you would like to see the Warlord's power based on.I'm not expecting any form of consensus; just your opinion as someone who seems to know a lot about that class in its previous incarnation.
I'd like to see it based on the concept presented in 4e, how that was developed by players in 4e, on the concepts that past editions presented for the fighter but lacked the mechanics or design space to follow through on, and, more generally, on both the archetypes of warriors who use tactical acumen and charisma (natural language meaning, in D&D that'd be the stat, skills, and class abilities) to help their allies, and even virtual non-combatants who play a similar role in a different way.
As far as mechanics go, I'm more than willing to give the 5e concept-first design philosophy every chance to come up with something. It doesn't need to be encounters & dailies like in 4e, but it should have a real and dynamic impact, which, in D&D seems hard to justify without some sort of resource in the equation.
For instance, 5e made the STR/DEX decision for weapon users pretty seamless, there'd be no reason to mess with that to make them exclusively STR-based just because they were in 4e - a Warlord primarily using a bow or rapier would be just fine. OTOH, INT and CHA are clearly suggested by the concept (and WIS wouldn't be out of line, either), and action-granting would seem equally well-suited to 5e which has a very similar set of on-turn actions (Action:Standard; Move:Move; Object Interaction/Bonus Action:Minor).
And, while 5e eschews formal Roles, opening up classes to a broader range of abilities, and any official Warlord should certainly take advantage of that, developing aspects of the class that were constrained because they'd get into the controller role, it still does need a range of contributions from PCs to make a party work, and the Warlord's would clearly tend towards support contributions. Those currently can't be adequately provided without a caster, so not only would it be in keeping with the Warlord concept and it's past implementation, it'd expand the range of parties, play styles, and campaigns 5e could handle.
No. I read what you wrote. I was addressing the issue of Warlords being able to become another 'stand back and 'cast' class rather than a more martial leader.
Ah. I did touch on whether a Warlord's granted attack should or shouldn't allow the ally to apply their full benefits to the granted attack. Or whether it should be just weapon damage + attribute modifier. (Although I suggested the warlord's attribute mod rather than the ally's.)
The less you ('you' as in the designer, DM or even the players) want to disrupt the turn sequence, the more the design could edge towards having the action initiated on the Warlord's turn resolved primarily by that player. The more you want to engage other players and open up RP opportunities, the more you could edge towards other players handling the resolution. In an ideal design, that preference could be left to player choices and DM rulings - which would also certainly be in keeping with 5e philosophies.
