Wow....talk about setting up a false dichotomy. This lands in the same category as "Yes or no, Senator: have you stopped snorting cocaine?"
I can give as good as I get, yes. ;P
Help me out here, because I humbly admit that I don't entirely understand action economy design. If 5E has fewer actions, wouldn't that mean that granting extra ones to the PCs is actually a bigger deal than if it had a lot of them, because it's a bigger increase percentage-wise? That's how it looks to me at first glance, but maybe I'm missing something. (Serious question, no sarcasm intended.)
5e has fewer action types, and thus a tighter action economy. Remathilis was making the point that 4e had a tight action economy, the Warlord was in 4e, so the Warlord must 'need' a tight action economy. That's faulty reasoning, and the Warlord could have worked in a looser action economy like that of AD&D just fine. But, that aside, the difference between the 4e & 5e 'action economies' is actually pretty small. Yes, a granted action is valuable, as is the action given up to grant it, so it's not difficult to keep action-granting balanced. Beside, balances is a lesser concern in 5e than it was in tightly-class-balanced 4e, and there are already things that theoretically 'break' the 5e action economy - but don't break the game, because the DM isn't dependent on the rules to keep his campaign running smoothly.
Really, 5e is just following a trend, here. 3.5 had standard and move actions, full-round actions, partial actions, 5' steps, free actions, swift actions, AoOs, and Immediate Actions. 4e eliminated and re-named a couple of those, ending up with Standard, Move, Minor, OA, free & Immediate. Both allowed you to trade some actions for 'lesser' ones. 5e further reduced the number and complexity of actions (and renamed some) down to Action, Move, Reaction, & Bonus - one of each. There's no trading actions, instead, something you can do with more than one is repeated. Dash, for instance, is a Move taken as an Action, but it's technically an Action of its own. FWIW. Upshot is that the action economy can handle an action-granting warlord and its tactical implications, no problem.
But for some groups, the story and game world are very important. They really want their campaign worlds to make internal sense and/or have a certain flavor, or else they won't have as much fun playing the game.
That's where 5e's DM Empowerment is a big plus. The DM can impose that sort of added detail or consistency upon his campaign world if he so desires - or leave it vague/flexible with more options open to his players, if that's more desirable.
That's why the "magical versus nonmagical" question is such a big one.
It really shouldn't be. The game already has the Cleric, Bard, Druid, Paladin & Ranger as classes that use magic (mostly spells) to contribute support to their party ranging from fantastic to adequate depending on choice of class and emphasis on that mode of contribution (and those classes can also all but ignore support if that's their concept). For a world where support needs to be exclusively magical, there is already lavish support and a wealth of options.
The game also has a feat or two, and 3 low-level 'maneuvers' in one non-optionally-high-DPR-focused fighter sub-class that even taken all together, add up to an inadequate support contribution. So support via non-magical means - in a low-/no- magic setting, for instance - is virtually unsupported (npi).
Keeping the door open to re-interpreting the Warlord is entirely un-neccessary, as magical-support is already available and effective in a wealth of variety and range of effectiveness. A campaign that denies the possibility of non-magical support functions can simply ban a couple of feats, three of 17 rather Battlemaster maneuvers, and any Warlord class that might be forthcoming - the game - and even the Battlemaster - would remain perfectly viable.
A campaign or party that wants to depend on non-magical support contributions, OTOH, is currently non-viable. The Warlord, if well-done, could change that.
I'm curious as to where the boundary between 'magical' and 'non-magical' is.
The important line is mechanical: can an anti-magic shell nullify the ability, for instance. Ultimately, that line can be re-drawn via DM ruling wherever it's desirable for the campaign. Fluff is important only in articulating the concept, and is the kind of thing a player can re-skin if he wants, either to fit his character concept, or, privately to suit his own beliefs about someone else's.
Let's take the monk for example. Monks don't have spell slots or the spellcasting class feature, outside of the weird edge case of the Way of Four Elements subclass. They're at first glance a martial class. And yet, Ki is usually interpreted as being mystical in origin, and the class description says they are able to "magically harness the energy that flows in their bodies."
Elemental monks are not exactly an edge case, they're one of three sub-classes, a third of the class, if you will. And, yes, Ki is explicitly magic, both in fluff and rules - without DM intervention, it won't work in that anti-magic shell, for instance, and it's effects will detect as magical if anyone ever felt the need to check.
Is that too magical? Would a monk be banned from a non-magic campaign?
Is explicitly magical under the rules 'too magical' for a non-magic campaign? Yes, of course. Could the DM change those rules to make the monk non-magical? Yes. Whether he should, and whether it'd make a lot more sense to do so only for the Open Hand sub-class, is for each DM to decide. The Monk, though, as written, does not fill any real or imagined need for a 'non-magical unarmed-combat-specialist,' for now, that falls to the Fighter.
The Open-Hand Monk and Battlemaster Fighter are an example very similar concepts - both are highly-trained combatants - the main difference is that one is explicitly magical and the other is explicitly non-magical. The game has room for both.
First off, I'm not stonewalling. I have no say in what WotC does. If I did, Ravenloft would be the next AP and Rakasta's would be in the next UA article. My personal opposition to anything has little to do with anything.
You and I both boosted the idea of psionics getting added to 5e and it did happen. Coincidence, yes, but it never hurts to show interest in something you're interested in or support for something you believe the game should provide for fellow fans who are deeply interested.
As to the meat in of the your clearly biased question, I have no comment. You know my position. I've said it too many times. If it makes me a h4ter or somehow obstinate in your PoV, so be it. We've exhausted as far as this "compromise" can go. You won't except less than Total Victory, so I'll take your advice and avoid this class furthermore.
I know you've said that you've nothing against the concept, and are only concerned about the implementation. But we'll never see implementation if WotC doesn't move forward with us, give us a first cut in a UA, and start playtesting. Setting a high bar for even considering the possibility, and shouting down proponents is not consistent with that position, so maybe we have a miscommunication, here?
And I don't know what makes you think merely wanting a class from a prior ed in 5e is being uncompromising and demanding 'total victory.' It should go without saying that wanting a class means wanting a good, balanced, fun, worthy version of the class. There should be no need to fight for 'victory' in expressing that, because there's no reason to oppose such a thing.
I've answered every concern you voiced in your previous post about 5e being inadequate to the task of modeling the Warlord concept. Why don't we let WotC know we'd like to see what they can come up with, starting with a UA? If you can't bear to do that for some personal reason, at least acknowledge that 5e is up to it.
