No, you can't, you can't even come close.
Make 4e with the SRD & OGL? Sure you can. Especially now that terms like "dragonborn", "warlock", and "advantage" are included.
You can't copy the existing formatting of powers, but you could tweak that slightly. It wouldn't take much to change "Encounter Power" to "Recharge: Short Rest". A few terms don't copy (like Healing Surge) but it would be easy to rename those something else. And since you can't copyright mechanics you could just take the 4e math and power structure overlay it onto the 5e rules.
I can't think of a single thing in the rules that you couldn't adapt through careful renaming and rephrasing.
The *only* thing stopping people from making a 4e Neo-Clone is time and a willingness to put in the effort.
That is the exact opposite of what's true. 5e design is much looser-balanced, and higher-powered. A direct port of the 4e warlord would be non-viable for want of resources relative to the casters that currently handle comparable support contributions.
5e has a looser balance, but there's still balance. There's just less symmetry. It really is a nice evolution of Essentials.
Casters aren't broken. They're good but not all-powerful. They only ever have 1 or 2 spells of their highest level, the equivalent of Daily powers. And far fewer spell slots compared to 3e.
In an encounter lite game with 2-3 fights per day a caster can certainly dominate. But it's easier to blow through all your spells in a standard adventuring day.
A 10th level caster has 15 spells. 2 "daily" spells at their max, and if there are four fights they effectively have three "encounter" spells they can use in each fight. Plus 3-4 spells to use for utility. Counted like that, a 5e caster doesn't really use *that* many more powers in a 4th Edition character.
False. SA dice increased with Tier, at-will powers or features added additional damage, as well.
SA dice increase by a marginal amount. The equivalent of a point or two of damage. Far less than the d6 every other level of rogues. While that balances reasonably well with the fighter's extra attack, the maneuver I was discussing replaces an attack, so the fighter gets all but one of their attacks and the rogue gets an extra turn. It comes at the cost of a reaction and bonus action, but it's pretty darn good.
It's trading an attack at level 10 dealing 1d12+1d10+15 (with a feat and thus lower chance to hit) for one dealing 6d6+1d10+5.
A BM fight has four dice. If they have a couple fights between short rests, the fighter and rogue could do their combo attack a couple times in an encounter. That's some pretty solid teamwork.
A fighter archetype disengenously posing as a warlord substitute is no such content.
I disagree.
It's a very edition-war-laden topic. The Warlord was introduced in the 4e PH. It's the target of ongoing edition-warring.
It
was. Past tense. Extreme past tense.
The warlord was a part of 4e but you can discuss it on its own by its own merits just like you can discuss the pros and cons of thief-acrobat class without critiquing 1st Edition or getting into the 1e/2e Edition wars and T$R hate. I'm not slamming Gygax or
Unearthed Arcana when I say there's problems with the thief-acrobat and it probably isn't distinct enough to warrant its own class.
When 4e was the current edition, people who liked 4e had 4e, people who liked 3.5 had Pathfinder, and people who like older eds had OSR retro-clones. Everyone had what they wanted, but there was an edition war.
Not quite the same. Initially there was no Pathfinder, and it took time to build an audience. And the division was stronger and more people felt disenfranchised. Plus, after 3e and the d20 boom, people were used to playing D&D, and less likely to look elsewhere.
Currently, the majority is happy and satisfied, so there's no edition war. The community is pretty damn positive. It's more positive than I've seen it in… well, ever. Most people are happy just playing the game and creating for the game. When problems with the game are brought up, it's seeking a fix or ruling rather than ranting "5e sux" or some such thing.
And people are more likely to look to other companies for games. More willing to try Pathfinder or FATE or Dread or Edge of the Empire.
On the contrary, WotC, in seemingly catering to the h4ter by killing 4e, made it look like such ultimatums worked, and by continuing to create that appearance by excluding the Warlord from 5e, they deepen that impression.
Using terms like "h4ter" is an attempt to propagate the edition war. No one else is using them. (Weren't you asked to stop using that term?) No one else is fighting the edition war but you. The fact that there's no 5e equivalent of "4venger" or "h4ter" (or whatever the 3e ones were again) speaks volumes. The terms are no longer relevant or needed.
WotC repeatedly catered to the wills of the fans. The strong majority of the fans. Because the vast majority of fans didn't give an eff about the edition war. The majority are happy just playing the most recent game.
WotC considered removing the warlock and sorcerer and making them part of a single magic user class. But the fanbase didn't like that idea so they changed their mind. Because it's sound business to give people what they want, and you don't stay in business if you ignore what your fans want.
The warlord didn't make the cut because fewer people cared about it than either the warlock and the sorcerer. Fewer people protested the absence. Period. Not because some imaginary conspiracy of edition warriors that wanted the warlord removed from the game and WotC obliged. Not to silence some faction of the fanbase.
