D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[El Mahdi]

It provides specifics - working out what's wrong is easier than working out how to get it right. You do need to point out how given classes people propose would be miserable failures as warlords (as has been done). Solving it is a task that the pros don't seem to have managed.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. That's contrary to my personality and my military training, but there are some valid arguments against a "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" approach and a significant amount of professionals who advocate against it. So, I'll just agree to disagree.

The fighter version is in the second half of this post. The more complex 3.5 Crusader-derived tactician is here.

Thank You. I'll look these over. Any aspects of these you'd give prominence to?

Deciding on the hit dice at the start is putting the cart before the horse.

I disagree. If greater weight is given to considering certain aspects of the Warlord over other aspects of the Warlord, then it wouldn't be addressed in the unbiased manner that's necessary for success. Not too mention, I personally don't work that way.

In other words, you may think that the HD are unimportant or "putting the cart before the horse", others may not. I've already had too many people putting too many words into my mouth already, making assumptions about what I'm thinking or my intentions.

I'm not going to compound that opinion by actually fulfilling their assumptions...

d8 is the aesthetically appealing one - but in practice the fighter is not a d10 class. With Second Wind they get d10 extra HP and an extra hp per level, making them closer to d12.

All else being equal, d8 would be preferable to d10. But d10 still doesn't make them as tough as the fighter (the warlord shouldn't be as tough as the fighter). And a lot depends on their class features and how tough it makes them; every single class has some sort of defensive feature, whether it's the Rogue's defensive roll, the fighter's Second Wind and Indomitable, the Barbarian's rage, or just spells.

I would therefore default the warlord's hit dice to a d8 (putting them level with a cleric), but this is a number I'd pencil in pending first writing other features then playtesting. A d10 would not on its own be incompatible with the warlord being a warlord. And I suspect that I speak for almost almost all Warlord fans in this, that all else being equal d8 is the way to go, but a d10 would not be a dealbreaker. Especially if the warlord ended up as short of defensive features for themselves because by default they gave them all away to the other PCs.

Excellent Analysis. Thanks.

What I think I'd like here is from my fighter example. Multiple attacks that I can give away to other PCs and no static damage boosts for myself. (I can of course use these multiple attacks for myself, but fighters hit things with their axe, warlords hit things with the barbarian).

Okay. Sounds like you're saying keep the extra-attacks of the Fighter class, but consider them an action economy resource rather than a DPR mechanic for the Warlord...though they can use it that way if they want to.

Is that correct?

And what static damage boosts are you referring to? Are you talking about bonuses provided by the Fighter's Fighting Styles, or something else?

By default I'd go for the armour proficiencies of the cleric and full martial weapon profs. But this should be adjustable at level 1 both up and down with your first level pick, from the battlefront leader in full fighter or even paladin armour to the sneak-attack-less rogue who loves it when a plan comes together (probably going full lazylord). At level 3 you pick between Tactical, Inspiring, Bravura, Trickster (think roguish Arcane Trickster), and Exemplar (Paladin's second cousin).

Okay, though it seems like you're going beyond the scope of the 4E Warlord into option territory not previously explored...

And yes, I have no problems with subtypes of Warlord having spells. It just shouldn't be the default.

Interesting. Though you have no problem with it, do you think that spellcasting might be better accessed by either Feats or Multiclassing?

I've already given ways of including them. For me the three big ones are the two lazylord powers (Commander's Strike and Direct the Strike) - giving your attacks away at will. And Brash Assault where the warlord takes ridiculous risks but the enemy gets punished if they accept. The next biggest on my list is Powerful Warning (normally known as "Duck!") And I don't expect the big ones in 5e.

Cool. Thanks.

Have you played a warlord?

No; though I'm not sure why this matters. I didn't play 4E, but I loved the concept of the Warlord. I like the idea of a non-magical healer. I've always wanted to incorporate one into my games. A Warlord is a class (or subclass - I'd personally be fine with this) that I wanted out of 5E; and I'm disappointed also that there isn't one. I like the Battle Master. It's my favorite 5E character type after Ranger (Ranger is my favorite in any edition). I have a Battle Master Archer as an NPC in my current campaign. However, I think there's a glaring hole in the game without an Inspiring Warlord build.

Also, I'm currently in desperate need of an intellectual/mental distraction.

This is 5e. I want something that can open up the vistas of characters I can play that were enabled by 4e and are no longer effectively viable in 5e.

I understand, and want these fulfilled also. For selfish/personal reasons, and for the community itself.

No. We want the people who are saying "It can be done as an existing class" to shut up because it is quite clear that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Isn't that just as bad as what you believe people are doing to you?

And assuming people are stupid or ignorant...really? Just because you don't like their ideas, doesn't make them stupid or ignorant...or edition warring...or inconsiderate...or anything else. Not to mention that doing this is exactly what you, Umbran, and others accused me of...

It is about a year after the release of 5e. That was all tried in the first two weeks after the publication of the PHB. If you think your solution is obvious then ask yourself why it isn't in common use. Then if you can't work that out ask someone who actually understands the issues why it isn't in common use.

If you have a radical redesign of any of the classes normally proposed (fighter, cleric, bard - and I don't know why no one ever suggests the paladin) that deals with the issues with them, feel free to propose it. But do not assume either that people who want a warlord are arguing in bad faith or that we have root vegetables in place of brains. The exploration of what is there already has been done. If you want the notes from the exploration, ask. But don't say "Hey guys, I found this great way on the map" and then take offence when one of us points out that there's a river in the way and no bridge.

And here's the assuming and mind-reading again. Umbran made the same mistake. I am not upset that people didn't like my idea. I'm an aircraft avionics craftsman. Troubleshooting is what I do, and troubleshooting usually involves trying idea after idea that all fail - until one doesn't. Having my ideas not work, having my ideas refuted or shot-down, having my ideas rationally debunked, are all a matter of course for me. This doesn't upset me in the least. What I was upset about is that people reacted to my idea with the same vague, generalized complaining that has been the hallmark of this continuing conversation, rather than rational and polite discourse. I was upset that they responded with the same dismissiveness and assumptions characterized by your attitude voiced above; the attitude of "[they should just] shut up because it is quite clear that they don't have a clue what they are talking about."

And I'm confounded as to why expressions of this attitude are given a free pass.

As to the idea that "it's all been done": if that were so, then why is everybody still here talking about it?

ENWorld, while definitely providing an entertainment outlet (maybe even predominantly so), is also a legitimate cultural discourse community. Sure, it's subject matter is a game, but it is a game that we all devote substantial time and resources to and take fairly seriously. In my opinion, it's as legitimate a cultural discourse community as any other scholarly discourse community. Whether people are consciously aware of this, doesn't make it any less so.

So, with this being a fairly serious discourse community, if this subject was truly futile, if you or anyone else here participating in this discussion truly thought that all these explorations were the waste of time you characterize them as, then this thread would more than likely not exist, and certainly would not have progressed through 170+ posts.

"It's all been done" is to me just as irrational a justification to not do something as "that's the way we've always done it" is to keep doing something.

I won't ascribe to that thinking.

Are you willing to accept that nothing currently exists in 5e that even comes close to working and any extension to a class would require a radical alteration to that class to change the very way it is intended to function - and that that point there is little difference between that and an entirely new class?

Until I try it and see it not work, No.

I will not limit my potential avenues of inquiry or exploration.

If there was a deadline or other mitigating factor, then I would; but there isn't, so I won't.

 

[El Mahdi]

I need to take a break for a while. The thing I needed the distraction from is now demanding my attention again. Probably won't get back to this until tomorrow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And here's the assuming and mind-reading again. Umbran made the same mistake. I am not upset that people didn't like my idea. I'm an aircraft avionics craftsman. Troubleshooting is what I do, and troubleshooting usually involves trying idea after idea that all fail - until one doesn't. Having my ideas not work, having my ideas refuted or shot-down, having my ideas rationally debunked, are all a matter of course for me. This doesn't upset me in the least. What I was upset about is that people reacted to my idea with the same vague, generalized complaining that has been the hallmark of this continuing conversation, rather than rational and polite discourse. I was upset that they responded with the same dismissiveness and assumptions characterized by your attitude voiced above; the attitude of "[they should just] shut up because it is quite clear that they don't have a clue what they are talking about."

OK.

I suggest you try an experiment when it comes to not limiting your ideas. I suggest you go into your next engineering meeting and suggest replacing the engine with solid concrete. After all, to not look at this option would be limiting your ideas.

I then suggest that you suggest replacing an aluminium body with one of solid steel when trying to get more fuel efficiency out of your plane. After all it's an idea and one that might work. I would say in theory - but I'm not sure what the theory would be. Still, it's an idea and we don't want to limit ourselves.

And once you've offered both those suggestions I suggest that you then accuse the rest of the meeting of not actually wanting to have the problem solved when they point out that the first will have the plane not able to fly at all and the second will make it heavier and this really won't help with fuel efficiency. And that we've already tried the second and it doesn't work.

And I'm confounded as to why expressions of this attitude are given a free pass.

Tell me, would the solid concrete engine as an idea be given a free pass? Would the "make the plane heavier to improve fuel efficiency"?

As to the idea that "it's all been done": if that were so, then why is everybody still here talking about it?

It hasn't all been done. The "Use a fighter" has been done. And doesn't work for well known reasons. Unless you have a new angle on it then that specific idea has not only been done, it's the first idea anyone tries if they come to the conversation cold.

So, with this being a fairly serious discourse community, if this subject was truly futile, if you or anyone else here participating in this discussion truly thought that all these explorations were the waste of time you characterize them as, then this thread would more than likely not exist, and certainly would not have progressed through 170+ posts.

The subject isn't futile. Your direction was futile. And when this was pointed out to you, instead of trying something else, you accused everyone else of discussing matters in bad faith.

I will not limit my potential avenues of inquiry or exploration.

Fine. I take it you attempt to use solid concrete engines at work. Because not to do so would be limiting your potential avenues of inquiry and exploration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As a base fighter, and especially with the Champion archetype, a fighter is most definitely designed for DPR; but it is not restricted to that.

It really is. The mechanism that delivers DPR, multiple attacks, is not readily re-purposes (at least, not in a way that has any precedent among mere sub-class mechanics, the Battlemaster, for instance, adds riders to the fighter's DPR, but they're necessarily very limited, since that DPR is alreay substantial and consistent).

With non-damage dealing maneuvers, ones that are tactical or inspiration based, the main contributor to the fighter's DPR - specifically multiple attacks - becomes an action economy resource rather than a damage dealing mechanic. (@Hussar said the same thing)

He's not alone, I also brought the possibility up, but it is going far beyond what sub-classes normally do as far as altering the capabilities of the base class.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ighter/page7&p=6658990&viewfull=1#post6658990

This is why I wonder if there is another core reason...the one I mentioned earlier...that's truly at the heart of this.

The Warlord was the only new class to appear in the 4e PH1, so the only "4e class" on the table to be considered for inclusion in the 5e PH, and thus the Standard Game (which became some sort of badge of honor that zealots saw as validating their OneTrueWay). The Warlord was the only candidate for the PH1 that was cut. That's pretty clear validation for those who needed it - the possibility of a warlord (that doesn't suck) appearing in a UA or necessarily optional supplemental book 2 or 5 or 10 years from now would in no way take it away.

I guess another possibility is simply that some are having trouble switching their paradigm; merely a mental block that keeps them from seeing the Fighter as nothing but a damage machine.

Since fans of Warlords are, perforce, at least familiar with 4e, and the 4e fighter was not a damage machine (it was a decent secondary striker, but nothing like the 2e or 5e fighter), that seems very unlikely. Rather, the 5e fighter is a DPR machine because it's a call back to the late-1e and 2e double-specialized, dual-wielding or archery fighters, which dealt damage out of all proportion to monster hps from low levels on. Maybe it's not that broken, and it's certainly not tied to those two specific fighting styles, but it's clear the kind of thing they were going for, and they hit it square on.

It's just a design that leaves no room for a worthy sub-class representation of the Warlord. Some thin slice of it, perhaps, or something more closely related to the Battlemaster than to the Warlord.

Overly limiting options for creating a Warlord character build in 5E. It's adopting an all-or-nothing attitude. An either-or fallacy.

5e's a very open system, design wise. There's no reason you couldn't have a Warlord full class with multiple sub-classes, as well as, say, Fighter, Bard, Paladin, or even Rogue sub-classes that also do similar things. Afterall, having the Wizard doesn't stop us from having the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.

Should a Warlord have the same Hit Dice as a Fighter? More? Less?

Less. Probably d8.

Should a Warlord have multiple attacks?

Not as an at-will, core class feature, no.

Should a Warlord have the same Weapon and Armor proficiencies as a Fighter? If not, what should they be?

Weapons, probably yes.
Armor, maybe not. Armor has played different roles in class balancedifferentiation in various editions, though.
And, it could vary by archetype.

What 4E Warlord powers are most iconic, most crucial to defining a Warlord, that they need to be included in a 5E Warlord?

I'd like to say "All of them," but that would be an exaggeration: The 'White Rave' stuff and the 'Hellpath' exploits from Dragon 369 could go.

[sblock]Inspiring Word
Commander’s Strike
Lead the Attack
Own the Battlefield
Guileful Switch
Stand the Fallen
No Gambit Is Wasted
Battlefront Shift
Shake It Off
Knight's Move
Stand Tough
Reorient the Axis
Shift the Field
Rub Some Dirt On It
Wolf Pack Tactics
Hammer and Anvil
Furious Smash
Leaf on the Wind
Pin the Foe
Warlord's Recovery
Tactical Withdrawal
Tactical Shift
Unintended Feint
Marked Revelation
Defensive Rally
Headstrong Bravery
Pincer Maneuver
Withdrawal Gambit
Bravura Charge
Renew the Troops
Pincer Formation
Avenge Me
Pillar to Post
A Plan Comes Together
Viper’s Strike
Powerful Warning
Fearless Rescue
Coordinated Offensive
Lamb to the Slaughter
Provocative Order
Brash Assault
Lead by Example
Opening Shove
Paint the Bulls-Eye
Seize the Upper Hand
Inevitable Wave
Bastion of Defense
Covering Maneuver
Flash of Insight
Adaptive Stratagem
Encouraging Boost
Repositioning Command
Hasty Alert
Spur to Action
Devastating Offensive
Road to Victory
Set the Trap
Follow Me In
Hold the Line
Inspiring War Cry
Pike Hedge
Archery Commander
Brave Warriors
Create Opportunity
Exemplar of Action
I've Got Your Back
Turning Point
Villain’s Nightmare
Reassuring Gesture
Leader's Intercession
Tactical Supervision
Guide the Charge
Inspiring Reaction
Stand Fast
Back to Back
Get Down!
Forward Observer
Phalanx Formation
Rousing Words
Tempting Target
Anchor the Line
Form a Line
Join the Crowd
Friendly Fire
Phalanx Assault
Sacrificial Lure
War of Attrition
On My Mark
Knock Them Down
Beat Them Into the Ground
Sound the Retreat
Heroic Surge
Pull out the Stops
Hold that Thought
Rabbits and Wolves
Ready the Charge
Together We Survive
Surprise Attack
Surround Foe
Stay on Target
Teachable Moment
Coordinated Assault
Blood Designation
Denying Mark
Dangerous Leader
Covering Fire
Judicious Action
Instant Planning
Tactical Orders
Draw Their Eyes
Befuddling Cry
Grim Mark
Ventured Gains
Death from Two Sides
Hope's Renewal
Signal the Charge
Comrade in Arms
Call to Action
Band of Fellows
Make Them Bleed
Warlord’s Gambit
Press on Together
Warning Shout
Help or Hinder
Share the Weight
Flanking Stance
Side by Side
Decisive Timing
Warlord’s Banner
We Will Not Fail
Into the Breach!
Battle On
Anticipate the Target
Inspiring Charge
Unleash Hell
Dance on Their Graves
Break the Tempo
Victory Surge
Hidden Opportunity
Courageous Insight
Sudden Assault
Skirmisher's Command
Victorious Destiny
Forceful Leader
Help Where It's Needed
Vigilant Commander
Relentless Assault
Stir the Hornet’s Nest
Brutal Setup
Combined Arms Assault
Raise the Bar
Incite Heroism
Defy Death
Break it Up
Victory by Design
Flawless Snare
Partners in Battle
Stand Invincible
Vengeance is Mine
Destructive Surprise
Orchestrated Offensive
Calculated Assault
Concentrated Attack
Hammer Formation
Nimble Footwork
Create a Target
Direct the Strike
Expert Timing
Inspire Resilience
A Rock and a Hard Place
Bait the Hook
Rousing Call
Directed Combat
Surging Assault
Terrain Dominance
Scent of Victory
Inspiring Shot
Leader's Instincts
Pin Cushion
Race the Arrow
Rousing Assault
Warlord's Favor
Cunning Adjustment
Heroic Effort
Inspired Belligerence
Motivated Recovery
Reckless Opportunity
Aid the Injured
Interrupting Strike
Bloody Ending
Flattening Charge
Battering Command
Deadly Distraction
Situational Advantage
Martial Vigor
Encouraging Stance
Invigorating Shout
Quick Step
Polearm Vault
Fierce Reply
Threatening Presence
Withering Courage
Martial Excitation
Tactician's Favor
Deadly Returns
Provoke Overextension
General's Gift
Sudden Motivation
Lion's Roar
Awakened Wrath
Disheartening Flurry
Iron Dragon Charge
Rallying Deflection
Warlord's Denial
Bolstering Shout
Strider Stance
Ease Suffering
Impromptu Attack
Invitational Assault
Defensive Offense
Bolstering Blow
Anticipate Attack
Formidable Smash
Grim Instruction
Infectious Determination
War Master's Assault
Encouraging Remark
Forbidden Ground
Hero's Defiance
Forced Respect
Vanishing Forces
Deadly Inspiration
Girding Strike
Pincer Shot
Hail of Steel
Warlord’s Rush
Exhorted Counterattack
War Dance
End to Games
Leader of the Bowmen
Windmill of Doom
Quickening Order
Bloodthirsty Offensive
Rush of Battle
Defensive Ground
Heart of the Titan[/sblock] Really, though, the 'iconic' ones would vary from table to table, depending on what folks played. It's not like magic-user spells, which have been shaken out, added to, and mulled over for decades.

Also, 5e is more open than other editions, so there's actually room for new/different ideas, in addition to what's already been established about the class in its first incarnation...

Okay.

So, just for a place to start, let's take the Fighter chasis.

Now, let's strip out Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3 (at least for right now, we may want them later as an action economy resource...)

Think about that for a moment: what do you have left?

HD, proficiencies... and...?

 

[Tony Vargas]

However all parties should have a panic button - and this sort of panic button requires in-combat healing to a point that even downed PCs are able to pull themselves back to their feet and leg it. And this sort of panic button is the domain even of the most anti-social of tactical warlords.

It is further extremely desirable that parties with no spellcasters at all should work effectively. One of the good things the Warlord did to the metagame was removed the requirement for clerics.

Or other magical means of recovering hps.

This all means that any warlord should be able to take as an optional class feature that grants in-combat healing even if it is not a default for all warlords. And it should be a single ability rather than tie them to a path.

That's easier the more flexible the sub-system used for the Warlord is. If there's a "Rally" use of an Inspiration mechanic, among a dozen or so other possible ways of using Inspiration, for instance, it's trivially easy for a given warlord to opt-out because it doesn't fit concept, or opt-in because his party really needs it. There's plenty of precedent for at least that level of flexibility among 5e classes.

Deciding on the hit dice at the start is putting the cart before the horse. d8 is the aesthetically appealing one - but in practice the fighter is not a d10 class. With Second Wind they get d10 extra HP and an extra hp per level, making them closer to d12.

All else being equal, d8 would be preferable to d10.

D&D has tended to value HD and hps (and armor) very highly. A classic D&D Cleric, for instance, had d8 HD and tended to use d6 weapons instead of d8 weapons, but wore the same armor as a fighter and started with an identical combat matrix at 1st level. Unless the fighter started with an 18 STR and/or 17 or 18 CON, that was the extent of the difference. In return for that, on average 1 more hp, and 1 more damage per round, the Cleric got spellcasting and Turn Undead.

Lots of classes, who, unlike the fighter, have many & varied abilities, have d8s.

I would therefore default the warlord's hit dice to a d8 (putting them level with a cleric), but this is a number I'd pencil in pending first writing other features then playtesting. A d10 would not on its own be incompatible with the warlord being a warlord. And I suspect that I speak for almost almost all Warlord fans in this, that all else being equal d8 is the way to go, but a d10 would not be a dealbreaker.

Sure, if the Warlord got everything it should have, and a d10 HD as a cherry on top, fine.

And yes, I have no problems with subtypes of Warlord having spells. It just shouldn't be the default.

If it didn't, it'd be the /only/ 5e class who had no access to magic at all!' Actually, warlords, in general, should be able to work with casters as easily as non-casters, if only because they constitute the majority of classes & sub-classes. You can't just have a tactic do something like "your allies gain advantage..." you'd have to extend it to "...and enemy have disadvantage on saving throws forced by your allies." The design would need to continually take into account how the various classes could be aided by the warlord - you can't just throw down an attack bonus and figure that always benefits everyone.

 

[aramis erak]

I keep hearing this, but no offense, I don't really believe you. Do you happen to have a link handy?

It was early during the playtests. That portion of the boards no longer exists.

 

[El Mahdi]

It hasn't all been done. The "Use a fighter" has been done. And doesn't work for well known reasons. Unless you have a new angle on it then that specific idea has not only been done, it's the first idea anyone tries if they come to the conversation cold.

The very fact that you said "unless you have a new angle" belies that even you believe it may not be an exhausted avenue of exploration. You can't know and I can't know until I actually try it.

Why are you so intent on shutting down that avenue? What do you have to lose by my trying?

I suggest you go into your next engineering meeting and suggest replacing the engine with solid concrete. After all, to not look at this option would be limiting your ideas.

I then suggest that you suggest replacing an aluminium body with one of solid steel when trying to get more fuel efficiency out of your plane. After all it's an idea and one that might work. I would say in theory - but I'm not sure what the theory would be. Still, it's an idea and we don't want to limit ourselves.

And once you've offered both those suggestions I suggest that you then accuse the rest of the meeting of not actually wanting to have the problem solved when they point out that the first will have the plane not able to fly at all and the second will make it heavier and this really won't help with fuel efficiency. And that we've already tried the second and it doesn't work.

Tell me, would the solid concrete engine as an idea be given a free pass? Would the "make the plane heavier to improve fuel efficiency"?

Fine. I take it you attempt to use solid concrete engines at work. Because not to do so would be limiting your potential avenues of inquiry and exploration.

These are strawman arguments and ludicrous scenarios. They are also insulting and uncalled for.

I'd really prefer if we could keep this thread from being shut down. I think there's a chance something productive can come of it.

That's completely your choice though.

 

[El Mahdi]

Think about that for a moment: what do you have left?

For me: a simple, familiar place to start.

If it didn't, it'd be the /only/ 5e class who had no access to magic at all!' Actually, warlords, in general, should be able to work with casters as easily as non-casters, if only because they constitute the majority of classes & sub-classes. You can't just have a tactic do something like "your allies gain advantage..." you'd have to extend it to "...and enemy have disadvantage on saving throws forced by your allies." The design would need to continually take into account how the various classes could be aided by the warlord - you can't just throw down an attack bonus and figure that always benefits everyone.

That's some really meaty food for thought.


BTW, thank you for your courteous reply.

 

[fuindordm]

A few quick responses to various points:

Personally, I'm very comfortable giving the warlord a d10, because it is still a kind of soldier, and expected to fight on the front lines. I would give them full weapon and armor proficiency too, and the second attack at L5 that all other martials get.

Tony made a very good point that their support powers should help spellcasters too--but I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe an ability that gives all adjacent foes disadvantage on Dex saves, as the warlord "herds" them into the line of fire?

I definitely don't expect a 5E warlord to duplicate the push/pull/slide functionality of the 4E warlord, because the 5E version has to support ToTM play. It just needs to have class abilities that support its theme, and deliver some of its DPR through the other PCs. The healing provided by the 5E warlord also doesn't need to be as frequent or as powerful, since the role of HP in the two editions is VERY different; in 4E HP had enormous short-term variation -- healing surges were the real measure of combat stamina. In 5E HP have returned to their traditional role of ablative defense.

In my mind, the important goal for a 5E version is not to duplicate the mechanics of the 4E version, but to satisfy the kind of player who was attracted to the 4E warlord. This is the person who doesn't need to be the center of attention but enjoys supporting the other players, but also doesn't want to play a spellcaster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok, so if the goal is to replicate as closely as possible the previous warlord experience, the answers to your questions would be:

Less HD.
No to multiple attacks, but granting them to allies->yes
Martial weapons and medium armour
I need time to list them...but there are several, and they include action-granting, defensive stuff, move-granting, tactical considerations, and healing

It's also worth noting that two abilities that do the same sort of thing don't really need to be consolidated, and, indeed, may really need to be kept separate to maintain versatilty, flavor, and remain true to the class. 5e didn't condense all the damaging spells down to Magic Missile, for example.

Honestly, it works better for grid-players than TotM, but that isn't an insurmountable obstacle.

It's also an opportunity: TotM is more abstract, looser, and lends itself well to more narrative styles. That opens up the possibility of more 'tactics' or stratagems that shift the course of the battle in a broad way, rather than get lost in the details of re-arranging figures on map. Own the Battlefield, for instance, could be quite different, and possibly more dramatic and intuitive.

Tony made a very good point that their support powers should help spellcasters too--but I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe an ability that gives all adjacent foes disadvantage on Dex saves, as the warlord "herds" them into the line of fire?

In 4e, it was prettymuch automatic, but it's not that hard to adapt to 5e. When a spell (usually a cantrip) uses an attack roll, it's straightforward, anything the warlord does to improve attacks could apply (maybe language to point that out would be helpful). When spells grant saves instead, you just need to repeat/invert that kind of language. It's inefficient in presentation, but doable. An example of a warlord exploit that was more pointed at casters would be "Join the Crowd," the Warlord used it as an interrupt to slide an enemy into an ally's AE. But...

I definitely don't expect a 5E warlord to duplicate the push/pull/slide functionality of the 4E warlord, because the 5E version has to support ToTM play.

...there is that expectation that 5e is specifically designed for "TotM" and thus can't handle forced movement, shifting, OAs, and the like. Thing is, 5e is, if anything, more detailed - more granular, I should say - when handling movement, range/area, and positioning (ie: to the foot, instead of 5' square or 10' "inch"). Though there's fewer effects that do it, nothing prevents involuntary movement from working. Thunderwave is an obvious example, pushing victims 10' back.

But, 5e is also a lot more open to novel and one-off mechanics or effects that might be more open to DM interpretation, so there's really a tremendous amount of 'room' to take a power that does something bland, if clear & consistent, like "slide STR mod in squares," (to paraphrase part of the hit line of JtC), to something that still fulfills the intent, like "place the target in the triggering spell's Area of Effect."

Another interesting example of this is Wolf Pack Tactics, a fairly popular Warlord at-will which let an ally adjacent to the target shift 1 square. There's no shifting or squares in 5e, but the net result of WPT was usually either to take the ally out of the enemy's threatened area or move it into a flanking position. That would correspond to letting the ally disengage or granting the ally advantage against that enemy. In 5e, that's really rather powerful, since disengage is an action, where shift 1 was only a move, and the corresponding 5' step was free. Similarly, there's an at-will cantrip that /just/ causes an enemy to grant advantage.

It just needs to have class abilities that support its theme, and deliver some of its DPR through the other PCs. The healing provided by the 5E warlord also doesn't need to be as frequent or as powerful, since ... HP have returned to their traditional role of ablative defense.

Having played the game since 1980, I question that idea. Hit points are a limiting resource on the length of the 'day.' Run out of hps, go back to town and rest, that was the classic D&D dynamic back in the day. Clerical healing extended the day, but couldn't get a dead (or dropped to negatives) character back into the fight - if your hps reach 0, you either died, or you went into negatives and it would take a full week of rest before you could adventure again, assuming you survived (depending on which DMG option your DM used - IMX, it was usually negatives) - so healing tended to happen immediately, before the ally was dropped, and once it was used up, you'd need to 'rest' and the cleric would re-memorize spells as all Cure..Wounds and heal everyone up, then rest another day to get a full slate of spells, and back you went. In 5e, HD let you heal in only an hour, overnight healing is automatic without having to go through the formality of re-memorizing and blowing through Cure Wounds spells, and (as it has been for a long time now) in-combat use of a healing spell will pop a dropped ally up and back into the fight. You have the capacity to start most combats at or near full hps, either from HD or spells and you can stand up dropped allies in the middle of the fight. Further, there's the opposite incentive as in the classic game: instead of healing an ally as soon as you could do so without 'wasting' healing, you wait until he's dropped, because you heal up from zero, meaning the enemy 'wastes' damage each time an ally is dropped - that's a massive difference from dropping meaning a week of bedrest! So, in 5e, in-combat healing is critical, and in some ways, optimal.

In my mind, the important goal for a 5E version is not to duplicate the mechanics of the 4E version, but to satisfy the kind of player who was attracted to the 4E warlord. This is the person who doesn't need to be the center of attention but enjoys supporting the other players, but also doesn't want to play a spellcaster.

That's true of the mechanics in the first part of it, yes. There's also the concept - usually the Warlord player doesn't want to use the concept of a magic-using character, rather than want to avoid the complex mechanics of spellcasting. The serious support role requires a fairly significant amount of versatility, at the 'cost' of greater complexity, which the Warlord needs to provide. The stereotype of the martial-perfering player wanting a simplistic character doesn't apply in this case (and doesn't apply nearly as often as people seem to think).