One thing that confuses discussion of low/no 'magic' campaigns in whether 'magic' refers to caster resources, magic items, or both. I was referring mainly to casters. You could have an all-martial party in a regular-magic campaign, for instance, just because no one wanted to play a caster of any kind. Or you could have a low/no magic campaign where casters are restricted or banned.
1e-2e had a fair amount of magic classes and clerical magic was all but required to heal in a reasonable rate.
True, perhaps even understated.
3e was rife with magic, with everyone having a magical arsenal.
Magic items were also assumed in 4e and there was no non-magical controller.
Both had rules for inherent bonuses that reduced or eliminated magic item dependency, though that's of secondary interest. 3e lacked formal roles, and controller was the most dispensable role. 4e worked seamlessly whether you included items or used inherent bonuses, 3e required at least magic items and UMD for Wands of CLW and the like, so fell short when you got into low/no magic in terms of both casters and items even if you used inherent bonuses. 3e also ran into issues out of the lowest levels because CR was calibrated with spells & items assumed (and at the lowest levels before WoCLW became trivially available). 5e offers very few non-caster options (5 out of 38 sub-classes in the PH), and there's not a lot of variety among those options. They're all primarily focused on contributing DPR, whether it's via multi-attacking, rage or SA. But, 5e does have HD & overnight healing, and with a little tweaking, they could be adequate for handling healing over the course of the day even without magic items - all it needs is another primarily-non-casting class or two to open up a wider range of capabilities & contributions and it's there.
Yes, there are people that are inspiring. They can convince people to fight for a cause, but once they are fighting I doubt they can make them fight any better.
History should alleviate your doubts. Morale has very often been the most important factor in determining victory in military engagements.
Certainly not on a blow by blow basis. Someone mentioned a boxing coach. Do you really thing a boxer is twice as effective if the coach is in the corner saying, "Hit him again! Hit him harder!" Really?
Matches aren't determined on margins like that, no. 5% more effective could be decisive.
There is nothing inconsistent about magic in D&D.
It is, arbitrarily, what it is. D&D magic isn't consistent with genre, with RL beliefs about magic, or anything else other than the way magic has been handled in D&D.
It is the fact that my character has to be inspired by your character to gain the effect. No only that, but he gains the effect whether I want my character to be inspired or not. I can choose to not use the effect, but it doesn't change the fact that my character was inspired, against my will, and can take an extra attack now. Refusing to use it doesn't change that.
There's no reason to think the /player/ declining the extra attack wouldn't mean that he's deciding his PC wasn't inspired. For that matter, if you're not an 'ally' you could decline many magical effects, as well. It really seems like it could only be a problem for a player who was determined to make it a problem.
* The only real difference in 4e between a defender and a controller is that the former acts in melee rather than at range - the distinction, therefore, is mostly a legacy one, intended to preserve the classic D&D contrast between the fighter and the wizard.
The Controller Role did feel a little 'legacy,' yes, like it was contrived to justify the wizard having better powers than the other PH1 classes. Most classes had secondary roles, and most roles had more than one sort of contribution to make. Controllers de-buffed and locked down enemies, swept away minions, and altered the battlefield. They tended to do so at range, but the Druid could do so in melee, as well, for example. No Martial class was formally a controller or called out as a secondary controller the way the Cleric was, but each could cover a little bit of controller functionality. You mentioned fighters with close burst attacks, he also had a cleave at will. The Rogue and Warlord had a few, too, and Rogue and Ranger the odd close blast, the Ranger even having some ranged bursts. So there's your minion-sweeping. You're also right that defenders essentially de-buffed/locked-down enemies in melee, and that overlaps the controller role some. All the classes also has condition they could impose, and the Warlord has some de-buffing. So, while you couldn't really call any one Martial Class a controller or even a secondary controller (the Ranger probably came closest to the latter).
