Ah, got it.
Yes, some people do seem opposed to some of the mechanics.
Yet there are existing mechanics that do the kinds of things the warlord could, and should, and might reasonably be expanded to do, and they don't draw the same opposition, so it's not the mechanics that are problematic.
There are also "fluff" options available that hint at the some of concepts the warlord could cover, and they don't draw the same opposition, so they're not problematic, either.
All that remains to bring back the Warlord for 5e is to put together enough similar mechanics to support that complete set of concepts in a self-consistent way, above and beyond the Role & Balance constrained way that 4e used. The objection to that can't be the mechanics, can't be the fluff, so it has to be, what? The combination of the two?
I think so, because that combination definitional to the Warlord.
And the Dispel Magic argument is just a distraction. Sure, that's a real mechanical effect, but it's an edge case.
It's just an
example a very clear one, that illustrates that D&D in general, and 5e in particular treats different fluff differently, with different mechanics and different interactions. So, while it's not hard to think of ways of re-skinning one thing as another, it does not play well with the rest of the game, it's even at odds with it's design philosophy. There /are/ games that assume re-skinning, they're lovely games, but they're not D&D, and they're most definitely not 5e. Re-skinning can work when the underlying concept isn't that different. Re-skinning a Rogue as a duelist or a battlemaster as a sneaky opportunist isn't much at odds, for instance. Re-skinning a Sorcerer as receiving his power from a curse instead of a bloodline, or a Warlock as having a magical 'talent' rather than a pact, doesn't change the nature of their powers in a way that has implications that inform the mechanics. Re-skinning a Bard as a Paladin or a Wizard as a rogue would be pushing it pretty hard.
However, my opposition is specifically because of the fluff. I'm ok with "you are healed because...well, it's magic". What I'm not ok with is "you are healed because your character find's somebody else's character to be inspiring". The latter is telling me what my character thinks.
Hypothetical Warlord inspirational healing, the Inspiring Leader feat, and quite a lot of other things, really, could end up dictating to you how your character feels about someone providing the inspiration. That is, if the mechanic left you no 'out' to feel differently, say by declining the effect. It happens that the 4e Warlord's 300+ powers were generally* phrased such that the player of the character receiving the benefit had to accept it - choose to spend a surge or an action, even if only a free action, for instance, or even just continue to count yourself an 'ally.' So it didn't actually remove that, though it was certainly to your benefit to accept it if you could see your way clear to. Of course, there's no guarantee that 5e, with it's natural language and loser class designs would always make it explicit and clear that you retained control over your character's emotional responses - you have to depend on the DM to rule in your favor, in that as in all things.
So, actually, I can see your point, and see it as a reason to personally approach the class with some caution. If someone's going to play a warlord, you should make sure they understand how you feel about the implications, and work out how your characters should relate - if nothing else, so he understand why you're declining buffs and the like. There's a lot of potential tensions like that in any RPG. You're particularly sensitive to this one, apparently, but it's not unique. I've seen people exercised about paladins, clerics, warlocks, thieves, races like kinder (to go pick up some low-hanging fruit), and on and on. Sometimes the game element that gets someone's goat is perfectly understandable, sometimes it's a real head-scratcher. If it makes you feel any better, I find your concern way over on the understandable side. It's just no reason for 5e to exclude a class from a past edition PH 1 that opened up new campaign and play styles, and party compositions that weren't practical before. It /is/ a reason for players to treat eachother with some respect at the table, and in both directions.
So mechanics that I'm willing to accept from an Avatar or a Cleric or a Bard are not necessarily mechanics I'm willing to accept from a character whose fluff is "other people look up to your natural leadership and general all-around awesomeness".
I think it's worth separating them in that context. The mechanics aren't the problem for you, the fluff is where you have an issue. It's OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept and how you picture him, as long as they use supernatural means. It's only someone pulling one over on you using a skill or natural ability (however extraordinary, however poorly your character may be defined as being able to cope with such things) that's unacceptable. Someone fooling your -1 WIS, untrained Insight character when you think he shouldn't believe them. Unacceptable. Someone slipping you a Helm of Opposite Alignment and turning your do-gooding Paladin into an inhuman fiend, no problem.
It's not a new or unfamiliar or unjustified idea. Back in the day (for those who weren't there), that's very much how we did things. There were a few mechanics, like morale, that determined how a character felt or reacted, and they often exempted PCs, explicitly. A PC could stand and fight to the last every time, never checking morale, because they're the heroes, they're made of sturner stuff than the NPCs. Now, for whatever reason, we don't have morale checks, at all. We have magical effects that impose the frightened condition. :shrug:
Personally, I think it blows that classes which are presumably meant to represent fearless heroes of legend lack proficiency in WILL and CHA saves.
A common response to that is, "It's just fluff...ignore it." But then when I say, "Well, the Cleric and the Bard also have fluff...why can't you ignore that?" all of the sudden the fluff becomes really important.
I'm not saying my position conclusively demonstrates that the Warlord shouldn't exist, just that the validity of my position is equal to the validity of the pro-Warlord position.
It's not. "I'd like to be able to play a good 5e version of a class I could play from the PH1 in a past edition, one that enables styles of play that edition did, and this one doesn't do as well, yet" is not unreasonable or invalid at all. It's something anyone who wanted to play /any other class from a past-edition PH1 already has/. Telling everyone who will ever play D&D what classes they can and can't play, ever, by contrast, is not reasonable. Dealing with table issues with global system solutions is not a valid approach.
I'm not saying you're the bad guy here. I'm saying, wanting to play a certain character a certain way is a personal thing. It's not right for the game to say 'no you can't,' especially when you've been able to in the game, before. It's not right for one player choice to mechanically dictate another. An LG Paladin in the group doesn't mechanically mean you can't have a CE Walock, they're powers won't cancel out or anything, but they are going to have to figure out how it's going to work RP-wise. It's something that needs to be worked out at the table level. Which classes does the DM find appropriate to the campaign, which do the players want to play, which set certain players' teeth on edge, which concepts have compatibility issues, how can we work it out so we can all enjoy a game of D&D?
That's not something that can be hashed out here, conclusively (though it can certainly be discussed productively, especially /how/ to deal with such issues, rather than whether they exist), it's not something for WotC to dictate from on high.
It's for DM's and their players.
* a few that weren't early on were later errata'd to do so.
But, "enhancement to what HD are already doing" is a healing effect. We're adding hp to the character without actually having to cast any magic.
