Undrave
Legend
That's not a principle of 4e.or not! the 4e principle of martial powers being the same as magic can still hold and there's no reason your warlord can't use faerie fire and call it "cover everyone with flour" if you want
You're right, there is a ton of Warlord-like mechanics in 5e, including on the Monsters side. The monsters are a little bare bone but I can see it. Really, the issue is pulling them all into a single class progression.I pointed out that Wizards of the Coast has published a 5th Edition Warlord (twice) as a NPC/monster, and I suggested that from their stat blocks we could infer what Wizards of the Coast might consider "a warlord" to look like.
Then I promptly got shown the door, and that's fine, but my point still stands: if WotC were to make a playable version of a Warlord class, it would probably look a lot like the versions they have already published. They've made playable versions of monsters and NPCs before, it's not like there isn't a precedent for this.
Anyway, that's all I really had to say about it.
In the tradition of warlord conversations not being about the warlord, this is a conversation about why 5e might be reluctant to officially add classes, and there are reasons for that beyond "Make warlord fans suffer." This is actually the SAME conversation that the psion fans want to have.
... I'm not sure how this relate specifically to what I said?
As a side note, my Warlord was specifically built to NOT use a limited resource like superiority dice. It's basically a Rogue chassis with a second attack and a bit more AC in place of the usual Rogue abilities. Even the subclass use the same patterns with 2 abilities at 3rd level and 1 of each at 9th, 13th and 17th, with 9 being more ribbon-esque.