What classes does D&D Next need?

What I mean specifically with the title question is, what concepts do you people feel are needed as separate classes, which are suficiently covered by specialties or domains/traditions/pacts/bloodlines/fighting styles whatever they're all called, and which concepts will be covered (sufficiently) by multiclassing, should that make it to the final release?

For instance: Is the paladin really needed, or is it enough to give a cleric specialty to a fighter (this is NOT my opinion regarding the paladin, btw)?

Is the bard needed (YES!! :P) or is it enough to swap out sneak attack with songs and pick Magic User for a rogue?

I myself am not certain what I think, but I would like to hear what you think in a thread covering all classes and needs for concept coverage.
I think it's "necessary" to have both. Let's take the Paladin, for example. There should be several ways to make a Paladin type of character that functions similarly but different depending on taste. Here's how I think Paladins should be able to be made:

1. A Paladin class with it's own unique features and abilties.
2. A Fighter with some Cleric levels for a Paladin that focuses more on physical combat but has some prayers they can use.
3. A Cleric with some Fighter levels for a Paladin that focuses more on prayers but has some combat prowess as well.
4. A Paladin with some Fighter or Cleric levels to taste.
5. A Fighter/Cleric with a Speciality to make them some what Fightery or Clericy.

They're all recognizable as a Paladin but they function differently. I think that kind of customizability should be default assumption.
First tier of importance:

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Second tier of importance:

Druid
Ranger
Paladin

Third tier of importance:

Monk 
Bard
Sorcerer
Warlock
Psion

Fourth tier of importance:

anything else                    
What does it need?

Fighter, Cleric, Thief, & Magic-user.

What should it have in addition to the above?

Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Ranger.

Any classes beyond these have always felt hastily tacked-on and out-of-place to me.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Anything that has been in the game for four or more editions simply has to be in 5e. Period. It's part of the game now and conciousness of the game. 
Anything that has been in the game for three editions should be strongly considered or included as a very visible sub-option. 
Anything that has been in the game for two editions should be carefully examined and seen if it overlaps or stands on its own. If it has value it can stay.
Anything that has been in the game for one editon needs to justify its existance. It needs to be unique and different and fill a niche that is hard to fill otherwise. It it doesn't stand alone it can be used as inspiration for bolstering or improving other options. 

Examples
Warlord. It's kinda been around for two editons if you count the marshal. But it overlaps a lot with the fighter in both cases, and really exists because early 4e had firm roles for classes. It can be used as a fighter build nicely, identified as the warlord build. Which gives warlord fans a class they can play while keeping the fighter interesting and unique while also giving it more options. 

Battlemind. Terrible disparity between flavour and mechanics. Exists as a grid-filler class, the defender role using psionic power. Has nothing in common with 3e version (psychic warrior) save the power source. Can go away. 

Warlock. Has been around for two editions. Pretty much just a wizard with variant spellcasting system. But the flavour is strong and the story is unique to that class. It really works and is a solid additon. It stays. 

Assassin. Has been in three editions, being a Prestige Class in 3e. So it should probably show-up somewhere, either as a class or a shadow-focused build of the thief. Or, my personal preference, merging with the ninja so it's a bit of both. Shadow power and the ki/martial arts of the ninja. 

Tieflings. They've been around for three editions. And they're unique and interesting. They stay. 

Eladrin. Pretty much "high elves for a game without subraces", designed and added to the game under the idea that it was confusing to have two different types of elves in the Core rules. But... the idea of this progenitor elven people who continue to live in the Feywild/Faerie is cool. They're not a Core race per se but worthy of inclusion in later books. Keep them.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

Think of it functionally. I think the 4e red box got a lot of things horribly wrong, but one of the few it got right was the way the choose-your-own-adventure style intro helped new players select classes. Instead of saying "fighter? wizard? rogue?" it asked "given this situation, how would you handle it? Sneaky? Aggressive?"

I use a similar test to help my son's friends choose a class: if you were having a locked door, and had to get through it any way you could, what would you do? Say open sesame? You're a wizard. Bash it in? Fighter. Etc.

Looked at that way, you get a few obvious playstyles. Sneaky. Direct. Imaginative. Helpful. Based on those broad differences, you cover the core four classes:

Thief
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric.

Then add the various combinations of those classes for players with hybrid playstyles. A direct, aggressive fighter type with a steal of helpful cleric yields a paladin, for instance. This gives you:

Paladin
Ranger
Spellsword
Bard
Druid

done. No need for any more. There are no classes not covered by those archetypes.
Anything that has been in the game for four or more editions simply has to be in 5e. Period. It's part of the game now and conciousness of the game. 
Anything that has been in the game for three editions should be strongly considered or included as a very visible sub-option. 
Anything that has been in the game for two editions should be carefully examined and seen if it overlaps or stands on its own. If it has value it can stay.
Anything that has been in the game for one editon needs to justify its existance. It needs to be unique and different and fill a niche that is hard to fill otherwise. It it doesn't stand alone it can be used as inspiration for bolstering or improving other options.



Wizard
Healer for Wizard
Door opener for Wizard
Meat shield for wizard
Some other people who do, ummmm, woodsy stuff?
Some people who do something where wavy lines come out of their heads? I don't really know, I don't pay attention to them.



Yeah, that about covers it.
Sometimes players wish a totally different class because always the classic four (fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue) has became too boring and wish something more....exotic, like a sohei, sha´ir, psionic ardent, shaman, favored soul, (Dragonlance) knight, (Dark Sun) gladiator, artificier, dread necromancer..

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Wizard & Wizard variants – Sorcerer, Warlock

Cleric & Cleric Variants – Druid, Paladin

Fighter & Fighter Variants – Barbarian, Monk

Rogue & Rogue Variants – Bard, Ranger

All together 12 classes. Each varient would express a different version of a core class that may draw features from another core class.

Anything that has been in the game for four or more editions simply has to be in 5e. Period. It's part of the game now and conciousness of the game. 
Anything that has been in the game for three editions should be strongly considered or included as a very visible sub-option. 
Anything that has been in the game for two editions should be carefully examined and seen if it overlaps or stands on its own. If it has value it can stay.
Anything that has been in the game for one editon needs to justify its existance. It needs to be unique and different and fill a niche that is hard to fill otherwise. It it doesn't stand alone it can be used as inspiration for bolstering or improving other options. 

Examples
Warlord. It's kinda been around for two editons if you count the marshal. But it overlaps a lot with the fighter in both cases, and really exists because early 4e had firm roles for classes. It can be used as a fighter build nicely, identified as the warlord build. Which gives warlord fans a class they can play while keeping the fighter interesting and unique while also giving it more options. 

Battlemind. Terrible disparity between flavour and mechanics. Exists as a grid-filler class, the defender role using psionic power. Has nothing in common with 3e version (psychic warrior) save the power source. Can go away. 

Warlock. Has been around for two editions. Pretty much just a wizard with variant spellcasting system. But the flavour is strong and the story is unique to that class. It really works and is a solid additon. It stays. 

Assassin. Has been in three editions, being a Prestige Class in 3e. So it should probably show-up somewhere, either as a class or a shadow-focused build of the thief. Or, my personal preference, merging with the ninja so it's a bit of both. Shadow power and the ki/martial arts of the ninja. 

Tieflings. They've been around for three editions. And they're unique and interesting. They stay. 

Eladrin. Pretty much "high elves for a game without subraces", designed and added to the game under the idea that it was confusing to have two different types of elves in the Core rules. But... the idea of this progenitor elven people who continue to live in the Feywild/Faerie is cool. They're not a Core race per se but worthy of inclusion in later books. Keep them.



I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 
I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 


The fact that there's an entire thread for just the warlord suggests it's inclusion should not be automatc, that its inclusion is debatable. Unlike the swordmage or artificer, which don't have their own threads.

Personally,  while I love me some support classes, and really like the warlord. But when I try and think of an offensive or defensive warlord all I see is a fighter. When I think of a leader-build of the fighter, the warlord pops up. And the CS mechanic lends itself very, very well to the warlord. Spending dice to grant extra actions or bonuses to hit or extra damage. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 


Oooh.  I didn't see that.  Yes, warlord better be its own class.
It's an interesting question, if one remains truly objective.

I'd say the game needs to have every class that was present in the 3E PHB, which (anecdotally) was the PHB seen by the largest number of players, potential players and casual perusers. -- Those classes are the truly, truly iconic classes of Dungeons & Dragons.

Everything else is just gravy.

Danny

If one isn't objective, I'd have to say that the answer is dependent upon who you're asking.

If you were asking me, I'd say that D&D isn't D&D without a Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Bard. -- Without any of those, D&D isn't D&D.

The answer will differ for everyone.

Danny

Warlord has more claim to being a distinct class than other outside of the old ftr-wiz-rog-clr quad. It's the first class to do some thing really different since those four solidified. Just because it uses similar equipment to the fighter doesn't make a fighter. The warlord grants axtra actions and co-ordinates attacks in a way the fighters never could. 

Basically there are four things a class can choose to focus on.

Destruction
Control
Protection
Amplification

The cleric dabbled in amplification, and the bard dabbled a bit harder, but the warlord is the first class to take it to the level where it's on par with a wizard's destructive abilities or a cleric's protective powers. The warlord multiplies the power of the party, while the cleric or the bard can only offer additive enhancements. The warlord's combat priorities are as different from a fighter's as a wizard's are from a rogue's. So people should stop spreading lies about how the warlord overlaps with the fighter or the cleric.

There needs to be a warrior type, a magic user, an agility class, a healer, and a warlord.

Which exact classes get used are irrelevant to me.

So for example I'd be fine with

Paladin (warrior and healer)
Illusionist 
Druid (agility based shapechanger)
Warlord

If we go for a more classic feel this would be a fine list

Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
Fighter
Warlord

If I'm getting things all my own way these would be the core classes.

Psion
Berserker
Rogue
Bard
Druid (as a healer-ish type class this time)
Warlord


I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 


The fact that there's an entire thread for just the warlord suggests it's inclusion should not be automatc, that its inclusion is debatable. Unlike the swordmage or artificer, which don't have their own threads.

Personally,  while I love me some support classes, and really like the warlord. But when I try and think of an offensive or defensive warlord all I see is a fighter. When I think of a leader-build of the fighter, the warlord pops up. And the CS mechanic lends itself very, very well to the warlord. Spending dice to grant extra actions or bonuses to hit or extra damage. 



The problem is, if it isn't a class, it will not be a complete warlord. It will be a watered down shell of its former self. The Fighter doesn't need to be stretched that thin. It will also be sort of a middle finger to the 4e fans, as the Warlord is probably one of the most universall beloved classes from that edition. It defines everything we love about the game.
What classes does Next need?  None.
What classes it will have is another matter altogether.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
What classes does Next need?  None.
What classes it will have is another matter altogether.


Great addition to the discussion.
It will also be sort of a middle finger to the 4e fans, as the Warlord is probably one of the most universall beloved classes from that edition. It defines everything we love about the game.


This is the best argument I've seen for including the Warlord. A class which is held in such high regard simply deserves a spot. Just like the sorcerer will not replace the wizard because we love the wizard.

And I, for one, do think titles are important! I don't think I'm alone on this.

My list btw, is materializing to:

Fighter
Wizard
Rogue
Cleric
Paladin
Bard
Druid
Ranger
Swordmage (or duskblade as it was in 3.5 or whatever name)
Warlord (not that I want it, but I respect the argument above)

Others that candidate, but don't quite matter to me:
Barbarian
Sorcerer
Warlock
Psion
Monk
Anything that has been in the game for four or more editions simply has to be in 5e. Period. It's part of the game now and conciousness of the game. 
Anything that has been in the game for three editions should be strongly considered or included as a very visible sub-option. 
Anything that has been in the game for two editions should be carefully examined and seen if it overlaps or stands on its own. If it has value it can stay.
Anything that has been in the game for one editon needs to justify its existance. It needs to be unique and different and fill a niche that is hard to fill otherwise. It it doesn't stand alone it can be used as inspiration for bolstering or improving other options.






I copied the picture so I can use it, too. I hope you don't mind.
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
Wizard
Healer for Wizard
Door opener for Wizard
Meat shield for wizard
Some other people who do, ummmm, woodsy stuff?
Some people who do something where wavy lines come out of their heads? I don't really know, I don't pay attention to them.



Yeah, that about covers it.


Oh and, thank you for this! :P
I'm going to talk about keep / don't keep, and say little of Core/not Core.

  I've only played 4E, so I'll speak only to those options, starting with the obvious keepers:

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Include them or die.

Warlord: Has a tremendous following all its own, and its adherents have convinced even me (who first thought it should be a specialty) that it should have its own class. Stay.

Paladin: Okay, yes, can easily be seen as a fighter/cleric combo, but it has its own niche now, becoming iconic in its own right. Stay.

Avenger: Less-armored Paladin? Pissed-off Cleric? Pass.

Invoker: "I smite you with the power of my wizardly power! I mean, divine magic!" Divine wizard. Pass.

Swordmage: Maybe. The 4E just felt to me like a bad fighter/wizard hybrid. Unless they can make it its own better than that, I'll Pass.

Sorcerer: Personally, I don't like playing Vancian magic or Warlocks (nothing against the mechanics, I just don't want to play them, just like all of my characters hate undead, because I do). And sorcerer is cool. Stay.

Warlock: One of 4E's success stories. Warlocks are much-beloved. Stay.

Artificier: A magical scientist. Please stay.

Bard: Stay.

Warden: Maybe, but certainly not Core.

Barbarian: If barbarian Rage tactics can be developed through Fighter Expertise Dice, I think that'll be fine, but if they come up with something else, I think it'll survive as its own class. One way or another, Stay.

Shaman: Stay.

Druid: Too iconic. Stay.

Battlemind: Pass.

Monk: Stay, but not necessarily psionic.

Ardent: psychic Warlord. Pass.

Psion: Too iconic. Stay.

Assassin: Rogue build? Specialty? prestige class? One way or another, Stay, but not its own class.

Vampire: I will say this once. Vampirism isn't a class. Ahem.
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 


Oooh.  I didn't see that.  Yes, warlord better be its own class.


If they can make it work and give the warlord it's own distinct flavour and hooks - both crunch and fluff - I will be happy to see it as a seperate class. But there's nothing in the current flavour that doesn't overlap with the fighter. 


Since everyone else is doing a list I might as well:

Must Haves (Without Question or Hestation)
Fighter
Wizard
Rogue
Cleric

Must Haves (Grandfathered in) 
Ranger
Druid
Paladin
Barbarian
Bard
Warlock
Monk
Assassin
Psion
Again, while I'm a fan of the ranger it's really a fighter/rogue. The paladin is a fighter/cleric and the barbarian is a fighter with the "battlerager" build. And the assassin is a rogue with a job. But all make it in due to having beein in the game for longer than I've been alive.

Classes I'll Accept with a Good Hook
Artificer. It needs to stand out from a buffing wizard in some way. Otherwise it's a speciality.
Sorcerer. It needs to be more than wizards with spellpoints. Otherwise an alternate spell system works.
Swordmage. We need a good fighter/wizard gish class. Be it a duskblade, spellsword, spellsinger, magus, or swordmage.
Warlord. I'm not against them, but they still strike me as a leader-build fighter.
Battlemind. Like the swordmage, a good melee/psion is a good idea. People dig the paladin for a reason. But needs to be crazy better. Solid flavour that meshes with the mechanics. 

Classes That Go Away
Avenger. It's a paladin/rogue or rogue/cleric. It's a character not a full class. Make a speciality for the rogue and you're good. 
Seeker. Ranger with a focus on magic.
Runepriest. Cleric of the rune domain. Next.  
Shaman (spirit shaman). Druid with "spirit animal". 
Ardent. Healer build psion.
Invoker. Controller build cleric.  
Vampire. You're kidding, right? This is a total background and/or speciality.

Same as the Above, but From Older Editions

Cavalier/Knight. They're a fighter build.
Beguiler. Wizard/Rogue. There are a lot of these, so the multiclassing rules should really just be set-up in such as way as to make these work.
Ninja. Rogue build, or possibly assassin build. 
Samurai. They're fighter. Not even a build. Just a fighter.
Hexblade. Rogue/wizards. Fun but not broad enough to be a class. Liked merging them with warlocks as adding "hexes" to warlocks made thematic sense.
Scout. 4e did it right and made these rangers.
Shugenjas. Wizard build, if not just reflavoured wizards.
Warmage. Wizard. Not even a build, just spell choices for the day.
Swashbuckler. Fighter build.
Wu Jen. Clerics reflavoured. Maybe an eastern domain. Done. 
Spellthieves. Wizard/rogues.  
Illusionists. Wizard build. 
Dragon Shaman. This is weird. I don't remember enough to put it anywhere. But in terms of flavour I recall it overlapping with the sorcerer. 
Favoured Souls. Clerics using the alternate spell point system. Done.
Dread Necromancer. Already in the game via speciality and spell choice.
Wilder/Ardent: Psion.
Soul Knife. Rogue/psion.

Other
Incarnates. Um... There was a lot of fan support for this, but it was really niche. Licence it out to a 3PP and let them do it. 

--edit--
added some more classes

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

Wizard
Healer for Wizard
Door opener for Wizard
Meat shield for wizard
Some other people who do, ummmm, woodsy stuff?
Some people who do something where wavy lines come out of their heads? I don't really know, I don't pay attention to them.



Yeah, that about covers it.


It sounds like somebody wants a game that focuses on and caters to Wizards.

Yeah.  Thanks, but No!

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

( removed by poster due to irrelevance to the topic at hand and its discussion in another thread )

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

"It sounds like somebody wants a game that focuses on and caters to Wizards.

Yeah.  Thanks, but No!"



sat·ire


   [sat-ahyuhr]


noun


1 .the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.


2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.


3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.


Swordmage. We need a good fighter/wizard gish class. Be it a duskblade, spellsword, spellsinger, magus, or swordmage.


We really do.


Battlemind. Like the swordmage, a good melee/psion is a good idea. People dig the paladin for a reason. But needs to be crazy better. Solid flavour that meshes with the mechanics. 


The D&D Jedi. If Psions belong so does this guy.


Classes That Go Away
Avenger. It's a paladin/rogue or rogue/cleric. It's a character not a full class. Make a speciality for the rogue and you're good. 


Agreed, a rarity. However, having played with a Slayer of Domiel (Good Guy assassin type rogue of a church), I do recognize the need for the concept. But you are probably right, that in this case a scheme is enough.
Where does it say that warlords will use the combat expertise system? Why would it have the same abilities as a fighter? and why would it suddenly sprout the ability to use heavy armor? Warlords did have a couple of AP features but that was a thing in 4e everyone got them eventually.

In fact why couldn't Warlords use AP in 5e? Let's make that their mechanic, they have a pool of AP that they use to grant actions to other characters.

Really? People want the battlemind back? Wouldn't you rather have a cool psionic warrior class with a coherent and unique approach?

 
Really? People want the battlemind back? Wouldn't you rather have a cool psionic warrior class with a coherent and unique approach?


Coherence and uniqueness is exactly what I want to be added to the battlemind. The name is irrelevant and "battlemind" rolls off the tongue easier than psionic warrior or psychic warrior. All other things being equal, why not choose the most recent name?
The role/hook of the warrior augmenting themselves with psionics is a fun idea. There's lots of ways to play with that so it's a valid class option. But better flavour and consistancy is a must.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

one thing i have been wondering about with classes is if all classes should be the full 20 levels.

or that some classes might asume dual/multi classing as part of the class.
so if a warlord would have many simularities with a fighter maybe also working with the manuver dice a warlowd might have  advancement involving multi class fighter levels.
interlaced with 7 or so true warlord levels at levels 1,4,7,10,13,16,19

paladin mignt be the same but you can decide if for the levels in between you chose cleric or fighter to make a more caster or warior type paladin.






 

Here's what I think:


Core 4: fighter/mage/cleric/rogue


Hybrids: paladin/ranger/bard


Flavour options: psion/druid/barbarian



I think probably most of the rest can wait for now, though I don't see any reason why they shouldn't throw a support character in there. On the fence about the warlord; I like the class but I agree they need more flavouring.


The base game should include a divine, arcane, and psionic spell list as well. I know they call psionic stuff powers and I like that too but for the sake of coherence I think maybe it should share the language of the rest of the game. It's a convention that's useful, and the class description can explain what they do to use their abilities to make it clear, same way they talk about wizards and cleric magic.

one thing i have been wondering about with classes is if all classes should be the full 20 levels.

or that some classes might asume dual/multi classing as part of the class.
so if a warlord would have many simularities with a fighter maybe also working with the manuver dice a warlowd might have  advancement involving multi class fighter levels.
interlaced with 7 or so true warlord levels at levels 1,4,7,10,13,16,19


paladin mignt be the same but you can decide if for the levels in between you chose cleric or fighter to make a more caster or warior type paladin.



This is totally worth exploring. Not 100% sure if it'd just be kinda confusing though.

one thing i have been wondering about with classes is if all classes should be the full 20 levels.

or that some classes might asume dual/multi classing as part of the class.
so if a warlord would have many simularities with a fighter maybe also working with the manuver dice a warlowd might have  advancement involving multi class fighter levels.
interlaced with 7 or so true warlord levels at levels 1,4,7,10,13,16,19


paladin mignt be the same but you can decide if for the levels in between you chose cleric or fighter to make a more caster or warior type paladin.



This is totally worth exploring. Not 100% sure if it'd just be kinda confusing though.




i think an easyer way might be the folowing, if the warlord used a lot of the fighter mecanics make warlord a prestige class ( as this system is already known from 3.x)

and the only pre request would be 1 fighter level so your 2nd level could be a warlord level. 
The warlord contention boils down to a difference in gaming focus. -- People who don't think it has enough merit to stand on its own are those who view the game through the lens of a storyteller. People who think it has enough merit to stand on its own are those who view the game through the lens of a tactical wargamer.

Pay close attention to the underlying statement of what is submitted in their defense.

Every argument I have ever seen in favor of the warlord as 'different' refers to the class in terms of its mechanical function, numerical effect, or 4th-edition-ness. There is little precedence for the class in terms of lore, game history, story element, or anything meatier than 'he's a combat leader'.

I'm not against the warlord as a class. I'm merely presenting my observation.  

Danny

The fact that it really first showed up as the marshal in the 3e miniatures handbook makes that really unsurprising.


I totally think they could make the warlord flavour work. It just needs more than mechanics to back it up.

Sokka, Lui Bei, Captain America of the avengers, King Freaking Arthur!

What do these people have in common? 

They are far from the best fighters in their respective organizations but lead through superior tactical and social capabilities, they join their allies on the front and contribute directly to the war effort but their real value is tactical and emotional in nature. 

The warlord is the archetype that DnD has long ignored, it's a major part of mythology and fiction that gets overlooked in favor of classes focused more on personal advancement. The fact that it has so little history in the game is one of the tragic flaws of DnD and needs to be corrected.

Finally until someone can come up with a reason that the warlord is so similar to the fighter that can't also be used to describe the cleric, please stop saying that the warlord is like a fighter. 
i think an easyer way might be the folowing, if the warlord used a lot of the fighter mecanics make warlord a prestige class ( as this system is already known from 3.x)

and the only pre request would be 1 fighter level so your 2nd level could be a warlord level. 


Yes, this is not a bad idea, except it relies on the concept of prestige classes, which may or may not end up in the final release.
What I like about the idea is that a warLORD cannot be a total newbie with this system. To me the class name always bothered me a bit as it seems superior to the other classes.
Well they are in that they're awesome, and everyone else is only fighting a small slice of the fight while a warlord engages with every aspect of a battle.
personally I think the warlord should be it's own class...maybe with a dice system similar to the fighter's but is used for giving other characters bonuses
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric
Paladin
Ranger
Bard
Druid
Barbarian
Monk
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord 

All of these are different enough both in mechanics and flavor that can be own classes, and have a great amount of fans. I would like more classes of their own, but these ones are the most important. This make up for 13 core classes (or 13 classes that are in the core rulebooks).