4 Simple Reasons Why The Warlord Should Be A Class In Next

391 posts / 0 new
Last post

There are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 

2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised.

3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).

4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.

5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.


6: Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.


And together those are MORE than reason enough for a class. 


I'm still hopeful that we will see all the classes from every PHB. (azd the good that is served by delivering on that is likely a good 5th argument for the Warlord)

Heck I even think that they could do an interesting and engaging Assassin (using shadow) and Illusionist (using shapeshifting and mental effects) without treading on the toes of the Rogue or Wizard.

This will allow us to fully express the 4 key Warlord archetypes:

56902498 wrote:

Practitioner


The warlord who is most concerned with maintaining and boosting his allies and keeping them in the fight. This warlord specializes in martial healing, granting temporary hit points, resistance to damage, and ending conditions. He does this through a combination of first aid, improvement to morale, and an intimate knowledge of how a body can adjust to and react to combat situations.  
Signature Power: Martial Healing

Vanguard


A warlord who leads by example.  He attacks enemies in ways that show allies how to fight them more effectively.  This manifests as the warlord hitting a foe, thus granting allies a bonus to either hitting that same foe or hitting a similar foe (as in "Here's how you take down a giant!").  
Signature PowerImpose a condition that encourages allies to attack that target.

Grandmaster


A warlord who spots tactical weaknesses in position and directs allies on how to get the most advantageous position. This usually manifests as free movement, extra benefits from positioning, or off-turn parries.  
Signature PowerGrant allies off-turn movement.

Captain


This is the warlord who oversees a battle and directs the allies to give them benefits to their attacks. Unlike the vanguard, who exploits  an enemy's weakness, the captain deals primarily with his ally's own strengths, granting off-turn actions, added damage, or bonuses to attempts to trip, grapple, etc.  
Signature PowerGrant allies off-turn attacks.

Hector


Rather than use his strategy to boost allies, he uses it to demoralize and disarray his enemies. With choreographed attacks that are designed to be as demoralizing as they are damaging, he causes enemies to miss opportunity (attacks), take penalties to hit or damage, or to incur fear-based conditions. Like the vanguard, his powers trigger off attacks, but unlike the vanguard, his attacks are meant to affect other enemies, rather than his allies.  
Signature Power: Hit an enemy and impose a condition on nearby allies of that enemy.

Now, I personally think all of these would make fine styles for the Warlord.  Heck, I could even see each of them as a separate "fighting style" as distinctive as the fighter's current styles -- two-weapon, two-handed, ranged, and sworn-n-board. 

But I don't think it's realistic to expect the designers to make half of the fighter's fighting styles be warlord-themed.

 

And the 11 minimum Warlord features:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).  
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage. 
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks. 
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks). 
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks). 
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally. 
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 
8: Improve out-of-combat healing. 
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn. 
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks). 
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks). 
5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.



Good call that man.

Though, I have to admit that I think that this one would be used as a reason to exclude it by many.

Those people would be wrong, and ignoring the very basis of Next (inclusiveness), but they would still try. 
The only circumstance that I could reasonably agree to the Warlord not being a class, if is the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Monk aren't classes either, but are merely builds that can be made using feats.

Perhaps the Bard would become merely a Rogue build as well.

If, at that point, the capability of customizing the character off of the basic fighter or rogue package became THAT open, then I could see a reason not to make it a unique class.

Although-- if one goes that far, it wouldn't be inconceivable to make a classless game all together. 

The only circumstance that I could reasonably agree to the Warlord not being a class, if is the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Monk aren't classes either, but are merely builds that can be made using feats.

Perhaps the Bard would become merely a Rogue build as well.

If, at that point, the capability of customizing the character off of the basic fighter or rogue package became THAT open, then I could see a reason not to make it a unique class.

Although-- if one goes that far, it wouldn't be inconceivable to make a classless game all together. 



Exactly.

If every single class feature of every class was just a feat and characters were made up of packages of feats put together however the players wanted.

Crikey it wouldn't even be that hard to do!

But that wouldn't be traditional D&D and WOULD be rejected by many.  Not a bad option to keep in reserve for this editions "Unearthed Arcana" though.

But I just don't see how the Barbarian (especially, though the sampe point applies to the Ranger, Paladin and Monk) can be justified as a separate class from Fighter if the Warlord isn't. 

There are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 
 



A significant number of fans also dislike the very idea of having a leader archtype mechanically represented, especially when that archtype is constrained by a specific class.  Furthermore, you use the word "significant" without any sort of representative evidence.  This detracts from the whole premise of your argument.  


2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised. 



Again, to use your own terminology, a significant number of people believe that this archtype is better represented under the auspice of another class or as a specialty, so as to not restrict the archtype to the domain of a single class. 
 

3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).



Again, this is an opinion.


4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.



Given that 4th edition was more than a single class or archtype, I believe that a better "nod" to 4th edition players would be to quickly and completely represent tactical combat and the AEDU system in a module.


And together those are MORE than reason enough for a class. 


I'm still hopeful that we will see all the classes from every PHB. (azd the good that is served by delivering on that is likely a good 5th argument for the Warlord)

Heck I even think that they could do an interesting and engaging Assassin (using shadow) and Illusionist (using shapeshifting and mental effects) without treading on the toes of the Rogue or Wizard. 



Honestly, I'd be perfectly content if the developers were to release two sets of rules that allowed the leader archtype that we both seem to care about to be represented in different fashions, one via the warlord class and one via a specialty and/or the fighter class.  I just can't accept the conceptual assignment of the "martial leader" to a single class, especially when given the fantasy tropes that everyone continues to invoke.  Aragorn is a perfect example of both the archtypal leader and ranger simultaneously, and yet despite serving as an inspiration via this system it would be impossible to properly represent him given that he is simultaneously two different classes via your arbitrary distinction.






There are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 
 



A significant number of fans also dislike the very idea of having a leader archtype mechanically represented, especially when that archtype is constrained by a specific class.  Furthermore, you use the word "significant" without any sort of representative evidence.  This detracts from the whole premise of your argument.  



The premise of Next is inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.  

So the most inclusive option is automatically the best, for this edition.

And I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have options allowing the features of the Warlord available to other classes so that be can build an x/leader build.  I think this is a GREAT idea.

Both the vocal support on these forums, RPG.net and ENworld all indicate significant numbers.  The Warlord is consistantly reported as the most popular 4th Ed class and was the most popular "new" class in the polls run on these boards.


2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised. 



Again, to use your own terminology, a significant number of people believe that this archtype is better represented under the auspice of another class or as a specialty, so as to not restrict the archtype to the domain of a single class. 


 
And I want to see that supported too.

But some of us don't want to play a character with any features other than those of a non-magical combat leader.  No features from any other class at all.  Only a separate class makes that possible.


3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).



Again, this is an opinion.



I'm terribly sorry, but that is false.

Here is a short list of workable Next mechanics for the Warlord:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).  
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage. 
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks. 
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks). 
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks). 
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally. 
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 
8: Improve out-of-combat healing. 
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn. 
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks). 
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).


4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.



Given that 4th edition was more than a single class or archtype, I believe that a better "nod" to 4th edition players would be to quickly and completely represent tactical combat and the AEDU system in a module.



True, more can be done.

But this is one easy thing which is totally optional and requires little investment.

And it's important to note that, while tactical combat and AEDU seems to be how non-4th-Ed fans see the edition, those are not the defining features of 4th Edition in the eyes of those who like it.

Balance, ease of play, clear rules, structure and great DMing experience are FAR more important.


And together those are MORE than reason enough for a class. 


I'm still hopeful that we will see all the classes from every PHB. (azd the good that is served by delivering on that is likely a good 5th argument for the Warlord)

Heck I even think that they could do an interesting and engaging Assassin (using shadow) and Illusionist (using shapeshifting and mental effects) without treading on the toes of the Rogue or Wizard. 



Honestly, I'd be perfectly content if the developers were to release two sets of rules that allowed the leader archtype that we both seem to care about to be represented in different fashions, one via the warlord class and one via a specialty and/or the fighter class.  I just can't accept the conceptual assignment of the "martial leader" to a single class, especially when given the fantasy tropes that everyone continues to invoke.  Aragorn is a perfect example of both the archtypal leader and ranger simultaneously, and yet despite serving as an inspiration via this system it would be impossible to properly represent him given that he is simultaneously two different classes via your arbitrary distinction.



I want to see a Warlord class, Warlord style features for the Fighter AND Warlord feature Feats for everyone else.

I WANT everyone to have what they want.

I'd just like the same respect for what I want from everyone else.

The only circumstance that I could reasonably agree to the Warlord not being a class, if is the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Monk aren't classes either, but are merely builds that can be made using feats.

I could be persuaded by that sort of hypothetical.  If there were only three classes:  Warrior, Wizard, & Priest (if classes had the scope of Sources, in effect).  Or if the system were just outright classless.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The only circumstance that I could reasonably agree to the Warlord not being a class, if is the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Monk aren't classes either, but are merely builds that can be made using feats.

I could be persuaded by that sort of hypothetical.  If there were only three classes:  Warrior, Wizard, & Priest (if classes had the scope of Sources, in effect).  Or if the system were just outright classless.




Why stop there?

Clerics are just a Fighter/Wizard gish with a focus on divine-ish spells. 

The whole "cutting down classes" angle really only shows what a lode of tosh many of the anti-Warlord arguments are. 
1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 
 

A significant number of fans also dislike the very idea of having a leader archtype mechanically represented

They need not play warlords.

5e is only going to succeed in it's something-for-everybody "inclusiveness" if it completely ignores people who want things excluded.  Otherwise, the 5e PH will be blank.

2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised. 

Again, to use your own terminology, a significant number of people believe that this archtype is better represented under the auspice of another class or as a specialty, so as to not restrict the archtype to the domain of a single class.

Empirically, D&D has successfully realized this archetype exactly once, with the Warlord, in 4e.  So, believe that, even try it, but also give us the Warlord.
 
3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).

Again, this is an opinion.

But one that only requires the inclusion of the class to satisfy, while the contrary opinion loses nothing into the bargain.  You see no possibilities in the class, you don't play the class.  

4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.

Given that 4th edition was more than a single class or archtype, I believe that a better "nod" to 4th edition players would be to quickly and completely represent tactical combat and the AEDU system in a module.

You clearly aren't a fan of 4e, or you wouldn't pick two things it's most heavily criticized for as it's only defining attributes.  Set the h4ter propaganda aside for a moment.  4e is not a "tactical boardgame."  A tactical module should apeal to fans of 3e, 4e, and 2e Combat & tactics equally.  So, no, not a 'nod' to 4e, at all, rather, a nod to h4ter mis-characterizations of 4e.  AEDU was new to 4e, but the strength of AEDU was not the structure itself, but the universality of that structure.  That's what delivered 4e class balance.  To deliver comparable balance & consistency to 5e, you needn't use AEDU - any structure would do, so long as it was used consistently.  5e is already inconsistent in it's class design.  An AEDU class would actually serve only make it even less consistent.  It would be a meaningless, even ironic, gesture.

So, the advantages of AEDU are already dead in the rearview mirror covered in bus tracks.  The 'Tactical Module' is nothing uniquely 4e.  HD are a depressing shadow of what healing surges were.  And most of the rest of things that might look 4e-y to you are cosmetic details, things that weren't much well-loved in 4e (stealth rules, for instance), and things that 4e shared with other editions (mostly 3e).  

The Warlord is one of the few things - and the only Class - that is uniquely 4e, and hasn't been ejected, mangled, or mutilated in a fit of atavism, so far.  And that's a near thing, already, with the lead designer clearly hating the warlord as much as any edition warrior.  Some fans have doubtless already been lost.  Keeping the Warlord (and doing it well) might help in retaining those still willing to listen.

Aragorn is a perfect example of both the archtypal leader and ranger simultaneously, and yet despite serving as an inspiration via this system it would be impossible to properly represent him given that he is simultaneously two different classes via your arbitrary distinction.

Well, unless they come through with 3e-style modular multiclassing.  Then any archetype modeled by a class is available to everyone.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

1.  A significant number of fans apparently don't want it around either.

1b.  There is no leader in 5th edition.  The 4th edition combat roles are gone.

2.  It still isn't a common fantasy trope.  A Warlord is not someone who wanders around occassionally getting in fights,  and never going to war.  A Warlord is the leader of a region or a very large number of troops.

3.    All of which could just as easily be implemented in the Fighter,  and make as much sense.

3b.  If it's too powerful for a feat,  it's too powerful for anything else.  If it's so powerful you don't want characters to have to make a choice and tradeoff to do it,  giving it to them for free is exponentially worse.

4.  This is a very fine line they're walking already.  Too much 4th edition in the core rulebooks will keep people from buying 5th edition.  Warlord is pretty high up on the list of controversial things that 4th edition did.

5.  All of which can just as easily be achieved with implementing potions (Magical and non-magical) and scrolls,  without having to explain to people how someone shouts wounds closed and poison to go away.  It's a whole lot easier to explain potions and scrolls than try to convince someone it's possible to yell someone's wounds away.


I want to see a Warlord class, Warlord style features for the Fighter AND Warlord feature Feats for everyone else.

I WANT everyone to have what they want.

I'd just like the same respect for what I want from everyone else.




Honestly man, I think the problem lies in the fact that game design is often a zero sum scenario, in that only the "best" representation of a particular concept is likely to make it into the core ruleset.  I completely want you to be able to play in whatever fashion best represents your enjoyment and that of your table, but in this circumstance I believe that our conceptual ends are mutually exclusive, given the limited page and design space available.  

Given my own experience with the military, I find it extremely hard to see someone with little practical battlefield or combat experience serving as an effective squad commander, the circumstance that best represents an adventuring party.  In practice, the best sorts of individuals in these roles tend to be N.C.O.'s that are experienced combat veterans that have been promoted because of their experience, i.e. higher level fighters.  In point of fact, O.C.S. graduates are often paired with N.C.O.s in order to learn how to actually command the men serving underneath them.  Because of this, I'd rather see "leader" abilities disseminated to other classes.

Ultimately, I would love for both of us to have our options represented within the rules, but I just don't see that as a likely outcome.
Honestly man, I think the problem lies in the fact that game design is often a zero sum scenario, in that only the "best" representation of a particular concept is likely to make it into the core ruleset.

So, like the Paladin, which might also be represented with a Fighter/Cleric, or the Ranger, which might also be represented with a Druid/Rogue, or Fighter/Druid or Fighter/Druid/Rogue, or someone with a Woodsman or Hunter background of some sort?


1.  A significant number of fans apparently don't want it around either.

You can't be inclusive by catering to hatred, and 5e's goal is to include us all.  

If they're being honest.  Which, empirically, is a pretty big if.  Issues like this will settle the question.

1b.  There is no leader in 5th edition.  The 4th edition combat roles are gone.

The roles aren't gone, the formal definition is.  And the heroic warrior who leads men into battle is not a role, it is an archetype, one common in the genre.


2.  It still isn't a common fantasy trope.  A Warlord is not someone who wanders around occassionally getting in fights,  and never going to war.  A Warlord is the leader of a region or a very large number of troops.

The heroic warrior who leads others in battle is such a profoundly common archetype it can be found throughout the genre.  Could many characters as easily be fighters as warlords?  Sure, characters from genre aren't following D&D rules, the guy who 'lays on hands' might not wear plate, or the one who casts spells might use a sword, Robin Hood didn't cast Druid spells, and Archbishop Turpin used a sword & lance.  You could debate endlessly on classes or combinations of classes.  But, the fighter has never succeeded in modeling the archetype and the 5e fighter is not positioned to do so, while the Warlord has and very successfully. 


3.    All of which could just as easily be implemented in the Fighter,  and make as much sense.

No fighter in a 5e packet has yet had the versatility that a Warlord would need.


3b.  If it's too powerful for a feat,  it's too powerful for anything else.  If it's so powerful you don't want characters to have to make a choice and tradeoff to do it,  giving it to them for free is exponentially worse.

So, if it's not a feat, now, it must be OK as a feat.  So, a feat that let you throw meteor swarm every round would be OK?  


4.  This is a very fine line they're walking already.  Too much 4th edition in the core rulebooks will keep people from buying 5th edition.  Warlord is pretty high up on the list of controversial things that 4th edition did.

If that's how it's going to work, 5e failed the moment it was concieved.  Because if they can't include enough of each and every edition to please the fans of those editions for fear of 'offending' someone, they might as well have just picked one edition (AD&D, it sold the most), and catered exclusively to it's fans.  


5.  All of which can just as easily be achieved with implementing potions (Magical and non-magical) and scrolls

Scrolls? in a low- or no- magic setting?  What, exactly, would be a non-magical 'potion' that restores hps in the midst of combat?  How much would it cost?  Who would make it?  And how often do you see characters routinely knocking back potions in the midst of pitched battles outside of high-magic fantasy?

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

1.  A significant number of fans apparently don't want it around either.



In an inclusive game like Next they can easily get what they want.

They simply disallow the Warlord.

Just like I'll be disallowing the Wizard and the Elf in my games.  But you don't hear me arguing that they shouldn't be included in Next at all.

1b.  There is no leader in 5th edition.  The 4th edition combat roles are gone.



Who said anything about 4th Ed roles?

I'd like to be able to play a 3rd Ed Marshal or a 3.5 White Raven Warblade.

And just because the title "leader" is gone from the parlance of the game doesn't mean that the concept is gone.

2.  It still isn't a common fantasy trope.  A Warlord is not someone who wanders around occassionally getting in fights,  and never going to war.  A Warlord is the leader of a region or a very large number of troops.



Sure it is.

The tactical and inspiring leader of a small group, not the greatest fighter but the one who gets everyone to foght together better?

That's a VERY common trope.

And a real world role.

3.    All of which could just as easily be implemented in the Fighter,  and make as much sense.



Perhaps, but they would have to make ALL of the Fighter features optional with swapouts for the Warlord, at which point it's basically a separate class anyhow and only petiness is preventing it from being formatted that way.

3b.  If it's too powerful for a feat,  it's too powerful for anything else.  If it's so powerful you don't want characters to have to make a choice and tradeoff to do it,  giving it to them for free is exponentially worse.



Harldy.

There are PLENTY of class features which are too powerful for Feats, but which we happily see characters using.

Vanical spellcasting is an easy example!

4.  This is a very fine line they're walking already.  Too much 4th edition in the core rulebooks will keep people from buying 5th edition.  Warlord is pretty high up on the list of controversial things that 4th edition did.



There isn't ANY 4th Ed in the game so far.

And the Warlord as a totally optional package which only those who want have to use is about as un-controversial an inclusion as they can make.

5.  All of which can just as easily be achieved with implementing potions (Magical and non-magical) and scrolls,  without having to explain to people how someone shouts wounds closed and poison to go away.  It's a whole lot easier to explain potions and scrolls than try to convince someone it's possible to yell someone's wounds away.



What?!?

Potions and scrolls?

Which part of non-magical did you not understand?

And when did I argue for a class that can "yell someone's wounds away"?

I'd like all non-magical hit point restoration to be optional, with other possible selections so it can be easily avoided by those who don't like it.

AND I think you need to go back and re-read the Next definition of HP (which STILL hasn't changed, yet another packet in) if you think every loss of HP is a "wound".  And find the imparement rules, bleeding rules, long term ingury rules and other elements which are necessary to make such a reading anything other than the worst immersion breaking rubbish. 
 You clearly aren't a fan of 4e, or you wouldn't pick two things it's most heavily criticized for as it's only defining attributes.  Set the h4ter propaganda aside for a moment.  4e is not a "tactical boardgame."  A tactical module should apeal to fans of 3e, 4e, and 2e Combat & tactics equally.  So, no, not a 'nod' to 4e, at all, rather, a nod to h4ter mis-characterizations of 4e.  AEDU was new to 4e, but the strength of AEDU was not the structure itself, but the universality of that structure.  That's what delivered 4e class balance.  To deliver comparable balance & consistency to 5e, you needn't use AEDU - any structure would do, so long as it was used consistently.  5e is already inconsistent in it's class design.  An AEDU class would actually serve only make it even less consistent.  It would be a meaningless, even ironic, gesture.



Uh, I actually played and enjoyed 4th edition for a significant portion of its existence.  I pointed to these systems because they were substantial departures from previous editions of the game, though I suppose a good argument could be made for the necessity of a battle mat in 3.X versions.  Moreover, these traits emphasized a different approach to encounter design that I think are perhaps more insignificant that you're implying.  

While it may not have been a "tactical boardgame,"  it certainly felt substantially more constrained than other table top rpgs I played before and during my tenure with 4th edition due to the sorts of encounter and setting design postulates that the aforementioned systems engendered.  

To be clear, this isn't so much a bad thing depending upon the goal of the campaign, per se, but I understand why a lot of people took issue with them.


The Warlord is one of the few things - and the only Class - that is uniquely 4e, and hasn't been ejected, mangled, or mutilated in a fit of atavism, so far.  And that's a near thing, already, with the lead designer clearly hating the warlord as much as any edition warrior.  Some fans have doubtless already been lost.  Keeping the Warlord (and doing it well) might help in retaining those still willing to listen.



I think the flaw in your above quote is the assumption that everyone that disagrees with the implementation of the warlord as a class hates the warlord.  I, and many of the people I play with, like the warlord and enjoyed it in 4th edition.  We simply think that the core concepts of the class can be better represented.

Aragorn is a perfect example of both the archtypal leader and ranger simultaneously, and yet despite serving as an inspiration via this system it would be impossible to properly represent him given that he is simultaneously two different classes via your arbitrary distinction.


Well, unless they come through with 3e-style modular multiclassing.  Then any archetype modeled by a class is available to everyone.



That would be ideal, but as I mention later that seems unlikely given the limited design space available to the developers.


I want to see a Warlord class, Warlord style features for the Fighter AND Warlord feature Feats for everyone else.

I WANT everyone to have what they want.

I'd just like the same respect for what I want from everyone else.




Honestly man, I think the problem lies in the fact that game design is often a zero sum scenario, in that only the "best" representation of a particular concept is likely to make it into the core ruleset.  I completely want you to be able to play in whatever fashion best represents your enjoyment and that of your table, but in this circumstance I believe that our conceptual ends are mutually exclusive, given the limited page and design space available.  

Given my own experience with the military, I find it extremely hard to see someone with little practical battlefield or combat experience serving as an effective squad commander, the circumstance that best represents an adventuring party.  In practice, the best sorts of individuals in these roles tend to be N.C.O.'s that are experienced combat veterans that have been promoted because of their experience, i.e. higher level fighters.  In point of fact, O.C.S. graduates are often paired with N.C.O.s in order to learn how to actually command the men serving underneath them.  Because of this, I'd rather see "leader" abilities disseminated to other classes.

Ultimately, I would love for both of us to have our options represented within the rules, but I just don't see that as a likely outcome.



I think it's important to keep in mind that a 1st Level Fighter used to be called a Veteran.

We aren not talking about characters who have never seen combat.

Adventurers are MORE than ordinary folk and it's not hard to see how someone might want to play a Butterbars right out of officer training as a character.

Here's the thing, what I am asking for is an inclusive option which also (thanks to multiclassing) gives what you want.  It's clearly the better option to have a full class, in terms of pleasing the most people. 
I'd like to be able to play a 3rd Ed Marshal

I hope you're exagerating to make a point.

There isn't ANY 4th Ed in the game so far.

If you squint real hard, HD look kinda like leprous, still-born, healing surges.  And some of the phrasing of inconsequencial rules is quite similar to 4e, like they just lifted and modified blocks of text to fill in sections they hadn't gotten to yet.  

And there's a Warden, even though it's from the PH2, and in no way resembles a Warden.

And half hps is called "bloodied."

Why, it's practically a 4e retro-clone (like 13th Age!). 


 

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I'd like to be able to play a 3rd Ed Marshal

I hope you're exagerating to make a point.

There isn't ANY 4th Ed in the game so far.

If you squint real hard, HD look kinda like leprous, still-born, healing surges.  And some of the phrasing of inconsequencial rules is quite similar to 4e, like they just lifted and modified blocks of text to fill in sections they hadn't gotten to yet.  

And there's a Warden, even though it's from the PH2, and in no way resembles a Warden.

And half hps is called "bloodied."

Why, it's practically a 4e retro-clone (like 13th Age!). 


 



The point is that the concept of the Warlord class is 3 editions old.

And even Hit Dice fail to do what the 4th "version" does, which is restrict daily healing (the most important element of surges).

None of the rules has the same clean simplicity of 4th, it's a ruleslawyers wetdream again (which makes Next a nightmare to DM, again).

Including the Warlord really would be the first bone thrown to fans of 4th.

And given how things are going, likely the only. 
4e is not a "tactical boardgame."  A tactical module should apeal to fans of 3e, 4e, and 2e Combat & tactics equally.  So, no, not a 'nod' to 4e, at all, rather, a nod to h4ter mis-characterizations of 4e.  AEDU was new to 4e, but the strength of AEDU was not the structure itself, but the universality of that structure.  That's what delivered 4e class balance.  To deliver comparable balance & consistency to 5e, you needn't use AEDU - any structure would do, so long as it was used consistently.  5e is already inconsistent in it's class design.  An AEDU class would actually serve only make it even less consistent.  It would be a meaningless, even ironic, gesture.

I pointed to these systems because they were substantial departures from previous editions of the game, though I suppose a good argument could be made for the necessity of a battle mat in 3.X versions.

Key tactical aspects, like the AoO and use of the grid were in 2e Combat & Tactics, and they pervaded 3e.  Saying "give the 4e players a tactical module, that'll shut 'em up" is just catering to the "h4ter" line that 4e is "just a tactical boardgame."  It's more of an insult, an affirmation of edition war rhetoric, than a 'nod' to 4e.  So, no.  

The Warlord isn't the /only/ thing that could help make 5e more inclusive towards fans of 4e, but it is a major one.  It is the only unique 4e class in a PH1, so the only chance WotC has of showing support for WotC among the 5e PH1 classes /is/ the inclusion of the Warlord.

I think the flaw in your above quote is the assumption that everyone that disagrees with the implementation of the warlord as a class hates the warlord.

Disagreeing with the implementation, and wanting it cut are two different things.  Wanting some sort of 3e style leadership feat, or tacking 'Lord' onto your fighter's name at 9th level instead of having a Warlord is cutting the Warlord.

I, and many of the people I play with, like the warlord and enjoyed it in 4th edition.  We simply think that the core concepts of the class can be better represented.

Well, for an example of how well the core concepts can be represented by a class, I give you the 4e Warlord.  

What alternative do you propose that might work as well?

Well, unless they come through with 3e-style modular multiclassing.  Then any archetype modeled by a class is available to everyone.



That would be ideal, but as I mention later that seems unlikely given the limited design space available to the developers.

The stated intent is for that form of multi-classing.  Even if it's not available immediately, including the Warlord would be a step in that direction, as the class would serve admirably in making more varied, or 'hybrid' leaders once multi-classing was finally added to the game.  And, can you really doubt that there will be multi-classing?  Every edition has had it.


The point is that the concept of the Warlord class is 3 editions old.

The Marshal is not the Warlord.  It's a terrible class, from a separate line (DDM).  And it was timed to the cusp of 3.0/3.5, I don't know where you're getting 3 editions.

The concept of the warlord is ancient, as old as organized battle.  D&D didn't even get close to modeling the concept until the 4e Warlord.

And even Hit Dice fail to do what the 4th "version" does, which is restrict daily healing (the most important element of surges).

None of the rules has the same clean simplicity of 4th, it's a ruleslawyers wetdream again (which makes Next a nightmare to DM, again).

Including the Warlord really would be the first bone thrown to fans of 4th.

And given how things are going, likely the only. 

Certainly, in the big-picture scheme of 5e, that's true.  Most of the things h4ter scream about being too 4e in 5e I could care less to see gone, they're either cosmetic, trivial, or so mangled already as to be worse than nothing at all.


And, you know, even if they do make the Warlord, and make it a great class, it'll be no better off than the Fighter was in 3.5 - a great class in a game that's just not consistently that great.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The Warlord will make an awesome specialty, an awesome build for a class, and an awesome class of its own. Just like the fighter class, defender specialty, and protector build all combine to simulate the 4e fighter.

Specifically, there could be a class based on the "battle leader/NCO" concept that's the core of the archetype, with different builds to emphasize tactics, inspiration, and leading-by-example, and an additional specialty to expand on healing capabilities, or action-granting, or whatever.

Anyone who wants a fighter who leads can take the Leader specialty, just like I can take the defender specialty with my cleric.

I really don't see a tough choice here.
The Warlord will make an awesome specialty, an awesome build for a class, and an awesome class of its own.

There could be several Specialities made with the Warlord class in mind that might be taken by other classes - that's how specialities seem to work.  Same for Backgrounds.   

Just like the fighter class, defender specialty, and protector build all combine to simulate the 4e fighter

You mean, abysmally?  I'm sorry, you almost had me hop'n there, for a second.  The Fighter{defender}(protector) is a mark, 5 builds and several hundred powers behind the 4e Fighter.  

Specifically, there could be a class based on the "battle leader/NCO" concept that's the core of the archetype, with different builds to emphasize tactics, inspiration, and leading-by-example, and an additional specialty to expand on healing capabilities, or action-granting, or whatever. Anyone who wants a fighter who leads can take the Leader specialty, just like I can take the defender specialty with my cleric. I really don't see a tough choice here.

There's certainly no not to provide both the Warlord class, and specialities or backgrounds peripherally related to it.   A Warlord might (or migh not) have some background that implies authority within a society or heirarchy - noble, officer, or some such - as might any other class.  The Warlord just has class features that make him a particularly good leader when that authority is used to lead in battle.  

Really, there is so much of that in 5e already - specialities that seem like a "Lite" version of a Class - you'd almost think they had in mind for them to pass for multi-classing.

 

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

 I want my 3.5 Druid back. WoTC are not catering to my desires and D&DN is supposed to be inclusive. I also want weapon specialisation back and where are my 2nd ed priest spheres?

Warlord should come back. Martial healing can die in a fire. Lots of mechanics from previous editions are being excluded. 
 I want my 3.5 Druid back.

Have you seen the last packet?

I also want weapon specialisation back

MDD kinda beat specialization all hollow, but they're gone, so now other features are making specialization look like peanuts.

and where are my 2nd ed priest spheres?

Choosing a Diety is pretty close to what you could actually do with spheres.  (Though, the degree of customization in CPH was pretty sweet, I'd support grouping spells in spheres to allow it, definitely - why not?  Wizards get schools...) 

But, hey, thanks for trying, those are inclusive requests!

Martial healing can die in a fire. Lots of mechanics from previous editions are being excluded. 

And right back to demanding exclusion again.  Inpiring Word as an iconic Warlord ability, taking it away from Warlords would be like taking burning hands, fireball, and meteor swarm away from wizards.  Or taking Turn Undead away from Clerics.  At worst, Inspiring Word should have an alternative or two that a Warlord could choose instead.  Other warlord abilities should be more varied, so a warlord could pick up additional hp restoration, or grant temp hps, or boost offense, or various combinations.



Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Weapon specialisation is iconic to fighters, along with Druid pets, wizard schools, fireball dealing d6/damage a level and the Paladin being LG only. They seem to have been sacrificed. The heart bleeds over healing surges/martial healing. 

 They can't include every mechanic from previous editions. A few of the warlord posters were exalting in things being thrown out a few years ago. 
Weapon specialisation is iconic to fighters, along with Druid pets, wizard schools, fireball dealing d6/damage a level and the Paladin being LG only. They seem to have been sacrificed. The heart bleeds over healing surges/martial healing. 

 They can't include every mechanic from previous editions. A few of the warlord posters were exalting in things being thrown out a few years ago. 



You know what, you are right that 4th Ed fans had a sense of triumphialism early in the history of the edition.  They DID throw the things cut from the game back in the faces of fans of earlier editions.

That was wrong.

And it's equally wrong for anyone to do the same thing now.

Just like curring things from the game was a mistake then.

And it's equally a mistake to do now. 
It is the same posters though Admiral. The double standards are amazing. Plenty of "iconic" mechanics from ealrier editions are gone. There is more 4th ed in D&DN than AD&D for example which it barely resembles so having stuff cut is not exclusive to 4th ed.
It is the same posters though Admiral. The double standards are amazing. Plenty of "iconic" mechanics from ealrier editions are gone. There is more 4th ed in D&DN than AD&D for example which it barely resembles so having stuff cut is not exclusive to 4th ed.



Bull.

Shite.

There is not one single 4th mechanic in Next.

Not one.

The style has gone, the philosophy has gone and the concepts have gone.

There is HEAPS of the original AD&D fluff/rules blend, DM fiat mechanics and eyball balanced monsters in Next.

You can tell yourself 'till you are blue in the face that 4th Edition players are being looked after... but it just ain't true.



And, look, I get that people were ramrods when 4th came out.

I REALLY do.

But that still doesn't make doing the same things or having the same attitude now any more ok. 
6) Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.
6) Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.



That's another very good call.
It is the same posters though Admiral. The double standards are amazing. Plenty of "iconic" mechanics from ealrier editions are gone. There is more 4th ed in D&DN than AD&D for example which it barely resembles so having stuff cut is not exclusive to 4th ed.



Bull.

Shite.

There is not one single 4th mechanic in Next.

Not one.

The style has gone, the philosophy has gone and the concepts have gone.

There is HEAPS of the original AD&D fluff/rules blend, DM fiat mechanics and eyball balanced monsters in Next.

You can tell yourself 'till you are blue in the face that 4th Edition players are being looked after... but it just ain't true.



And, look, I get that people were ramrods when 4th came out.

I REALLY do.

But that still doesn't make doing the same things or having the same attitude now any more ok. 



 I have hundreds of pages of rules from AD&D-3rd ed and most of those mechanics will not make it through. Its just the way it goes. This is my 5th edition cycle so I'm kinda used to it by now. There is very little of AD&D style mechanics in D&DN so I would not try and claim the holy ground of stuff being cut.  Already said the warlord should exist as a class, healing surges are only 1 mechanics form 4th and the game is better of without them. At wills exist, encounter powers by any other name, 4th ed style monsters, different "builds" catering to 4th ed players with Druids, Paladins, Clerics, greater focus on balance. 4th ed resembles essentials the most IMHO with bits of 3.5 and 4th bolted on most of which are not actually the good parts of 4th ed. Beyond d20 mechanics which 4th ed also had and a few recycled words from 3.5 in the monk and cleric there is not even that much 3.5 there either.
It is the same posters though Admiral. The double standards are amazing. Plenty of "iconic" mechanics from ealrier editions are gone. There is more 4th ed in D&DN than AD&D for example which it barely resembles so having stuff cut is not exclusive to 4th ed.



Bull.

Shite.

There is not one single 4th mechanic in Next.

Not one.

The style has gone, the philosophy has gone and the concepts have gone.

There is HEAPS of the original AD&D fluff/rules blend, DM fiat mechanics and eyball balanced monsters in Next.

You can tell yourself 'till you are blue in the face that 4th Edition players are being looked after... but it just ain't true.



And, look, I get that people were ramrods when 4th came out.

I REALLY do.

But that still doesn't make doing the same things or having the same attitude now any more ok. 



 I have hundreds of pages of rules from AD&D-3rd ed and most of those mechanics will not make it through. Its just the way it goes. This is my 5th edition cycle so I'm kinda used to it by now. There is very little of AD&D style mechanics in D&DN so I would not try and claim the holy ground of stuff being cut.  Already said the warlord should exist as a class, healing surges are only 1 mechanics form 4th and the game is better of without them. At wills exist, encounter powers by any other name, 4th ed style monsters, different "builds" catering to 4th ed players with Druids, Paladins, Clerics, greater focus on balance. 4th ed resembles essentials the most IMHO with bits of 3.5 and 4th bolted on most of which are not actually the good parts of 4th ed.



LOL!

I love how you just said that 5th Ed is like Essentials as part of a straight faced way to show that some of 4th has made it through.

Yes, you are right, the terrible "desperate to get the grognards back"  cashgrab element of 4th which killed the line and drove it below Pathfinder in terms of sales is the element which you can kinda see in Next if you squint.

At Will's aren't 4th Ed.

Encounter Powers aren't 4th Ed (and only marginally exist in Next).

The monsters are NOT 4th Ed, they are terrible.

Nothing from the Druid, Paladin or Cleric resembles the 4th Ed expressions of the classes.

"Balance" as 4th knew it is out the window.




But at least you've admitted that the Warlord class is a good idea.

Perhaps we should leave it at that for this thread.

If you want to create your own "look at all this 4th Ed stuff in Next" thread to go with the other one (where everyone is laughing at the idea that ANY 4th Ed elements exist in Next) go right ahead. 
There is not that much stuff from AD&D or 3.5 there either except a vague resemblence to vancian spellcasting being the main one.

 Of course D&DN is a cashgrab. They want to make a basic boring game and then charge you for modules (aka splats) full of optional rules since spam a playerentitlementsplat doesn't seem to work anymore. They're going back to the buy a core book well for the 5th time in 13 years apporach.

 Even if 4th ed gets thrown under the bus whats the big deal? No one is taking it off you. Hell based on what I'm seeing I won't be buying D&DN either and I'm happy with what I have got. There are entire classes and splats I have barely used from AD&D and 3rd ed. Unless you only used DDI I suppose and are worried about losing that. I'm a newb though and I have only been playing D&D for 20 years and I still pull out AD&D and use it on occasion warts and all.  

 Unless you think you won't be playing 4th ed in 20 yearstime? My ego can handle it if D&DN is not for me.

I want to see a Warlord class, Warlord style features for the Fighter AND Warlord feature Feats for everyone else.

I WANT everyone to have what they want.

I'd just like the same respect for what I want from everyone else.




The problem with what you want is that it is badwrong4efun and there is a significant part of the playerbase and seemingly developers who do not approve of badwrong4efun (Mearls fits into this group from his dismissive comments).

Kinda hard to aim for inclusiveness when you listen to and are a part of the problem.


There is not one single 4th mechanic in Next.



The d20 system? :p

There isn't a single AD&D or 3rd edition mechanic either.

AD&D:
Vancian casting: gone
Multiple attacks: gone
Simple classes: gone
% die for skills: gone
Ability checks: gone
Saving throws: gone
Thac0: gone

3rd edition:
CodZilla: gone
Complicated rules: gone
Fort/Will/Reflex: gone
Feats: gone (Next feats might be called feats but they're class features)
Full round actions: gone

Now let's look at concepts of each edition that they're trying to implement in D&D Next.

AD&D:
Enjoyable fluff to read: check
Fast combat: check
Familiar magic and spells: check
Familiar monsters: check
Different mechanics for each class: check
Spell slots: check

3rd edition:
Modular characters: check

4th edition:
A mathematical approach to class balance: check
Encounter building tools: check (still in progress)
Different mechanics for monsters and PCs: check
More symmetry in the classes: check
No caster dominance: check
No monsters with dozens of options in combat: check
Ease of DMing: check
No boring class: check
Hit points as fatigue: check
Rituals: check
Action economy: check
Interesting tactical combat: not check.
Grid abstraction: not check.


D&D Next is still work in progress. The math might not be perfect, encounter building tools are not perfect, the monsters might have too few options to make them interesting from a tactical  combat perspective, there might be ways to improve class symmetry and class balance and we don't have any kind of grid support and  tactical combat support (yet) but they're working on it. How could you not see the 4th edition ideas in Next?
Also they have dressed up 4th eds powers system in a classical veneer. With no caster level mechanic all the vancian spells are basically recycled versions of 4th ed powers and hoping people won't notice. Same with the fighter manuveurs which are at wills and now kind of encounters.

 Magic and spell resistance is also gone along with any sort of required weapons which at best is now reistant to weapons or whatever which just encourages you to hit things harder. It is basically why I said I saw more 4th ed in D&DN than most other editions but they have tried to dress it up a bit so I think I'll be passing on D&DN atm mostly due to BA and generic bland and boring. 4th ed was better than this and you know my opinion on 4th.
The game has so many problems, that not including the warlord is insignificant compared to the rest. But I love the warlord class for what it represents, from a concept and mechanics.
This thread is edging on edition warring. Lets focus on what Next brings us. Your old books have not vanished and older ones are available for download.With that said the Fighter options that represent the Warlord are a great beginning. Wouldn't it be more constructive to offer ideas of Fighter Expertise maneuvers and Feats that achieve what you are looking for? Or present us with a class or core mechanic that does this.
Much like the Assassin and Warden, I feel the Warlord can be folded into Fighter. Those that clamor otherwise should give ideas on how. 
 
Te manin reason the warlord should be a class at his point is the folowing.

The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.  
is one of the stated design goals the developes set themselves when making classes.
and the reason they said the warlord woulden't be it's own class was becouse it would be to simular to th fighter and bard.

But in this latest packet they seem to have abandoned this design goal with the ranger who is very simular to the fighter/druid, and the paladin who is very simular to the fighter/cleric.
So with the abandonment of this design goal there no argument left not to make the warlord a class.

exept if "it would upset players of older editions" now has become a valid argument.
 
For me to contribute any more ideas for the warlord, I need acknowledgement from the 5E developers that it will be included. Initially they were open to the concept, then with each passing packet they trivialize the class by bleeding it into other classes or downplaying it in articles or podcasts. I get the approach, they will make it look like the players made the decision and not them. To me that is a cop out. I feel the same way about the warden. I do no agree with burying it inside the paladin, when the paladin has enough problems keeping its own identify in comparison to the cleric.

Otherwise, I feel any ideas I add for warlord, warden, illusionist, assassin, etc. will be taken by the fighter, paladin, bard, etc. All the developers will do is state your idea fits much better with our class concepts.

When you feel excluded, it is hard to contribute.
For me to contribute any more ideas for the warlord, I need acknowledgement from the 5E developers that it will be included. Initially they were open to the concept, then with each passing packet they trivialize the class by bleeding it into other classes or downplaying it in articles or podcasts.



They had a problem with the warlord bleeding into the fighter and bard.
then they give us a ranger who is hemmagiging all over the fighter and druid, and don't see a problem with that.

seems to be a bit of a duble standerd at work here.

 
This thread is edging on edition warring. Lets focus on what Next brings us. Your old books have not vanished and older ones are available for download.With that said the Fighter options that represent the Warlord are a great beginning. Wouldn't it be more constructive to offer ideas of Fighter Expertise maneuvers and Feats that achieve what you are looking for? Or present us with a class or core mechanic that does this.
Much like the Assassin and Warden, I feel the Warlord can be folded into Fighter. Those that clamor otherwise should give ideas on how. 
 



Fair call.

I think that the entire "what there is of 4th in Next" conversation leads it'self to edition warring unfortunately.

Now, to the substantive point of your post, that the Fighter can be made into a solid Warlord substitute.

You might well be right, as long as all of the Fighter features are made entirely modular so that a player can select none of the Fighter ones and only Warlord ones.  I'd be looking for all of the following (at least) to be available as Warlord options within the Fighter:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).  
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage. 
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks. 
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks). 
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks). 
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally. 
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 
8: Improve out-of-combat healing. 
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn. 
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks). 
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).

The issue with this is that if you DO make the Fighter entirely modular then what's the point in having the two classes together as one in the first place?  Isn't it then just easier to offer the Warlord as a separate class, admitting that there is clearly sufficient design space for it (otherwise you wouldn't have needed to use ALL the feature slots of the Fighter)?

And, further to this, even if you CAN make a Warlord out of a Fighter surely we learned the lesson during the 3.5 to 4th Edition handover that eliminating classes from the game (even if they are re-introduced later) is a bad idea?

Can't we learn from the negative experience of the last edition change and do things better this time?