That's the funny thing about that range/orc example: you seem to assume that because the Ranger HATES orcs, he must cause intraparty conflict.
That'd be the worst-case scenario, yes, and the worst-case intraparty conflict is dead PCs.
But, with a little flexibility, it can be downgrade to tension, even opportunity to character growth.
The same is true of your most-nearly-reasonable concerns about playing at the same table as a warlord. There's a worse-case scenario: loss of efficiency as one PC declines support from another. But, with a little flexibility, an acceptable dynamic might be found.
Your rationale for being a huge jerk to the entire community by warring against the inclusion of one class is that you don't want to risk maybe, someday, being seen as a jerk at one table.
I can only assume your on-line and in-person personas are very different.
Have you? Have you ever filled out a WotC survey and said, "I don't like that part. Please don't include it." Have you ever posted on the forums and said, "I think that would be bad for the game."
In another thread I said someone was evincing a little converts zeal. I suppose I'm guilty of that myself, a bit, on the issue of 5e inclusivity.
So, no, if I feel something wouldn't be great for the game, I'll emphasize it should be optional. If don't like it, myself, I won't opt into it - Its easy for me, in 5e as I run far more than play.
But, like I said, convert. Go back far enough, you'll find me saying psionics is a sci-fi bit that has no place in D&D. Heck, I'll still point out it's a sci-fi bit: just that it's fans deserve a good version of it in 5e. Coincidentally, one important part of that is magic-or-not needs to be a DM option, it's just gone either way in past eds, it needs to smoothly support either.
It's the part of about "commanding" others to strike...some variant of which which shows up in just about every version of this thing...that's not ok.
That's generally been nothing more than the names - 4e designers must have had severe name-fatigue from all the IP farming - though (youre gonna love this, but far be it from me to misrepresent the facts) the initial version of Commander's Strike was badly written and technically didnt give the ally an opt out (indeed, technically, as written, a stunned unconscious or dead ally would take the swing), ironically, though the controversy on-line was whether it was ranged, the actual issue was lost in that. Fortunately, errata fixed it, and clarified the range thing.
Lol. Fortunately this just amuses me, because we both know there's not going to be a 5e Warlord.
Yeah, my converts zeal hasnt completely worn off yet, but I acknowledge the chance is infinitesimal.
I mean, slow pace of release is one thing, but the Psion was in the pipeline for years, and only just recently retrieved it's name.
. But, yes, there's an archetype in a lot of myth, fiction, and history (or mythologized history) that is pretty much exactly the Warlord. I totally grant you that. And it's also my point. All those stories are most explicitly about a singular Hero.
So are most genre stories about any of the archetypes we see in D&D, those that are much seen as heroes, rather villains, that is.
And, really, more than other archetypes, these are likely to be in a group, after all, that's the point of support, it doesn't do any good to be all multiplier and no force.
They're also often literal/literary support to a main character.
So much of what I read about this class sounds like it's the Hero class.
Its Heroic fantasy, thats a good thing. Same is true of the Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian - they're readily identifiable heroic characters... other classes have less common, less consistently heroic sources of inspiration in genre.
Aragorn is often held up as an example. And, yes, I would agree that Aragorn is modeled by a Warlord better than by Fighter or Ranger or whatever (which is ironic, no?).
Faramir might be a less fraught example, for that reason
While LotR is an ensemble, it's not a co-equal one in terms of power - Gandalf, an archetypal wizard, is far above the others (as are other typical example -Merlin, Circe, Prospero, Medea), yet the D&D wizard starts at 1st like everyone else. (Not that it isn't Tier 1, and doesn't surpass lesser classes thanks to LFQW, but nominally co-equal.)
