Damage and HP and such is fairly easy to change, we should see the math tweaks in the next packet iirc from the podcast, and we have seen several healing mechanics in the packets from day one, some of them are clearly intended to be optional/part of a rule module.
Kinda-sorta. What's important is that you (1) have a baseline established so you can create the ... everything else in the system ... around it. Then you can (2) show modular adjustments, with guidance on how it will change your game.
I agree that it should be easy to change. I disagree that this implies that it isn't fundamental. It touches on spellcasting, combat, traps, out-of-combat healing, class features, weapons, feats, and so on. It's a central, core mechanic in one of the truest senses of the word for a game like D&D.
Looking at the current fighter I don't see how you can fit a paladin into it without reverting to a bastardized classless system, I'm guessing that if there weren't fighter menuveres than we would have seen the warlord as a dedicated class but considering the fact that mechanicly the warlord is just a fighter with a distinct set of menuveres I don't see why it should get a superset class... IMHO.
Warder
P.s I played a warlord for two years and I can clearly picture how I can build him back in DnDNext.
I'm glad that you think it's sufficient to make it a Fighter; it's good to see that some folks are liking the direction.
I, however, disagree. I think the Warlord is just as thematically distinct as the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. I don't consider Sun Tzu or Julius Caesar to be primarily Fighters. To me, Fighters should be amazing athletes who've reached the height of prowess at physical combat, using tools, armor, equipment, training, and their physical skills to their advantage. So, Beowulf? Fighter. Napoleon? Warlord.
Should it be possible for a Fighter to easily mulitclass to a Warlord? Absolutely! But it's a distinct niche and deserving a class of its own.
-O