Odd statement given the mock-up you just posted with abilities such as "Respected Leader", and abilities that direct the other PCs (attacks and movement). How do you envision such things playing out without you telling them how to think, feel and act?
I ask them who would like another attack & they all beg my for my support (or healing).
Seriously I as a player ask them I don't tell them. I don't think we are a bunch of method actors inhabiting the skins of our characters.
Is the class' fundamental functionality (I get into this more at the end of this post) tied up with telling the other players how their PCs should think, feel and act in order for it to contribute? Then yes.
More than a bard casting Heroism?
4e != 5e. I played a few warlords in 4e as well. My dwarf bravura was probably my favorite. Warlords serve(d) a great role in 4e. But that in no way means they are necessary in 5e.
Necessary != should not be there. As I said earlier there are a number of very marginal classes (well Sorcerers) and one that uses its own rules the Warlock.
This is a different argument from the removal of agency. I fact you seem to be making 3 different arguments
1) "Leaders" remove agency and are evils that should be destroyed.
2) Warlords are not needed in 5e
3) Warlords cannot be made to work in 5e
I will return to 1)
2) is the thrust of this thread. While it is trivially true it also seems to be irrelevant if people want it.
3) You seem to be restating 1) to show it cannot work. (Or maybe a dislike of extra potentially fiddly or otherwise distasteful systems which may have some merit?)
Subtle, insidious evils are the worst kinds of evils. Frog in a cooking pot. Et cetera, et cetera, and all that jazz. Just because you aren't overtly usurping control at all times, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in discreet moments or in certain situations. Also, you may not even be aware that some of your fellow players might feel pressure to acquiesce, because as your friends, they want your character to contribute meaningfully. Maybe they don't want to sound like jerks for stepping on what you consider enjoyable. And so they compartmentalize. I know this happens. I've experienced it.
Possibly. I am obviously an Alpha gamer. In most groups there are some of us & some people being there for the social interaction or the dice rolling or whatever. I like to think I am aware of this & try not to direct other players actions or hog too much of the limelight. No doubt I go too far on occasion (I notice getting exasperated in stressful AL games).
I do not think the character I am playing makes much difference to this though.
This is why I am so bemused by you vehemence on"Point 1". It seems no different to bards especially or any support buffer class to me. Unless you hate them too?
And if they all decided to stop receiving your warlord gifts? How much fun would you have with that character if none of them ever accept your various leadership-y benefits (bonus attacks, movement, inspiration, healing)? Exactly. Maybe that's why they do it? So you don't lose your fun. Your choice to play a warlord tells the other players at the table what kind of fun you are seeking. For them to step on it can say as much about them as your choice says about you. People sometimes forget that that's part of the social contract as well. Sometimes people accept contracts with parts they don't necessarily like. Whether for the greater good, or because they get to participate at all. But it happens all the time. I know this happens. I've experienced it.
About the same as if they refused the life cleric's healing or bless or the Bard's inspiration (which I might as it exasperates me). In 4e too warlords depend on party composition to be reasonably effective. I am sure I negotiated before playing a "lazylord" as we have know each others for 20 years (& this was years ago in our glacially paced game so I cannot remember for sure).
But I could play a general "taclord" or bard or cleric or druid in AL without overly worrying about it.
Maybe I am being pandered to in my long term group but I do not get that feeling & it is a very long term group so they can't be too put out by being healed & getting to make extra attacks with bonuses to hit etc.
I like to play superhero RPGs. There are great games for doing those as well. Doesn't mean 5e is better for trying to handle it either.
This is kind "point 2" just because it is
not needed doesn't make it unwelcome. If myself & the warlord fans come up with a great class that captures the essence of the (necessarily) 4e warlord but in a 5e style it is not going to diminish your enjoyment of the game.
As I said in my very first post on this topic it may be that Warlord exemplifies the things I liked about 4e that are sadly lacking in 5e.
but 5e is the new hotness. I CBA with Pathfinder & 4e is tricky to get a game of too so if I can recapture the fun I had with a warlord (or "more complex fighter") in 5e it will only improve it for me.
