When you criticisize other's work as being to spell-like it's going to be expected you be able to explain why you don't feel other similar mechanics already in the game don't fall under that same category or else it looks more like you saying something was too spell-like was just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Remember it was you that brought up the too spell-like criticism not me.
*sigh*
The whole POINT of a design thread is to post your mechanics and get feedback on your design.
Please refer to my last few interactions with mellored, where I critiqued his design and tried to point out the relevant problems so he could fix them. He agreed with me in a few places and disagreed in others, and the dialogue will make his final design stronger.
If you
cannot take the criticism, then you should not participate in such a thread.
As far as the Battle Master fighter goes there's a few factors at work.
First, not all fighters get maneuvers. It's a
choice. So you can have people who take the martial class and not receive powers.
Because not everyone wants to play a "spellcaster". And the primary reason is because they don't want to have to manage a lot of fiddly powers, not because they're called "spells" or explicitly magical. The simple characters tend to be "martial" to make it easier to direct people to them.
Having a martial character gain a bunch of fiddly spells chosen from a long list is designing a non-spellcaster class like a spellcaster. It says the class is a martial one when it really isn't. It's a bait and switch.
The battle master is the compromise design. Because someone people like the concept of playing a warrior but do want some choices of power and complexity.
But, as far as powers go, they're simple. You choose from a list of just sixteen powers and most are just a paragraph long, being shorter than most spells. And there's very little management required, with most being resolved in a single turn. You also have a small "hand size", starting with three maneuvers for three levels of play, and never learning more than nine at level 15. (A warlock hits nine known spells at level 5, while a sorcerer goes from eight to ten at level 4.)
A
good warlord design should appeal to people who don't want to play a spellcaster and not asking them to manage the resources of a full or half spellcaster. (At least by default. That kind of option could be opted into.)
Especially the healer warlord. The appeal of that build is a healer that
isn't a spellcaster. So it should not play like one, or the player would just play a cleric/ druid/ bard/ sorcerer/ warlock/ paladin.
If playing a warlord feels like you're playing a cleric with "spells" crossed out and "gambits" or "maneuvers" written in then
the design has failed.
Meanwhile, your powers are very much designed like this:
Empowering Strike:
Trigger: When you attack an enemy
Level 1 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 1d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Level 5 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 2d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Level 11 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 3d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Warlord Point: You grant the ally advantage on his first attack.
Which is pretty much this:
That's not remotely how 5e is designed or written.
I suggest actually
looking at the Battle Master and
reading how they phrased abilities like Distracting Strike. I'd also point you to the monk to see how the format abilities that rely on modifying features based on points.
Getting into the nitty gritty, the terms "enemy" and "ally" do not appear in the rules of 5e. They're very rarely used in rules text. "Hostile creature" or "target" would be used in the place of the former while "friendly creature" in the latter.
There's no limitations on the ally line. They can be at any range increment and not have seen the attack. Not that this is always necessary, but requiring sight makes the effect less magical.
Also, is it any ally? An ally of your choice? The next ally to attack?
The rules are also gender neutral and do not use terms like "him" or "his". So your "on his first attack" doesn't match the writing style of the rules.
Plus there's no associated action. "When you attack an enemy" could be after taking the Attack action, making an opportunity attack, or after using the Ready action. Is that the intent?
A better wording would be:
Empowering Strike. When you take the Attack action on your turn and hit with a melee or ranged attack, the next attack against the target by an attacker other than you deals an additional 1d6 damage. Additionally, you can spend 1 warlord point to give advantage to the next attack roll against the target by a creature other than you.
The damage of this feature increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).
