I feel like this is actually a misunderstanding of what I think WotC is intending "class" to mean in NEXT (which isn't the same as what it meant in 4e, and not even quite the same as what it meant in 3e), because I don't think it's about legacy (or else why chop Assassins, Illusionists, and potentially Sorcerers and Warlocks as unique classes?), and I don't think it's about an inclusive or exclusive angle, either -- it's not about trying to reduce the number of classes or increase the number of classes.
It is about defining what your character is about.
So, you can't make classes very generic -- not everyone who hits things is going to be a Fighter, because then the word doesn't effectively speak to how your character acts. It becomes more of an organizational thing. Which is fine, but not the most effective at defining your character: your "fighter" could be about anything!
You also can't make classes very specific -- hitting things with bows and hitting things with light weapons and hitting things with two-handed weapons don't need to all be different classes, because then it becomes too limiting. My paladin can't use a bow well because that's not what paladins do, that's what rangers do. My fighter can't sneak very well because that's not what fighters do, that's what rogues do. That is also fine, but it isn't the most effective at defining what your character is about: your definition is narrow and exclusionary and sometimes distinctly arbitrary.
Fighters, as WotC has conceived of them in NEXT, are about combat. They think about swords, they eat off of shields, they breathe clouds of arrows, they mull tactical approaches over in their dreams, they know an encyclopedia of flourishes and feints, they aren't afraid to get hit, they know where to plant their feet, and they view getting pointy things thrust at them as a lifestyle choice that they are comfortable with.
Barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, even rogues -- these guys are not about combat. They might be fine for fighting, but that's not what they eat and breathe and live and absorb into their very being. War is not their be-all and end-all. They do not have intimate familiarity with the history and technology of killin' things. They are not defined by combat, they are not entrenched in the way of the warrior. They've got other paths to follow.
In fact, that might be a useful metaphor: a path. A way. A trail. That's your class -- a journey to a destination. Or, perhaps, a set of tools -- your class is a thing you use to accomplish your adventuring tasks.
In that view, the warlord and the fighter go by the same path, side by side. They both use the same tool -- combat. They travel next to each other. They are both about fighting. They define themselves by attacks, defenses, strategems, tactics, gambits, damage, and protection.
To separate out "I am about combat as it involves aiding and abetting my allies" and "I am about combat as it involves doing things other than that!" is a distinction that leans to the narrow and arbitrary.
That's different than separating out "I am about combat!" and "I am about self-perfecting enlightenment!", or "I am about combat" and "I am about the dangerous loss of control and freedom unfettered by society!", or "I am about combat!" and "I am about metaphysical justice and retribution!", or "I am about combat!" and "I am about an intimate knowledge of the wilderness and its inhabitants, the liminal space between the world and your village."
Look at the other candidates to roll into other classes: Assassins, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Illusionists...they're all very close to the same paths that other classes walk (rogues and wizards). If you're designing a game that treats the concept of a class as a way to help define what path your character walks, those are all paths that are pretty much the same.
I also think it's key to point out that not all classes are or should be created with the same flexibility in mind. The Core Four probably need to be very flexible. The optional classes less so.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you believe this or if you're having a bit of fun with us. I'm intrigued by your notion of 'classes as paths', but I'm not convinced of your conclusions, or those of the designers for that matter. The Warlord and the Fighter are undeniably martial in nature, but all weapon-wielding classes walk that path. Whatever else is unique about them is really the realm of specialties and background story, unless the way they approach fighting is so radically different it deserves its own class. I could go either way, honestly, but I need a cue from the overall design which I haven't seen yet. It's a little of both right now, some classes broad and others terribly specific, and unlike you I don't believe there should be both. In fact, I believe it weakens the overall class system to have it two ways. Either give me broad core classes with more lateral mechanics and elaborate specialties, or give me many classes.
Right now classes are muddled, and if we're going to see our way through I think we have to look beyond what a class is best at, because that is not necessarily what they're
all about. From the designers' own lips came the notion of the three pillars, and while combat is the arena the Fighter is best at, he shares that martial overlap with every other weapon-wielding class. He is not just about the combat, or maybe I should say he's not supposed to be. So what is left, then? Where does the Fighter go socially and as an explorer? Go with me here a minute, this has a lot to do with the Warlord issue...
Now in a simplified game with the 4 core classes like I mentioned above, the answer becomes clear rather quickly. A Fighter is defined firstly by his martial prowess (which I think you're referring to with the idea he's about combat) but that leaves him one-dimensional without something to further characterize him, more elaborate specialties and feats which enable him to become a Barbarian, Gladiator, Ranger, Monk, Paladin, Duelist, Pirate, and yes even Warlord. That's where he finds his social and exploratory purpose and it works in a 4-class game supporting lateral building (which I think you alluded to above in your talk on balancing between too general and too specific).
Unfortunately, this is not the direction I see 5e going, and the haphazard design which allows some classes to be as specific as 'woodland fighters specializing in bows and duel-wielding' and 'angry fighters who come from primitive lands' but doesn't give the same design space, that is room to expand through its own specialties such as 'lost heir', 'military commander', 'mastermind', and the literal 'warlord', to the 'tactical fighters who support their allies through planning, gusto, and savvy' is where I take issue. It's not that I'm necessarily against folding the Warlord into the Fighter if that is the direction the entire class system were going, but it isn't. The design space being given to classes like the Monk but not the Warlord is, in my eyes, a clear and obvious marginalizing of one of the cousin classes- and I suspect I know why they're doing it, because it betrays the weakness of their current back-and-forth design between broad and specific classes.
In the current incarnation of the game, the Fighter, despite its dice and maneuvers, is still conceptually too narrow. When you take away everything the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Assassin, and Warlord have, there aren't that many places left to go. Sure, the Sword'n'Sorcery fighting man, the soldier, a few others, but it's my suspicion the design team, already several iterations ahead of us in playtest packets, has already fully absorbed the Warlord into the Fighter hoping to provide it more core depth. See you can't rely on specialties to define the high-level growth of any character alone, not without increased mechanics supporting them in a very Paragon Path or Prestige Class sort of way, though the way Mearls was touting story-over-mechanics the other day makes me think they tried.
I figure this podcast is just easing us into this news, and it really isn't easy to swallow, because while they're initially suggesting the Warlord aspects within the Fighter are optional, they're actually something quite essential to creating a rounded class which accesses those nostalgic keynotes which really more fit the Warlord such as followers, strongholds, and mass combat. However, cannibalizing the Warlord is going to kill a lot of what the Warlord was, and with it the martial leader, because taking everything from the Warlord would give rise to a Fighter class that is the best at combat and can heal in some capacity or another. That is part of what the Warlord does, after all, though this opens the other can of worms over what is healing in 5e and what would be look like on the Warlord.
Heh, idk, maybe I'm crazy with all the speculation, but I do know they have to make a choice for the best design possible. Four, broad core classes or a wide open buffet of classes. Either way, I honestly believe the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Warlord either must ALL be absorbed into the Fighter, OR the Warlord must be allowed to be its own class. If you like, I'll detail how different the Warlord and Fighter approach is tomorrow.
