All classes should contribute damage in the combat pillar. Your wording "locked-in" seems to acknowledge the existing 5e framework. They may be focused on damage (I disagree), but those classes are the only acceptable tool we have. Well, besides the eternally vague DMGuide guidelines.Those (existing mundane) sub-classes are too locked into DPR as their primary in-combat contribution.
Base Class: Strategist, Field Expert, Expert (3.5), Supporter, or Buffer (Like Fighter and Commoner)There is a niche for someone that can support others in a low magic campaign. Why does this have to be a class called Warlord?
Good point. Global Support vs. Combat-Pillar-Only support. That's tough.you 'want' a warlord, but I would prefer to buy into a support class that was not so limited.
I think that would solve a lot of the "command" complaints.Maybe some powers with triggers: when you and an ally both X then you get a bonus.
Readied actions are pretty untapped.The warlord could also be the king of readied actions, maybe being able to move in addition to making a regular action. They might have something akin to "delay" as a class feature. That keeps combats quick, since they're acting outside of their turn but not doing much on their actual turn.
Following up on the "trade sneak attack for something" - options for "when you would deal sneak attack by "flanking""Honestly, I think the Mastermind subclass for rogues is my way of choice. Being able to grant advantage as a bonus action goes a long way right there. Maybe drop the sneak attack stuff in favour of some sort of healing abilities, and possibly later on some sort of buffing (or perhaps allow the Mastermind's ability to work out of combat) and you're a long way there.
Blizzard here in Maryland. Got time to post now, not trying to top-post I swear.
Good point. Global Support vs. Combat-Pillar-Only support. That's tough.
Was the "identify leaders" thing ever a feature of the Warlord class in 4E? (I don't recall.)Blizzard here in Maryland. Got time to post now, not trying to top-post I swear.
< snip >
Not really. Bards get more ShortRest options, more spells, music, more charisma options, more Exploration, can be chaotic, can't wear heavy armor. They are too Rogue-like. The warlord would be lawful, heavy armor, Intelligence based, no music, only 1 or 2 shortrest buffs / auras, and Exploration pillar will be limited to only "can Identify leaders in a group of people".
Yes, but realistically: is there any way we could ever estimate how many bards have been equipped with both "a banjo, and viola?"Besides, 90% of class fluff is the artwork on the first page. We all know the 4e Barbarians were notorious for their broken-jaw class feature. Just draw a warhammer in the artwork instead of a banjo, and viola.
Maybe not. My efforts at doing just this haven't "felt" like a Warlord ... yet.... sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.