That's not at all a fair characterization of what I said.
I know, I was just teasing. But it's clear to me that, for you and many other, the mechanical difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard are thematically strong enough to make them feel different, but looking at this comment from later:
What does an adventuring scholar or aristocrat do in combat? What does Lord Green do in combat? What makes what they are doing in combat different from what a fighter does?
You can't see the thematic difference between two warriors with vastly different combat focus. I guess it's fair.
Let me put this another way, if the Fighter and Warlord are to be a single class, I would rather see the WARLORD be the dominant idea, regardless of class name, than the limited 5e Fighter. I think it would help make the Fighter a stronger thematic class if it regained its 'mundane leader of men' theming from the days where it would get a keep and followers. Keep the striker subclasses, and the Eldtrich Knight, but have more room in the core class for support option. What if the Fighter had a basic 5 ft aura as a core class feature that could (as a class feature pick) either make allies within it harder to hit (say, if you're holding a shield) or make enemies within in easier to hit? What if the Fighter had a 'dress wound' ability that lets them make short rest more effective? (i.e. you let X amount of party member maximize the HD they spend) Maybe, at higher level, it can train people to use weapons, like he can grant weapon proficiency to NPCs to train up a militia...
Basically, the 5e Fighter feels like it's designed to be the Champion first, and the Battlemaster or Banneret second, and I'd rather see that be flipped if we can't have a separate Warlord.
And let's leave the 'dumb Fighter' trope behind and give them some skills other than meathead ones and give them some stuff to do with them! You could still play a lunkhead Fighter, but you'd have options not to!
This is the sort of character I don't want to exist in D&D. I am too much an simulationist for this to work for me and I want mechanics to be more directly tied to what's going on the world. Thematically useless but mechanically useful is an unacceptable disconnect to me; I you're thematically useless it means that you're also mechanically useless, because the rules exist to mechanically represent the themes. I played a long time in a group with a warlord (albeit no purely lazy one, they rarely managed to actually hit anyone) and it was a constant source of low-level ludonarrative dissonance. I get that it works for some people, (and I don't care to argue why, it goes nowhere) but those are the same small group (too small for WotC) who love 4e in general.
You don't need to be 'thematically useless', you just need to be useful in DIFFERENT WAYS than the usual "I smash his face/stab his guts/blast his face" standards. Just because a character can't hit hard doesn't mean their in-universe companion wouldn't be able to appreciate their contribution.
One thing I notice on certain RPG forums, that there is a very dedicated group of people who are hardcore 4e fans and seem to think that was the best thing ever. And good for them! But that game design philosophy obviously didn't work for many people. So my question is, if you love 4e, why not just play it then? Like sure, if you're like me who liked some small parts of it but still feel that overall 5e is a massive improvement that wouldn't make sense, but it seems that certain people feel that 5e was just a step backwards and 4e was simply better. So play 4e! People play Basic and AD&D still too.
It's been explained but for lots of reasons, nobody plays 4e. And I will admit, 4e had cool ideas but it gets unwieldy at high level. Once you get past your second Encounter power you start to have too many things to track... I'm generally fine with 5e, there's just a few things I wish it did better (support characters are REALLY underwhelming. The Cleric is boring. Martials are too limited).
It should be clear that the Warlord has absolutely no design space mechanically. Spellcasting is just a feature that makes it easier to add complexity by letting a class access the already myriad 500+ features in an list. Mechanically, the difference between a spell and a nonmagical feature is basically bunk.
There's already 3 commander classes in the game: The Bard, the Paladin, and the Sorcerer. Each are naturally charismatic, have features to bolster other characters on the battlefield, can heal, can control the overarching battlefield, and are more resilient than most other spellcasters.
I completely disagree with your assessment.
What I don't understand is why you feel the Warlock's Mechanics don't make sense for a Warlock? Pact Bonuses + Invocations + Strong Cantrips + 'Lesser Spellcasting' seems to mechanically fit that concept just fine to me.
What I don't understand is why you feel Sorcerer Mechanics don't make sense for a Sorcerer? Full Spellcasting + Metamagic seems to mechanically fit the concept of innately magical caster to me.
I think the problem is that we are dealing with magical fantasy concepts that can be justified any way we want to justify them. Which is to say - I can see the sorcerer mechanically functioning differently or the warlock or the wizard, etc. But I wouldn't say any particular implementation makes more sense. I think there might be some implementations that make no sense - like forcing innately magical casters into a class that requires a spell book to cast.
Perhaps you dislike these things for a different reason than you are expressing you do - that's pretty common for people actually.
I agree with Longinus, the Sorcerer is really bland and uninteresting.
The other thing I find people liked about warlords was that they tended to be more powerful than many classes. When built properly they could cause more damage than other attack based classes on an attack - As they could always do the highest party members basic attack + int mod in damage. I think some of what some people liked about them was that OPness.
That OPness however was totally dependant on the party. It wasn't that the Warlord themselves were better than everybody, they just made the whole PARTY better. A Warlord on their own weren't as good as ,say, a Ranger, but a Warlord and a Ranger were (often) better than two Rangers. The Warlord wasn't OP, they were a force multiplier.
I personally liked the martial healer/inspiring take on warlords in 4e. But it seems that view of Warlords isn't a very popular one - and it's a pity as it's one I think there could be some room to further develop for 5e as there's an actual theme there. Leadery Martial. But Warlords always get burdened with specific 4e implementations as there's no specific concept involved around the mechanics people liked and so its just an emerging playstyle based solely on 4e mechanics that people fell in love with.
I too like the CHA one better, and I liked the STR/CHA Cleric in 4e that got dropped like a hot rock passed the PHB, but the INT Warlord is one that really got people excited for a smart Martial character that didn't dump INT. When making my own Warlord class I had way more ideas for CHA subclasses to the point I had to stop myself
Furthermore, sorcerer mechanics are pretty damn meh and sorcerer points are awkward.
I feel like the Sorcerer using magic should have more of an impact on their body. They're using power from within and I think it should impact them if they put too much strain on their magic. Sorcerers should be more like Magical Berserker Barbarian, able to trade exhaustion (or HD) for stronger effect. They should be able to control raw magical energy and either shoot it as a basic blasting attack or enhance their body without a specific 'spell' (just some class feature).
I also really like the play test idea I heard about where the more they used sorcery points the more their ancestry manifested (like, they got more Dragons).
Also, Wild Magic is garbage. It should have had a push your luck mechanic where you can choose to gain a benefit at the cost of rolling on the random table instead of depending on the DM.
And I think that the Warlord was also that huge breath of fresh air for me. I never knew how much I wanted or needed this class archetype in D&D until I saw in 4e, but that was because 4e provided mechanical and conceptual space for a Martial Leader. I remember reading this and thinking "OMG! I can play a non-magical, tactically-minded support character who isn't a minstrel or a priest? Thanks be to 4E!" But 5E has said that there's no space for it, but the Warlord was also a lightning rod of anti-4e talking points during the D&D Next playtesting, so was there no space for it or was it intentionally boxed out?
The Warlord is basically 4e's mascot. I can totally see them deciding not to work it into 5e (and really, if they were including it from the ground up they would TOTALLY have been able to make it work mechanically, regardless of what naysayers like Asisreo think. Just keeping Healing Surges would have given the Warlord tons to do) for fear it would trigger the grognard rage.
And I admit, as someone who liked 4e, it would feel validating to see a 5e Warlord. It would be like the designers saying "your taste were VALID." instead of feeling like they're going out of their way to act like 4e never existed (despite all the stolen elements) and that we were somehow totally wrong for liking it...