What of the base fighter feels like it doesn't fit in the Warlord? Or is it that the base fighter being the Warlord skeleton wouldn't allow for "lead from the rear" type Warlords?
Without subclass, the fighter is constructed of:
- Fighting Style: This fits the Warlord, but I'd add in some Leader oriented options.
- Action Surge: Warlord could utilize this with their features, but is the worry that it allows for too much damage on its own for the Warlord?
- Extra Attack (1): seems fair for the Warlord, all the other warriors except for the Rogue get it.
- Extra ASIs: Could be very useful in getting feats like Inspiring Leader, Healer, or theoretical new ones.
- Extra Attack (2): is this too much for the Warlord? Is this the breaking point?
- Indomitable: Doesn't seem out of place for a Warlord, but maybe not the best?
- Extra Attack (3): Too much?
One of the directions I'm coming from is that I'd like each class to be defined by a mechanic that dictates their play style. Not all of the 5E classes did well here. I could see the Warlord separate because of this.
I guess I'm seeing that the Fighter consuming the Warlord and discarding the mundane warrior (I do like Warrior as a class name better than Fighter, but I doubt we're going to get another class name change after 3E) would create a far better class.
The Fighter then becomes the class that "fights with trained technique and battlefield tactics", where in the barbarian uses instinct, the rogue uses trickery, and the monk, paladin, and ranger use their supernatural powers.