Anything but "warlord". That clearly means "murderous, illegitimate military power usurper". Never liked it as a class name, still think it's a poor choice. I voted for "marshal", "battle master" and other ("banneret" is fine, so's "captain").
But to be honest, I've always had something of a conceptual problem with the class from a narrative standpoint; a character with literally no experience (points) shouldn't be acting as a commander of the rest of the party. So I'm glad its closest 5e equivalents are fighter subclasses, as it's something a character should grow into, not be from the start.
If one really thinks about it, what is a "fighter"? Someone who fights, of course. But that doesn't just mean "someone who hits things", even if that's where they start. It means someone who learns the art of fighting as their specialty and stock in trade. So a fighter over time (that is, at increasing levels) should become better at fighting. It could be that they become better at dealing out damage themselves, or it could mean that they become better at reading a battle, and finding ways for they and their companions to become more effective as a fighting unit. Or they might find a way to supplement their fighting knowledge with other areas of learning, like magic.
That's what the three PHB fighter subclasses represent, with the Champion, Battle Master and Eldrich Knight respectively. I see no real reason for a separate Warlord class. 5e already has it covered narratively. There's certain aspects of the 4e class that are missing, but those can be approximated with feats. And no, I don't see that as a penalty. Again, I've always had a problem with what the warlord could do at the start; it should have a cost and take some time to build a character with that list of capabilities.
But to be honest, I've always had something of a conceptual problem with the class from a narrative standpoint; a character with literally no experience (points) shouldn't be acting as a commander of the rest of the party. So I'm glad its closest 5e equivalents are fighter subclasses, as it's something a character should grow into, not be from the start.
If one really thinks about it, what is a "fighter"? Someone who fights, of course. But that doesn't just mean "someone who hits things", even if that's where they start. It means someone who learns the art of fighting as their specialty and stock in trade. So a fighter over time (that is, at increasing levels) should become better at fighting. It could be that they become better at dealing out damage themselves, or it could mean that they become better at reading a battle, and finding ways for they and their companions to become more effective as a fighting unit. Or they might find a way to supplement their fighting knowledge with other areas of learning, like magic.
That's what the three PHB fighter subclasses represent, with the Champion, Battle Master and Eldrich Knight respectively. I see no real reason for a separate Warlord class. 5e already has it covered narratively. There's certain aspects of the 4e class that are missing, but those can be approximated with feats. And no, I don't see that as a penalty. Again, I've always had a problem with what the warlord could do at the start; it should have a cost and take some time to build a character with that list of capabilities.
