I'm still somewhat curious why people think fighters should be the base class of a warlord. What does the fighter base class get that applies to a warlord.
Weapon Proficiencies. Second Wind in an academic sense, I suppose, since it's somewhat similar in concept to Inspiring Word. Arguably, 3-4 maneuvers from the BM.
See, in 5e, your base class supplies most of your character's niche. The things your character is most likely doing most of the time.
Sure. For the Fighter, that's standing tough and dishing out damage - or dancing around and dishing out damage, if he's the DEX type. For the Warlord it's inspiration, tactics, resourcefulness, 'leadership' &c, mostly modeled in D&D by support functions - hp recovery, defensive buffs/damage mitigation, offensive buffs, condition mitigation, etc. The Fighter chassis has none of that, the BM a trick or two that it does poorly and only infrequently.
Sub-classes modify this of course, but, your sub-class abilities don't come up as often as your class niche abilities. The Battlemaster has limited superiority dice - he simply can't spam them every round.
It's like the EK that way - dabbling.
So, trying to make a Warlord a sub-class of a Battlemaster is basically making a sub-class of a sub-class. Meaning that it's very, very far from its niche.
So far other sub-classes have lifted the BM's CS dice, so a sub-class could do that, and not be a sub-sub-class, just a sub-class that's similar to an existing one (and it's not like that never happens).
Now, most of that in no way actually applies to a warlord. Warlords never had all armours - they were limited to medium armours.
Nod, not that it's as significant in 5e, where you can (finally!) easily go DEX- or STR- based by choice of gear, rather than needing a whole 'nuther class just to be viable with lighter armor.
Fighting style? Ok, fair enough, all the "fighty types" get this, so, I can see a warlord having it.
None of the extant fighting styles are terribly warlordy, though.
More DPR, nothing the Warlord needs any more than every other non-fighter class.
Strictly a nod to 3e, but there is Inspiring Leader.
Nearly trivial though it is, sure, it fits heroic warriors of many stripes quite well, the Warlord, who got a bonus to WILL in 4e, particularly so.
Why? None of that applies to a warlord at all.
Well, /most/ of it doesn't apply.
Even the third and fourth attacks from being a fighter in no way apply.
I don't even think the second attack is all that critical. Extra Attack is a big, positively problematic feature that locks you into DPR. Terribly inappropriate. Maybe give more than one ally an attack, or a Hammer & Anvil type maneuver, to let the both Warlord and Ally attack the same target, and not at-will.
Any Warlord based on a fighter chassis is totally missing the point. Just because a class uses a sword and does some fighting doesn't make it a fighter.
The Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, War Cleric, and even Bladesinger, for instance.
I'm still somewhat curious why people think fighters should be the base class of a swashbuckler. What does the fighter base class get that applies to a swashbuckler?
Weapon Proficiency, Combat Style, Extra Attack, Action Surge, most of the BM's maneuvers, the Champion's improved crit & remarkable athlete... certainly. The Swashbuckler is a positively frenetic combatant. Second Wind & Indomitable are arguable.
See, in 5e, your base class supplies most of your character's niche. The things your character is most likely doing most of the time.
Sure. For the Fighter, that's standing tough and dishing out damage - or dancing around and dishing out damage, if he's the DEX type. For the Swashbuckler it's, well, dancing around and dishing out damage, actually, with some seduction, stealth, acrobatics, and general knavery in the other pillars.
Of course, there are Swashbucklers like Jack Sparrow, tricky opportunists, not always the best combatants, and Swashbucklers like Inigo Montoya, who are deadly duelists through-and-through.
The Battlemaster has limited superiority dice - he simply can't spam them every round.
It's like the EK that way - dabbling.
So, trying to make a Swashbuckler a sub-class of a Battlemaster is basically making a sub-class of a sub-class. Meaning that it's very, very far from its niche.
So far other sub-classes have lifted the BM's CS dice, so a sub-class could do that, and not be a sub-sub-class, just a sub-class that's similar to an existing one (and it's not like that never happens).
Now, most of that in no way actually applies to a swashbuckler. Swashbucklers never had all armours - they were limited to light armours.
Nod, not that it's as significant in 5e, where you can (finally!) easily go DEX- or STR- based by choice of gear, rather than needing a whole 'nuther class just to be viable with lighter armor.
Fighting style? Ok, fair enough, all the "fighty types" get this, so, I can see a swashbuckler having it.
Especially Dueling, yes. Or TWFing.
Action Surge? Bonus Feats?
Big-time. Swashbucklers are very active flamboyant martial artists. Action Surge fits perfectly. And some extra feats would help with that, certainly, though they're not as big a deal as they're made out to be.
Maybe not so much, while any hero might be strong-willed, Swashbucklers tend to be more tricky and agile - maybe re-brand the feature to work with different saves?
Why? None of that applies to a swashbuckler at all.
Seems like most of it does.
Even the third and fourth attacks from being a fighter in no way apply.
Seem pretty applicable for a deadly duelist who also takes on multiple foes from time to time. Think Inigo Montoya wouldn't have Extra Attack?
Any swashbuckler based on a fighter chassis is totally missing the point. Just because a class uses a sword and does some fighting doesn't make it a fighter.
The Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, War Cleric, and even Bladesinger, for instance.
Then again, the Swashbuckler mostly fights, and typically quite independently - in boarding actions, in duels, on rooftops, wherever he can find someone to cross swords with, really, even a friend will do in a pinch.
The main reason the Swashbuckler was given a PrC or kicked to Rogue in the past was that the system made being viable as a melee combatant in light/no armor a matter of class features, and Fighters weren't given those features. In 5e, light armor & high DEX are perfectly viable choices for a fighter (or any melee combatant, really).
Of course, the other reason was skills, the Swashbuckler was, like most heroes the fighter fails to model well, often a positive paragon or renaissance man - an daring acrobat, a capable navigator, a stealthy infiltrator, a master of disguise, a dashing beau, a clever negotiator, and on and on. Past fighters fall far short of that, 5e fighters do, too (heck any class but the Rogue and spell-casting Bard probably falls short), but Backgrounds help. You can make a Swashbuckler who is a criminal, or seaman, or a prince, for instance, and has a couple of skills to back that up.
But he'll always be shown up by the Rogue with Expertise in the same skill(s).
(It also works for archers, dervishes, samurai, etc.)
Sure, the Fighter works great for any concept that calls multi-attacking DPR, general high-end toughness, and little else. Archers don't even really need the toughness, you could make the case that features like Second Wind and d10 HD are redundant for them.
The Fighter doesn't work so well for concepts that don't call for either.
