My preference is to make Int the main stat (something D&D is too short on anyway) with subclasses keying off Charisma for one, and perhaps Wisdom for another. I think that's how the previous Warlord worked.
STR, INT/CHA (one build shoehorned in WIS). But STR-primary was really one of the D&D sacred cows that 4e kept alive, and 5e's well, not killed, but let wander out to pasture and stopped worshiping so much, and prettymuch anyone can go STR or DEX for their primary weapon-combat stat - no reason for the Warlord to be an exception (well, no GOOD reason, a reflexive 4venger need to clone the Warlord mechanically being a reason, obviously).
I think it has to be a save or contested roll, representing that the PC is tricking the enemy. (Which is another reason why I don't think it should be a passive ability.)
Agree it shouldn't be 'passive' (at least, not on the part of the player, keeping players engaged is good).
I'm not so sure about contested checks. Check vs a DC based on a 'passive' score strikes me as a better mechanic. That or just a save. Usual DC. You could make it INT-based.
If the DM can just choose not to take OA whenever doing so would be advantageous to the PC, it's not much of a special ability.
It'd seem that way. But if, like marking (4e version), the ability makes both choices a little worse, a catch-22, it stays 'special' whichever way the DM chooses. So if you provoke an OA because you need to do the thing that provokes, and set up an ally to punish that OA, than either you get away with the original action because the enemy declined (and the ally keeps his Reaction to use later), or the enemy takes a quick beating from the ally.
Now, that's actually not how most such abilities worked in 4e. I've played a Bravura Warlord (several times, different DMs, all three Tiers among them), and each time had a way of setting up ally OAs or free attacks in response to enemy OAs. The most typical one being an at-will attack. Warlord attacks (a nothing-special attack, no better than a basic), gives enemy the option of taking the OA, if the enemy takes it, an ally gets a free basic attack. If the enemy declines, the Warlord has lost nothing, he still made an attack on his turn. If the enemy takes the OA, the Warlord's taking a risk, but an ally's getting a free shot. The decision, on both sides, can be a mix of tactics and RP (and optimization rules-of-thumb).
I've been binge-watching the Netflix Daredevil series (one of the few perqs of getting the flu) and thinking about this concept of the "fighter" who uses guile and terrain and smarts, and not just overwhelming force. On the one hand it's a consistent...and great...trope from fiction/literature: Odysseus, Robin Hood, Captain America, Batman, etc.
Nod. Not the kind of archetypes D&D has often done a great job modeling, combat being so abstract, and martial class designs so limited in most editions.
On the other hand, codifying that trope in a class comes with an implication that other classes fight like...well...they fight like 'bad guys'; full frontal assault with no cleverness. No, it doesn't have to mean that 100%, but the implication is there.
That implication was a lot stronger when classes had a lot of designed-in/hard-coded 'niche protection.' Back when Greyhawk presented the Thief class and suddenly only they could Find Traps, because now it was a 'special' ability, it was a big deal.
Ever since 3.0 introduce modular multi-classing, class exclusivity has become less and less a stumbling block. Like removing restrictions on casting, that's something 5e has not backed off from, but continued the trend. In 5e, any character can pick up at least a toy or two from any other class. Even if there's no outright MCing allowed, there are feats like Magic Initiate and Martial Adept. Even if feats are also not opted-into, there are sub-class and Backgrounds that hearken to another class.
(Think about all the ways you can do fighter/magic-user these days: Fighter/Wizard. Eldritch Knight. Bladesinger. Fighter with the Sage Background. Fighter with Magic Initiate. Wizard with the Soldier Background. Wizard with Martial Adept. Or, stretching it slightly, Valor Bard or Hexblade.
And you can further combine some of the above.)
I'm not saying it's not a reason to build such a class.
Good, because it really hasn't been much of a reason this millennium.
those sorts of "moves", if we want them in the game, should have been made available mechanically to all classes.
Well, if they're introduced as Maneuvers, Martial Adept could be errata'd to work for them, as well as BM maneuvers, or a new feat introduced with the new class, for two instances that'd do just that.
Though, really, the idea that 'anybody should be able to do that' when "that" is
fight like " Odysseus, Robin Hood, Captain America, Batman, etc" seems a bit counter-intuitive. Surely those characters are exceptional, even superhuman (or beyond the mundane norm of humanity, at least), even though not supernatural.
