Undrave
Legend
Okay then, find a better name, I don't care.Words are the MOST important part of rules and stories. Names DEFINE things. And if they don't define a thing correctly, people will not be happy.
The Battlemaster is closer to the 4e Fighter than the Warlord, as there's like 2-3 maneuvers top that work for a Warlord flavour. It's a pinch of Warlord Spice on a patty of Fighter meat.To me this seems like a false dichotomy. Battle masters are widely regarded as one of the best sub-classes in 5e, and are highly effective at all levels. They definitely play nothing like wizards, but they are a very popular choice and every party is happy to have one.
And their maneuvers do scale, because they are designed to offer situational advantages to abilities that scale. For example, when you use maneuver dice to grab the rogue an off-turn attack, a pretty classic BM maneuver, the rogue gets an extra sneak attack. Which scales. When you grant your ally advantage on their next attack, that scales. And so on.
The problem is that while they scale in damage and (poorly) scale in usage, they don't scale in scope. They don't adapt to the challenges of higher levels. You do the same thing at level 20 you did at level 3 but with bigger numbers (that's also a problem with the Fighter in general), but not you get to pick all the maneuvers you didn't care about at level 3, ain't that wonderful?
Pfff... Please. You can't suggest 'It would be cool if WotC did a Warlord' without twenty people jumping you with 'You got the Battlemaster!' 'It's just a Fighter!' 'We don't need it!' and other platitudes.The hostility is more to the “I want this therefore WotC has to make it for me” entitled attitude. D&D has always been a do it yourself game, and as has been pointed out that that there are plenty of 3pp versions which are “perfectly good”.