I didn't, no. It was in the jump between the first unread posts and recent posts.
This is literally just spellcasting, but with a "it's totally not spells! Everything else is identical but it's totally not spells you guys!" disclaimer. Like... it's there, verbatim. "It's Not Magic" is a word for word subheading. If I did not know better, I would think you were being sarcastic, because this is genuinely at the level of parody.
This whole bit of the convo started because I said that martial exploits and magical spells aren't actually mechanically very distinct and that a lot of spells could work pretty easily as martial exploits. Showing that to be true means showing that, for instance, the distance between
circle of power (the paladin spell) and
circle of power (the warlord exploit) is a matter of a few largely aesthetic choices that are easy enough to change. So, it sounds like you basically agree with my point: that the distinction between a daily martial exploit and a daily magical spell is mostly that one is not described as magic and the other is.
So you can see why I'd disagree with this:
The vast majority of spells are completely unacceptable unchanged. Period. They would need to be changed so significantly, they would be barely recognizable.
It sounds like you agree that essentially writing "it's not magic" next to a spell doesn't mean changing it so significantly it would be barely recognizable.
Warlords (with the one exception, as I have noted, of an EK/AT-style subclass) should not be using magic. Period. It should be a genuinely distinct mechanic. At absolute most, some of the exploits (or whatever we call them) might be equivalent to certain healing spells, since that's a subsystem that doesn't really allow for a lot of variation, but if possible they should definitely still be distinct.
I mean, we can define whatever "should" we want, but this all increases the barrier to "official creation." Maybe that's not really the goal, in which case, let's go HAM, but the question in the OP is: "Why is there no warlord equivalent in 5e." Is part of the answer, "Because a true warlord equivalent would require a separate class?" Because then we can talk about why 5e just doesn't want to add new classes in general and why the warlord is required to be one and why the Fighter, Rogue, and Cleric are eating everyone's lunches and making more classes difficult to implement because of their conceptual broadness.
I did not add summon celestial to the list. You did that. If you wanted people to not draw the conclusion that your proposed spellcaster masquerading as a Warlord could summon angels...perhaps it would have been better to not mention that they could summon angels.
Spells that outright conjure something from the void are absolutely not thematically appropriate for a completely nonmagical class. They just aren't, and I struggle to take seriously the notion that you sincerely believe they are a fitting component of any proposal for a 5e Warlord.
Aragorn calls upon a ghost army. It's not exactly out of pocket. We just had a whole thread about how we should allow martial characters remarkable powers, too. It's also not intrinsically magical on the part of the warlord. We don't have to limit warlords to "shout heal good" any more than rogues need to be limited to "skill check good."
But I think you're smart enough to see that the idea of "I summon these angels with divine magic" and "I summon these angels because I am a legendary commander of armies and the hosts of heaven are glad to serve at my call" are very similar effects, mechanically, which is the meat of the point - that the mechanical distinction between magical and not magical is not all that deep of a valley, and can be crossed fairly trivially, even when it comes to summoning angels.