I like the following
"At level 3, this subclass allows you to use your Second Wind, Indomitable, and Action Surge on others."
Boom. They're no longer selfish and now party buffs. It used a bit of power budget, but not a lot, because its already using existing resources. Might need to use a bonus action or a reaction, which would lower the power budget cost even more.
But you're ignoring
the rest of the class when you do that. Action surge used on
yourself, as a Fighter, is almost always better than using Action Surge on someone else. Indomitable is kinda meh overall, so honestly I don't think that factors in much, but since you get so few uses of it, you'll run out long before you can
do much. Second Wind is a hilariously inadequate healing feature--the Banneret already did better than that (giving HP equal to your Fighter level to up to three other targets!) and it was
nowhere near enough.
Under 1dnd, I would probably make a new Weapon Mastery you can apply to a weapon and grant bonuses to other PCs on anyone you hit as well. But there's other things we can do as well.
Okay. That might be the start of
one single mechanic that could be useful. I'm not seeing how that covers an entire class worth of stuff--nor how this would ever be in any way the better option than just using your own strong features. Which, again, is precisely the problem. The Fighter's base features are already so good, the option of giving them to someone else is mostly pointless.
The former is unacceptable by demonstration; the designers
could have actually deleted class features via subclasses, but they never, ever have. Hell, they don't even like doing errata, even in places that sorely,
direly need it like the PHB Sorcerer subclasses or the Beast Master.
Why is it OP? Hm? That's the same argument people have been saying about new warlorlds - "ITs OP!!! RAWR!"
Because none of the things you suggested are BETTER than just using those features (Action Surge, Second Wind, Indomitable) on yourself. In fact, using them on other people is essentially always inferior. But if you make using them on others
better than using them on yourself--when using them on yourself is already powerful--then you will have crossed the line into OP.
That's the catch-22 here. Change nothing except adding sharing, and you've added a worthless option that will never be used because it isn't better than just...not using it. Change things so it's
more than just sharing, and you've now made something OP, because you have a
floor of "be a strong Fighter who already does competent damage," which you can then exceed by using your features on allies instead.
That's just SAYING its OP and rejecting this out of hand.
No, it isn't.
This is my objection to you, EzekielRaiden. Rejection of anything that's not your way out of hand. Others are saying the same thing about any new Warlord class - its going to be OP because it'll be as healy as the cleric, allow as much movement as the various bards like Glamour and Dance, and deal as much damage as the Rogue. That's just as wrong.
Again, no, it isn't. If the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is simply adding the choice of being allowed to use their selfish features on others, they will still be used selfishly because it is essentially
categorically true that using them on yourself is better than using them on anyone else, unless you intentionally and overtly slant the example. If you don't do that, if you actually
change the features so that they really are better if given to others, but you can still use them on yourself, then you've just made something OP. It won't be
as OP as the thing you just described, but it WOULD be OP, I recognize that and don't want that.
And the only other option is to DELETE the ability of the "Warlord Fighter" to use those actions on themselves, something that 5e's rules do not support doing and never have.
Says you. I disagree. I say that every attempt was made early on in the game and they didn't understand the game as well as now, so they err'd on making things underpowered. Especially for martial classes.
Oh, no, no. They knew
exactly what they were doing. Well, sort of. They knew exactly
part of what they were doing, and that part was intentional.
That's why Mearls "joked" about shouting hands back on when he dismissed Warlord as a class concept. That's why they kept pushing out any 4e rules as belonging to the "tactical combat module," which was total vaporware (and most 4e fans could see that literally a year before release). That's why they explicitly said it would be "3e rules with 4e streamlining." This was
very intentional. That intentional effort was intensified by various mistakes, I don't deny that. For example, their critical fumble on the Specialties system, where they went absolutely all in on a system they later abandoned, and instead of attempting to fix the issue, they just stopped talking about martial healing. But make no mistake: there were never any bones about this being an intentional effort.