Fighter Should Be Designed Like Warlock

[MadMusketeer]

I believe that, on a deep level, the mechanical design of a class should meet that class's fundamental fantasy. For many classes this works already; Wizards benefit from preparation and smart, tactical play, Clerics preparing their spells from their list really makes it feel like the magic is coming from their god, Monks (despite running out of juice MUCH too fast) get a whole litany of abilities that make them feel like wushu heroes. This is true on a subclass level as well - most classes aren't designed to cater to just one fantasy, after all, but a whole litany of related fantasies. This is (again) true of many subclasses already - Necromancers have a kit that heavily benefits a playstyle built around raising the dead, Life clerics are amazing healers, and Assassins get a whole bunch of stuff that benefits infiltration and killing your enemies in one strike before they even know you're there. Further, a well designed class (or subclass) should have a fantasy evident from its abilities - looking at a Hexblade's abilities, for example, we see that it is a subclass build around melee combat and hexing your enemies (although, both of these are interesting enough concepts that they probably should have been separate subclasses).

Using this framework, what do we see if we look at the Fighter's abilities? What fantasy (or fantasies) does the mechanical design of the class imply? Fighters get 5 main abilities outside their base proficiencies, which fall into 3 main fantasies. For the first one, Second Wind and Indomitable fulfill the fantasy of a warrior who keeps on fighting no matter what, which makes sense - that's a popular archetype for martial characters, and it makes sense for it to be represented here. However, when we look at the other fantasies, this logic becomes much more dubious. Fighting Style does allow you to really differentiate how your Fighter, um, fights, but given that Paladins and Rangers get a less versatile version a level later, it doesn't do much to differentiate the Fighter as a class. Finally, Action Surge and additional Extra Attacks point to a class with the fantasy of attacking a large number of times really fast, which... isn't a bad fantasy, but doesn't really match the intended fantasy of a fighter, and kinda eats into the Monk's design space - looking at stuff like Flurry of Blows and Unarmored Movement, Monks should really be the 'attack lots of times' class. Now, I think there are a lot of potential concepts for a fighter who makes a lot of attacks very fast, but that's not the general fantasy of the class - its a specific concept. One way in which the Fighter chassis does fulfill its fantasy is that most of its abilities are free or passive, and those that aren't are on a short rest reset timer - you'll be able to use them relatively often. This, again, ties into the fantasy of a warrior who never gives up.

Looking at the Fighter subclasses, its clear which of these three class fantasies these are intended to fulfill - being able to be any type of warrior. Sublasses like Samurai, Cavalier, Eldritch Knight, and Rune Knight allow you to fit a diverse range of archetypes. The Battlemaster does this more than any other subclass - you can build a lot of personality into your character (although you'll only be able to use your abilities a handful of times per short rest, which doesn't make much sense or really fit the fantasy). However, despite having a diversity of styles in theory, in practice Fighters will all feel fairly similar - you mostly just make as many weapons attacks as you can, maybe grapple, and sometimes use your subclass abilities to do (admittedly pretty cool) things every once in a while. The Samurai, Cavalier, Psi Warrior, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, and, to a lesser extent, Rune Knight all have this problem, particularly at low levels - your abilities only allow you to do cool things a handful of times every long rest, and you don't get to do much that differentiates you a lot of the time. Now, I'm not saying these are bad subclasses (they aren't, mostly), or that you should be able to use these abilities at will (you shouldn't - they're not balanced around that), or even that fighters should get to have abilities that rely on resources (they should have those options - it opens up a lot of design space). What I am saying, however, is that fighters have a build diversity problem - for a class without a strong identity to make it stand out, you get surprisingly little ability to make your fighter your own.

Here, finally, we get to the point of this post - Fighters should be a Build-a-Bear class like the Warlock, built around attacking rather than Eldritch Blast and with something else instead of spellcasting. Need build diversity? Warlock has more than any other class. Invocation-style abilities let you design your fighter to fight like you want. It also solves the problem of not having enough out-of-combat abilities - there could be a range of types of ability, allowing you to customize your fighter to do stuff in all pillars or just combat. Even within combat, it allows greater diversity - you could build your fighter to be a controller, a striker, a tank, support - anything you want. You could build any martial concept you want. Need more powerful abilities as you level up? Warlocks have level-gated Invocations. Need to keep going throughout the day? Warlock is the most short-rest focused class in the game other than fighters and rogues, with a ton of passive or free-to-use Invocations (which solves the Battlemaster problem). We can also take some inspiration from the Hunter Ranger - at big breakpoints, we can have different options that you choose between. For example, at level 11, you could have the option of a third attack, but you could also choose between other equivalent options that benefit other playstyles, like a powerful control or tanking ability.

This version of the Fighter would do away with the tension between what different people want from the class - by taking different abilities, you could build as an everyman or an anime warrior, depending on what you want to be able to do. This also makes it fairly easy to balance subclasses against each other - you can have subclasses which just give you your abilities, or you can have potentially more powerful ones that require you to take particular abilities to work - thus, concepts which are probably too big or broad to do justice to them with just subclass abilities, such as the Warlord (assuming that that doesn't get a full class) can work. Anything that would otherwise take up too much power budget can have some abilities offloaded into these Invocation-style things. These abilities wouldn't even have to be restricted to subclass - you could have a fighter who has a combination of different types of abilities that they take, making them more of a generalist.

So - what sort of abilities should these be? These abilities should probably be, on the whole, a tad stronger than Invocations, to give them a greater impact on your playstyle. They should also mostly be passive - maybe a few limited use options, but generally passive or free, so you can use them whenever you want. Some suggestions I have include - Expertise in a skill (useful for people who want to build as a grappler or as a stealthy commando), a bonus action Dash, a cheaper Disengage (bonus action or the Swashbuckler thing), a more general version of the Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Fighting -5/+10, abilities which function like Battlemaster Maneuvers do now (stuff like Parry, Riposte, Commander's Strike, etc), special attacks (slamming enemies into the ground, throwing enemies, etc), abilities which give you a substantial boost in social situations (like Elegant Courtier), abilities which improve specific weapons or weapon types (so you could have Polearm Master equivalents for other weapons, adding to the build diversity), increased carrying capacity, swimming and climbing speeds, an ability that counters exhaustion and increases travel pace, abilities that allow you to give your enemies disadvantage on attacks your allies or give your allies advantage, abilities that give you advantage in certain situations, an ability that lets you use a Healer's Kit as a bonus action, et cetera. These abilities aren't really balanced against each other, so maybe stronger abilities cost more build resources to take.

Any thoughts?

[Skrum]

I basically agree, but I'd say that a lot of classes (maybe even all of them) could benefit from being more like warlock. Warlocks are amazing, and every time I make one I'm surprised by how many combinations and choices there. It's sort of like a class-less class, like it's how I imagine building a character in a classless system. I really really like it.

Specifically for fighters....yes they need more. I really think fighters should be working on an encounter basis, a la Book of Nine Swords from 3e. They should be able to "action surge" (whatever form it takes) in every encounter. BM fighters should get maneuvers per encounter. I think that would go a long way towards giving fighters more of their own vibe, instead of...idk, another SR character.

[kazaryu]

while i do agree that all of the classes should have that same leveling design as the warlock..i also understand that its explicitly against 5e design principles. they literally moved away from that when they moved away from 3.5's feat system (which is the closest analogue). obviously invocations are infinitely less complex than feats were (there are fewer of them, and warlocks get even fewer), but still...it was a deliberate design feature, and not a bad one, necessarily.

However, i disagree with the premise that fighters having relatively weak thematics is a bad thing. I quite like the idea of classes that inherently allow for a lot of narrative freedom. and i think that a healthy mix of both highly thematic classes (clerics/paldind) and low thematic classes (monk/fighters) is good. it gives plenty of options. I also disagree with the premise that subclass features don't do much to differentiate fighters. Sure, everyones fighter is still going to be attack focused....that doesn't mean there aren't significant mechanical differences between a battlemaster and a psi warrior.

[MadMusketeer]

However, i disagree with the premise that fighters having relatively weak thematics is a bad thing. I quite like the idea of classes that inherently allow for a lot of narrative freedom. and i think that a healthy mix of both highly thematic classes (clerics/paldind) and low thematic classes (monk/fighters) is good. it gives plenty of options. I also disagree with the premise that subclass features don't do much to differentiate fighters. Sure, everyones fighter is still going to be attack focused....that doesn't mean there aren't significant mechanical differences between a battlemaster and a psi warrior.

I wasn't complaining about fighters having weak thematics - I was complaining about fighters having weak thematics AND weak customization. If the class isn't going to do it for you, and it doesn't give you much to make it your own, you're not left with much to work with. Now, you're probably right that I was too harsh on the subclasses, in particular those two - Psi warriors get a lot of uses of their abilities, which offsets the long rest requirement somewhat, and Battlemasters get theirs back every short rest (although it doesn't make much sense and they don't get anything else). Rune Knight's coolest feature, Giant's Might, is Prof/LR, but it lasts the whole fight, so you'll get quite a bit of use out of it (the other Rune Knight features are plenty powerful, but you don't get to use them super often either, and they're probably not why you're taking the subclass). Eldritch Knight is balanced around this resource shortage - having it any other way would be too powerful, and it's a good subclass to exist. The two biggest offenders are Samurai and Cavalier, which, although they get effects that are plenty useful, they only get to use them a painfully small number of time per long rest (particularly painful for the Samurai). Now, that's not to say you should necessarily get more uses, but it does mean that, until level 7, you basically only get your subclass a few times per day, which doesn't feel great.

[Sorinth]

A middle ground might be Hunter Ranger type design. Every few levels you pick a fighter feature from a small list.

[JonBeowulf]

I was all set to come in here and disagree... but I ended up agreeing with a majority of what you're saying. The problem is that the battlemaster is already similar to the warlock. Do we make battlemaster the base class and then add sub-classes on top of it? That could get pretty crazy and I'm gonna spend some time seeing what I can build.

[Garfunion]

To be honest the warlock is probably the closest thing to a 4th edition class/power structure. A structure that they were trying to stay away from as much as possible for fear of it looking too closely like 4th edition.

[Selion]

I think that it's a good thing it exists a class based on straightforward damage like the Fighter. Not every player likes having a pletora of powers to handle and taking tracks of multiple abilities, there are some fighter's subclasses (e.g. champion) which are decently optimized keeping things fairly simple.
There are some other fighter subclasses which offer more management for player interested in that playstyle, but if the fighter basic chassis was that of a warlock we just had another spellcaster-like class, which would reduce the variety in the game. In 4th edition they tried something like that, and fighters became re-branded wizards.

What i think martial classes are lacking are specific weapons with abilities to unlock with fighting styles, i find quite boring that a pike wielding fighter fights exactly like a halberd wielding fighter.
Rules are already there, i don't understand why every new book comes with new spells/subclasses and there's nothing about equipment and styles depending on specific equipment.

[loki_ragnarock]

The only thing fighter's really need is some increased mobility. They are otherwise pretty solid.

What they don't need is to be more complicated; the game needs low complexity options to serve as a counterpoint to high complexity options. Which is to say, Warlocks are okay as Warlocks, but not everything needs to be a Warlock.

Also... I've found fighters to be some of the most diverse characters out there, so long as you allow for their ASIs to be used for feats. Differentiation between characters is already baked into the chassis, just via backdoor instead of pages dedicated to the class; this is superior design, because it allows for a generic someone to treat the class as either complex or simple on a someone to someone basis. I rather appreciate that mechanical space.

Thematically, I also enjoy the blank canvas that fighters come with. "Guy that fights" leaves alot of room to paint, leaves alot of questions to be answered about the character.

I don't think I'd appreciate them as much if they were warlocks. My big complaint about Rune Knights is that they muddied the waters by creating a warlock multi-class as a subclass for fighter.

[Frogreaver]

IMO. Fighter is too broad to be a simple class.

Simple means few choices, but a class meant to encapsulate so many varied concepts cannot do so without offering the player the ability to make choices about which particular concept they desire.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rules are already there, i don't understand why every new book comes with new spells/subclasses and there's nothing about equipment and styles depending on specific equipment. There were some new fighting styles rolled out in Tasha's. The only "style" based feats seem to be polearm master and crossbow expert, which get a lot of grief from the fighter dislikers: maybe they need to be Fighter features and not available as feats. Would that fit into what you are discussing?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only "style" based feats seem to be polearm master and crossbow expert, which get a lot of grief from the fighter dislikers: maybe they need to be Fighter features and not available as feats. Would that fit into what you are discussing?

Where I to do this (and I've considered it), I'd not just restrict it to fighters.

* Barbarians would get GWM's Cleave function and -5/+10 with any weapon
* Fighters would get expanded fighting styles, giving them (their choice of) Point Blank Shot (PBS, the melee-friendly ranged attacks from CBE), Precise Shot (PS, the -5/+10 with ranged weapons), Brace (PAM's OA on entering), Dual Weapon Mastery (DWM, chunks of DW feat), Power Attack (PA, GWM's -5/+10, only with heavy weapons) or Rapid Reload (RR, the "ignore loading property of crossbows" bullet). Champions would get their choice of two.
* Rangers would get PBS, PS, RR, or DWM, with possibly some class-specific enhancement.
* Rogues would get the ability to TWF with hand crossbows and PBS OR DWM.

Everyone else gets absolutely nothing. Not accessible via feat, multiclassing, or anything else. That's the price you pay for magic (rangers need help).

[Selion]

There were some new fighting styles rolled out in Tasha's. The only "style" based feats seem to be polearm master and crossbow expert, which get a lot of grief from the fighter dislikers: maybe they need to be Fighter features and not available as feats. Would that fit into what you are discussing?

I don't know, feats are a rare resource for everyone but fighters, so i don't see harm if polearm master is used by paladins or barbarians or wizards, fighters just get more of them.
These abilities could be introduced as fighting styles, removing the feat that allows to get one to everyone, if we want to make martial classes special, but it's not the main point imho, if a wizard wastes a feat in fighting styles they're renouncing to ASI and spellcaster feats, i think it's fine.
Btw what i had in mind is not something that improve the already good dmg output for specific weapons (polearm master/crossbow expert), but instead something that add specific actions/playstyles (shield mastery/sentinel). These feats are few and overly generic, i'd like to see something like "halberd expert - disarm with bonus action" "pike expert - you can wield a pike and a shield, advantage at 10ft range", something like that.

Some feats like crusher and piercer are already in that direction, i would just add more martial juice

[Yakk]

It is a bunch of work, but you can build a 5e/4e hybrid game that works the way you want it to. My spitballed version is based on what I call Talents, inspired by stories of the OD&D pre-publication "thief" class some people came up with.

Talents are abilities with levels. Each Talent acts like an invocation or spell, in that it is a bundle of rules, but what exactly it grants depends on the Talent. Talents don't grant passive bonuses to combat numbers, unless it is to make a suboptimal style work reasonably (like, a brawler talent might make unarmed/improvised weapons rival martial weapons).

Character Talent progression looks like the Artificer spell slot progression. They have 2-3 1st level Talents in T1, then get level 2/3 Talents in T2, L 4 talents in T3 and L 5 talents in T4.

Each Talent would make you extraordinary at the associated ability

Example Level 1 talents: climb speed, swim speed, fast tracking, double jumping distance, 5' extra movement, can unlock anything, tumble, second wind.

The real problem is coming up with a dozen+ talents of each level.

[Dienekes]

The only thing fighter's really need is some increased mobility. They are otherwise pretty solid.

What they don't need is to be more complicated; the game needs low complexity options to serve as a counterpoint to high complexity options. Which is to say, Warlocks are okay as Warlocks, but not everything needs to be a Warlock.

Also... I've found fighters to be some of the most diverse characters out there, so long as you allow for their ASIs to be used for feats. Differentiation between characters is already baked into the chassis, just via backdoor instead of pages dedicated to the class; this is superior design, because it allows for a generic someone to treat the class as either complex or simple on a someone to someone basis. I rather appreciate that mechanical space.

Thematically, I also enjoy the blank canvas that fighters come with. "Guy that fights" leaves alot of room to paint, leaves alot of questions to be answered about the character.

I don't think I'd appreciate them as much if they were warlocks. My big complaint about Rune Knights is that they muddied the waters by creating a warlock multi-class as a subclass for fighter.

I actually agree with some concepts. There should be classes that are mechanically simple. My primary issue is that for some reason it was decided that complexity should be at a 1 to 1 path with magical ability. I know for a fact that there are people who want very complex martials and very simple casters. And, well, we already have two mundane martial classes the barbarian and the fighter. Both of them are dirt simple to play. One of them is supposed to be a guy whose power comes from getting angry and smashing things, the other is supposed to be the well trained weapon's expert. Were it up to me, I'd make the barbarian as simple as can be and the fighter complex.

Also, I can also only speak for my own experience, but I really haven't seen all that much differntiation between fighters. For the most part, they all stand in the frontline and use the attack action every round they can. Or they're doing the same thing but ranged. If pretty much all they're doing is damage, I really don't see the differentiation as anything but aesthetic.

[Ortho]

To be honest the warlock is probably the closest thing to a 4th edition class/power structure. A structure that they were trying to stay away from as much as possible for fear of it looking too closely like 4th edition.

So scared, in fact, that the fighter has features named Action Surge and Second Wind!



I don't think the "4e was entirely garbage and irredeemable and it's only worth nowadays is as a punching bag" theory has as much weight as people think it does.

[Tanarii]

They tried that. It was called 4e. It was roundly rejected by folks that wanted Fighters to be the "I attack" class with no renewing on rest resource-based abilities because it didn't make sense (to them) for a martial to have such things.

[MadMusketeer]

I actually agree with some concepts. There should be classes that are mechanically simple. My primary issue is that for some reason it was decided that complexity should be at a 1 to 1 path with magical ability. I know for a fact that there are people who want very complex martials and very simple casters. And, well, we already have two mundane martial classes the barbarian and the fighter. Both of them are dirt simple to play. One of them is supposed to be a guy whose power comes from getting angry and smashing things, the other is supposed to be the well trained weapon's expert. Were it up to me, I'd make the barbarian as simple as can be and the fighter complex.

Also, I can also only speak for my own experience, but I really haven't seen all that much differntiation between fighters. For the most part, they all stand in the frontline and use the attack action every round they can. Or they're doing the same thing but ranged. If pretty much all they're doing is damage, I really don't see the differentiation as anything but aesthetic.

This. There absolutely should be mechanically simple classes, I just have trouble understanding why they should all be martials (although spells do add some level of complexity as is), or why the fighter should be one of them. Why is the combat expert skilled enough to stand on an even footing with people who can literally smite their foes with holy fury pigeonholed as the Big Stupid Class for new players and people who want a simple experience? The Fighter should be fighting better and smarter than everyone else just to stand a chance of keeping up, where the Barbarian should just hit stuff as hard as possible and take as many hits as they can.


They tried that. It was called 4e. It was roundly rejected by folks that wanted Fighters to be the "I attack" class with no renewing on rest resource-based abilities because it didn't make sense (to them) for a martial to have such things.

I truly don't know what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that it's not worth thinking about or trying, because it won't happen? The question of whether WotC will ever do something is unrelated to the question of whether or not it would be a good idea - there are lots of things that I would like them to do that they will never do (like not trying to be everything for everyone). Does that mean they aren't worth discussing? Are you saying something happened that was (arguably - I explicitly was not suggesting that the Fighter get lots of short rest abilities, although I don't hate the idea in all cases, because I do like that there are classes like that, and I think it makes a lot of sense for the Fighter to fit into that framework. I was mostly suggesting passive and free abilities, with a handful of ones that need to recharge) similar in 4e that didn't work, and thus its a bad idea? Do you agree with the people you're talking about, or not? Do you have an actual opinion on the ideas being discussed in the thread, because, if so, you haven't expressed it here.

Also, just a quick note about comparisons to 4e - while the cultural stigma around 4e remains intact, a very large proportion of D&D's current playerbase (myself included) would not have been playing TTRPGs when 4e was around, and probably don't have that much actual experience with how it worked, aside from (potentially) a few tidbits about classes in given roles all doing mostly the same thing, spells and abilities being turned into powers of some description, and it playing more like a video game. If they took an idea from 4e and adapted it to work in 5e, I'm not sure most people would notice or care.

[Tanarii]

My opinion is that 4e Martials were amazing, and it's a shame they died because it wasn't considered D&D by so many players. Mearls did an okay job of sneaking in what he could in 5e. Mainly via the Battlemaster subclass, and things like Cunning Action and Monk's 3 core Ki use abilities. Certainly it was far better than his first attempt in 4e Essentials with the Knight and their Stances.

I'd be ecstatic if Martial at-wills, encounters and dailies came back, or some variation there-of. And were given enough of a system to interact with.

But I don't want it to go back to battle-mats are required to play, and precise positioning was a hallmark of many martial powers in 4e, so that'd be difficult.

I also don't agree at all that there's any kind of thematic problem with per rest limited resources for Martials. Nor do I think it lacks sense that Martials can't do everything they know how to do constantly / at-will, which is a common argument against against the idea.

5e Warlock was probably my favorite class as a player, along with EK and Ranger. There's definitely room to take lessons from the Warlock and apply it to many of the other classes.

[Amechra]

The thing about the Fighter is that it originated in TSR D&D, where "I am very good at combat" was an actual mechanical niche. And let me tell you — a Fighter was very good at combat, since they had the best HP, the best to-hit, the best saves, and the best access to magical weapons.

Come WotC D&D, and now suddenly everyone is supposed to be very good at combat. What's worse, unlike the Rogue, the Fighter never got a long squint from the developers to figure out exactly what it was supposed to be in this brave new world where everyone gets to do the Fighter's thing. That's why it's a bland lump of a class.

In my mind, that means you either need to either invent a new thing that only Fighters get to do (that makes them better at fights than another character of equivalent level), or you need to scrap the Fighter and replace it with a class that actually does something distinct (like, say, the Warlord).

[windgate]

My opinion is that 4e Martials were amazing, and it's a shame they died because it wasn't considered D&D by so many players. Mearls did an okay job of sneaking in what he could in 5e. Mainly via the Battlemaster subclass, and things like Cunning Action and Monk's 3 core Ki use abilities. Certainly it was far better than his first attempt in 4e Essentials with the Knight and their Stances.


For whatever reason we couldnt get the Warlord as a class in 5e but I am thankful we at least got the core concept condensed into a single battle master maneuver. It something for the player that wants to be a "support" but not be pigeonholed into being a primary healer.

We do have cantrips as analogs to at-wills and "lasts one minute as a bonus action" as encounter powers (once per long rest = Daily power?). Perhaps that was the closest we could get without it no -longer feeling like d&d.

[Dienekes]

The thing about the Fighter is that it originated in TSR D&D, where "I am very good at combat" was an actual mechanical niche. And let me tell you — a Fighter was very good at combat, since they had the best HP, the best to-hit, the best saves, and the best access to magical weapons.

Come WotC D&D, and now suddenly everyone is supposed to be very good at combat. What's worse, unlike the Rogue, the Fighter never got a long squint from the developers to figure out exactly what it was supposed to be in this brave new world where everyone gets to do the Fighter's thing. That's why it's a bland lump of a class.

In my mind, that means you either need to either invent a new thing that only Fighters get to do (that makes them better at fights than another character of equivalent level), or you need to scrap the Fighter and replace it with a class that actually does something distinct (like, say, the Warlord).

I'm not nearly as harsh as you. I think there should be a class for people who just want to be Gimli or Sandor Clegane or Link or the thousand other characters that are just cool warriors without needing to make them also do support or whatever else(not that I don't also want a Warlord class mind you).

That said, the distinction between combat class and non-combat class needs to go. There are no non-combat classes, there are only combat classes some of them are given expanded things to do out of combat while others are not.

And what gets me, the problem is that WotC just didn't give certain classes anything to do. What gets me is that 5e even has a great method of adding flavorful out of combat abilities to classes like the Fighter and they just didn't do it. Or, I guess technically they did in the most boring ways possible. We could have had subclasses like Knight, which gave fighters various features based around courtly etiquette to make them a good party face. We could have had subclasses based around being elite guards that have perception abilities up the wazoo so no one could ever ambush or sneak up on them and they can sniff through illusions becoming the party observer. They could have had a soldier subclass with a bunch of out of combat support features.

Instead initially we got Champion and Battlemaster, which had about zero interesting flavor between, both designed to be as generic as possible with only the combat subsystem to differentiate them.

Which, is why I kinda want to push for a complex base Fighter. Let it have maneuvers and stances straight out of ToB. Let it's combat mechanics be figured out in the base class, so, sure, we can refine it a bit with subclasses, but more importantly we can use that to fill them out with interesting things to do outside of combat. Where they are most assuredly lacking.

[Tanarii]

Speaking of thematic, Rogues should have become the "lots of dagger stabbing" class. The whirlwind of blades, with many attacks.

I understand how we ended up with Rogues make one big sneak attack and Fighters make iterative attacks. On some level it was in the original game, with the Fighter getting multiple attacks on less than 1HD opponents and Rogues just being bad at melee unless they got in a Backstab (with scaling damage). And then progressing through 3e's BaB, with Fighters (rightly) having the fastest increasing attack value and Rogues being more moderate scaling but again scaling Sneak Attack damage, but iterative attacks being determined by that fast or moderate increasing attack value.

But quick and stabby should be a Rogue thing, and tanking and hammering with a big hit a Fighter thing. As long as we don't start blurring the line by making Dex Fighters a thing. IMO unnecessary when we already have the Rogue (and in WotC D&D the Ranger) as Dex warrior archetypes.

[Amechra]

The thing is... I'm not sure that having "The Fighter" be the catch-all class for characters that don't fit nicely into other classes is a good thing.

If that's what you want the class for, why not make some kind of generic "adventurer" class instead? Maybe make it the "get better at your Background/Race" class (however that'd work).

EDIT: Hmm, now I want to fiddle around with replacing Sneak Attack with a bunch of attacks...

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I were to redesign the fighter's core concept, it'd be as the weaponmaster. Anyone proficient in a weapon can use it. Weaponmasters (nee Fighters) can make them do tricks no one else can do. At the cost of being dependent on having a weapon at hand. But everything is a weapon to a weaponmaster, even words. A weaponmaster should be able to pick up a stick and kill you dead, just as if he held the finest sword. A weaponmaster can make you bleed (metaphorically and socially) from his words, should he choose to learn those arts.

Base--something like "weapon flexibility: you can use either Strength or Dexterity for any weapon attack you make". Sort of Monk Weapons on steroids. A weaponmaster shouldn't be discommoded because he has to pull out his longbow, despite being normally focused around a greatsword. It's a weapon, I can use it better than anyone else can. Maybe allow them to adjust the properties of the weapon (within bounds) while wielding it, such as a halfling weaponmaster making his greatsword not Heavy. Or a weaponmaster adding Reach 10' to his greatsword.

Additional--something like "enhancing weapons"--given a non-magic weapon, it can count as magical for overcoming resistance/immunity. Given a magic weapon, they can make it even better, possibly in exchange for making it require attunement if it doesn't already. So if the only magic weapon you've got is a sword, you can still hit resistant things with your bow just fine; and you can

Then yes, you can get the "I get blinding speed (more attacks or allowing you to Dash/Dodge as well as make N weapon attacks) because my weapon handling is just that effortless".

Then you get things like talents/tricks. Both passive and active things you can do with weapons. These would be mostly exclusive to weaponmasters, but could be extended out to a more general parallel advancement track (with weaponmasters getting way more of them than anyone else).

Ribbons/non-combat things would mostly come from the subclasses, which would focus around different "Dojos/Schools/whatever" (in the school of practice sense, not the school of magic sense). Some who learn to blend magic and weapons[1], some who focus on the social part (duelist/samurai/whatever), some who just focus on maximum output for minimum effort (the Krav Maga of weapon fighting, just kill the enemy dead faster). Or whatever.

[loki_ragnarock]

If that's what you want the class for, why not make some kind of generic "adventurer" class instead? Maybe make it the "get better at your Background/Race" class (however that'd work).

They did.

It's called the Ranger.