Fighter vs Warrior

[paladinn]

Looking at the Fighter class in 5e. The Champion is clearly the "basic" subclass for the class, but it is pretty underwhelming IMO. By contrast, the Warrior sidekick class seems more interesting. The subclass feature points have been replaced with features from other fighter-type sub/classes. I find myself wanting to play a Warrior over playing a Champion.

The Fighter's main L1 feature is Fighting Style. This is where you start to customize your fighter character, and as such it is likely adequate. For a Warrior "character", L1 is where one chooses a "martial role." If one chooses the attacker role, one gets +2 to All attack roles.

In adapting the Warrior to be an actual PC possibility, is the attacker role bonus worth using instead of a fighting style? What are some other things that might make the Warrior a viable PC class? I'm drawing from both Tasha's and the original UA, but am open to other suggestions.

Thanks!

[Sigreid]

If I remember right, you'll need to adjust the hit die.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Warrior doesn't get Extra Attack until 6th, putting it out of line with the standard martial classes. 5th is a dead level for it anyways, so I'd bump Extra Attack to then just to match the other main martials.

[Composer99]

Suffice to say that although a straight +2 to attack rolls isn't exciting, it definitely communicates the idea that a character is a master of arms. Probably better than fighting styles do.

[paladinn]

Ok, here's my 1st pass at a "generic" warrior/fighter class. Like the original 3e warrior, it's mostly a shell with optional features gleaned from other fighter-types that can be mixed and matched.

HD, saves, skills, ASI's, etc. are all pretty much as the normal base fighter class.

L1 is a "Martial Role" ala the Warrior in TCoE
L2 is a Fighting Style, from the PHB and other volumes
L4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16 and 19 are ASI's or feats
L5, 11 and 20 are Extra Attacks
L3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are "Martial Talents". These are specifically Non-magical/mystical/ki features from various classes (Fighter, Barbarian and Ranger) and subclasses. Here is my list thus far:

Second Wind
Rage
Unarmored Defense
Favored Foe
Canny
Danger Sense
Action Surge
Reckless Attack
Improved Critical
Primal Awareness
Colossus Slayer
Giant Killer
Horde Breaker
Battle Readiness
Remarkable Athlete
Feral Instinct
Escape the Horde
Multi-attack Defense
Indomitable
Brutal Critical
Improved Defense
Tireless
Hide in Plain Sight
Relentless Rage
Whirlwind Attack
Volley
Vanish
Superior Critical
Persistent Rage
Evasion
Uncanny Dodge
Feral Senses
Combat Maneuver

Obviously there are prerequisites and "chains" for some of these, and perhaps minimal levels; and some may need to be "toned-down". But I think making these available to "basic" fighters/warriors would do a lot to make it more interesting.

Any thoughts?

[Dienekes]

If you give them Martial Role at level 1, I'd be tentative of giving them Fighting Style at 2. Especially Archery, a straight +4 to all attacks is ridiculously good. But on the other hand others wouldn't have much of a difference.

But other than that, this doesn't look like a bad foundation.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Ditto that Martial Role + Fighting Style is a bit much, depending on the role/style combination. Other than that, this seems reminiscent of 3.X Fighters, with their trees of bonus feats. While this wouldn't be off-putting to me (I happily played 3rd/3.5 for over a decade, including many Fighters), the ability tree doen't really jive with 5e design principles. I'd suggest making it more like Warlock Invocations, where you might have level requirements or a few other dependencies based on prior class choice (ex. by martial role), but not full ability trees.

[paladinn]

Ditto that Martial Role + Fighting Style is a bit much, depending on the role/style combination. Other than that, this seems reminiscent of 3.X Fighters, with their trees of bonus feats. While this wouldn't be off-putting to me (I happily played 3rd/3.5 for over a decade, including many Fighters), the ability tree doen't really jive with 5e design principles. I'd suggest making it more like Warlock Invocations, where you might have level requirements or a few other dependencies based on prior class choice (ex. by martial role), but not full ability trees.

I don't see that it has to be the complete "ability tree" effect. Outside of the "improved/superior" sort of abilities, there's not that much. I've thought of being able to take a given talent multiple times for increased effect.

As for the fighting style, the Champion has an extra fighting style at later level. But I'm not sure if/when another fighting style becomes kind of superfluous.

So if I drop the fighting style at L2 and just allow another martial talent? Any other suggestions?

[SLOTHRPG95]

So if I drop the fighting style at L2 and just allow another martial talent? Any other suggestions?

Maybe a toned-down version of the UA Brute's 3rd level feature? Something like, "the first time on each of your turns that you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you may add 1d4 damage (of the same type). This amount increases to 1d6 at 5th level, 1d8 at 11th level, and 1d10 at 17th level." Keeps with the simple but effective theme, and useable no matter which martial talents you later pick.

[paladinn]

Maybe a toned-down version of the UA Brute's 3rd level feature? Something like, "the first time on each of your turns that you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you may add 1d4 damage (of the same type). This amount increases to 1d6 at 5th level, 1d8 at 11th level, and 1d10 at 17th level." Keeps with the simple but effective theme, and useable no matter which martial talents you later pick.

Good one! I'm compiling a list of warrior talents now. I'm sure it's going to take some work to winnow out unnecessary stuff.

Then I'm going to do the same for the rogue/expert/"agent".

[Segev]

Yeah, I want to reitterate that +2 to all attacks is straight-up better than what is often considered one of the most powerful Fighter Fighting Styles: Archery. Archery gives you +2 to all ranged attacks.

[paladinn]

Yeah, I want to reitterate that +2 to all attacks is straight-up better than what is often considered one of the most powerful Fighter Fighting Styles: Archery. Archery gives you +2 to all ranged attacks.

I got that from everyone. So would it be better to drop the "martial role" feature from the Tasha's warrior and just use fighting style? It's interesting that that gives the sidekick such a leg-up compared to actual fighters.

I want the generic warrior to be as good as a fighter, with a little more versatility, not to be so much better.

[paladinn]

So here's my take on a generic Expert/"Agent" class, pretty much in the same mold of the Warrior.

HD, saves, ASI's, etc. are all pretty much as the sidekick Expert or the Rogue class. They get 5 skills at L1.

L1, 6 and 17 are Expertise ala the Expert or Rogue
L2 is Cunning Action
L3 is Jack of Many Trades, from the Bard
L5 is an Extra Attack
L11 is Reliable Talent
L4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 19 are ASI's or feats
L7, 9, 13, 15, 18 and 20 are "Talents". These are specifically Non-magical/mystical/ki features from the Rogue and Bard classes (and some Ranger) and subclasses. Here is my list thus far:

Sneak Attack
Evasion
Uncanny Dodge
Sharp Mind
Stroke of Luck
Blindsense
Elusive
Steady Aim
Hide in Plain Sight
Vanish
Use Magical Device
Assassinate
Infiltration
Imposter
Death Strike
Misdirection
Skirmisher
Sudden Strike
Master Duelist
Mobility
Ambush Master
Bardic Inspiration
Song of Rest
Cutting Words
Peerless Skill
Combat Inspiration

Again, there are prerequisites and a Few "chains" for some of these, and perhaps minimal levels; and some may need to be "toned-down". But I think making these available to "basic" experts/agents would do a lot to make it more interesting.

The mid-career talent I'm thinking of making a cross-class talent, so warriors have an option to grab one agent talent, and vice versa.

[Kane0]

Might want to make a homebrew thread to flesh it out further.

[paladinn]

Might want to make a homebrew thread to flesh it out further.

As opposed to posting here?

[Ulsan Krow]

Yeah honestly I prefer the Warrior design over Champion too.

Improved Critical just sucks and it also sucks for new players that your defining subclass feature won't even trigger for the majority of your encounters until/unless you level up a bunch.

No issue the simple subclass is going to be weaker than the other subclasses that have a level of system mastery/choice involved, my issue is with just how much weaker it is in comparison on top of having the same issue as Arcane Archer (but worse) where you just feel like a Fighter without a subclass for 90% of combat.