Ok. Why does "The Fighter Fights" need to be challenged in order to add design elements to it?
I think you have what I would call an enlightened "The Fighter Fights" design theory. I hear you saying:
"Yeah, the fighter fights, of course, and (s)he also can/should..."
In my mind that's close enough to what I'm saying.
However, not everyone advocating "The Fighter Fights" makes that leap you have to realizing that adding other things to the fighter is perfectly in keeping with the class' literary/mythological influences & its historical themes in older editions of D&D, and is actually desirable.
See @Sacrosanct 's response to this. When you said Basic (or "BD&D") the Rules Cyclopedia was not what I was [mentally] referencing. I've never seen/read it, but it undoubtedly had some editing, cleaned up and/or expanded fluff writing, and at least a few rules tweaks/expansions to the original material. I also do not consider/default thinking to "2e" when mentioning "AD&D." As significantly more similar it is to 1e as opposed to/compared with 3e, only heightened by the company's change of hands betwixt 2-to-3e, 2e is still a significantly "different" edition to THE [original] A-D&D.
Gotcha. Yeah, my gaming experience is definitely non-traditional. When I was playing 1e I was a kid and don't really remember the details. The formative D&D experiences that I remember most clearly came from the the Rules Cyclopedia, the Black Box, and AD&D2e.
You are correct. That is exactly my answer. The "cause" for your PC to do ANYthing is up to the player...it is the same regardless of class. Especially the "big 4/building block" classes upon and from which all other classes flow. Causes can become more built-in and narrower/specific the further from those classes you get.
Making a "cause" intrinsic class fluff is what gets you to Paladins, Monks, and Rangers...maybe barbarians...druids and warlocks (though clearly not branching from the Fighter), too.
But, ok. So you would like to build "prestige class" style player options into the class at a higher level? I don't think 5e would really approve/work that way. Also, then, as you noted in your example, the option to not be beholden to some liege or temple is then stripped from the player.
So, I'm gonna veer toward the "I don't really see cause as a legitimate place to insert broadening mechanical oomph into the Fighter" side.
Actually, I had sub-classes in the back of my mind when I was giving that example about name level Paladin/Knight/Avenger traveling fighters in the Rules Cyclopedia.
I think 3rd level is a good place to ask the question of a fighter player: OK, you've had some experience figuring out you character and learning the rules over 1st and 2nd level, now tell us what is your fighter fighting
for?
Right then, so we've pretty much covered this.
1. They fight better with higher HD, Second Wind, and Indomitable keeping them on their feet longer and being able to "take a hit" and keep fighting.
2. Fighting Styles & Extra Attacks see to it they hit more frequently, more reliably, and/or result in dealing more damage than the average bear.
3. Action Surge also gets them a little extra...well, "action" as well which, while not having to be additional attacks, I suspect often are. Or stuff like moving to/taking on a different opponent when their first goes down. Also helping them "fight better."
Well, not entirely, no. As we've both, now, noted:
1. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks...even Valor Bards!...all get "Extra Attacks." Which really kind screws the Fighter's pooch as far as that being a "Fighter" thing.
2. Paladins and Rangers get Fighting Styles. Again, making them not a "Fighter" thing, but clearly a more broad "warrior-types" thing.
3. Several classes have "recharging" mechanics which, while not being "Second Wind" can serve to keep them fighting/in the field beyond their initial limits.
4. Cunning Action is, basically, though more narrowly, the Fighter's "Action Surge" for Thieves: get an extra action in on your turn. I presume there might be another class or two with features that permit additional actions, though perhaps not as open/undefined as the Fighter's.
I see what you're saying – that the fighter's substantive difference is "silver buckshot", it's an aggregate of a bunch of features that, if examined individually, aren't substantially different than (and often outright replicated in) other classes.
What's interesting for me personally is that I find Cunning Action creates a stronger identity for a rogue than Action Surge does for a fighter. I read Cunning Action and immediately my inner instigator/mischief-maker smiles, and all these ideas come pouring in about the tricks I could pull with it. However, I read Action Surge and I'm left without any clear sense of what it's supposed to be; only in play do I realize that, yes, it can reinforce the "fighter feel", but it doesn't leap off the page and inspire my imagination like Cunning Action. To me, Action Surge feels tepid, luke warm in comparison – even if it's mechanically a fine feature.
I, personally, would probably have spent more time than it seems they did on those "other two pillars of adventure" we hear a lot of lip service about, but many if not most classes don't really seem to have any kind of usefulness in at least one pillar each.
As an extension of my argument/thesis, I'd say the fighter is disproportionately hamstrung in terms of unique features spotlighting Exploration & Interaction compared to all other classes in the PHB.
Beyond that, as least as far as I can tell (and don't mind) in 5e, it's up to the subclasses to flesh out...and/or play up one or two pillars beyond the others, rely on different secondary abilities (is there a Dex-fighter in there? Is there a Smart/Int-Fighter in there?), and generally inject specific fluff/story pieces.
Absolutely. We can agree that placing the mechanistic differentiation of the fighter class into Battle Master & Champion did a disservice to its subclasses, and thus to the Exploration & Interaction empowerment of the fighter.
..."What's your Cause?," "How you Fight Better?," and "Is it suitably Different than Other Classes?" Those 3 questions?
They are perfectly fine questions to ask if you wish to get to the answers you are looking for. lol.
Touché. So you feel those are not worthwhile (or perhaps biased) questions to put front and center when designing the fighter class? What would your design questions be?
Alright. So, we are clear then...base fighter class needs at least one exploration feature, one interactions feature.
Absolutely it does.
I might suggest, whether it is a base or sub class thing I'm not sure, but looking to the ranger's expertise...what if Fighters (and fighters alone) were given some kind of "Dungeoneer/Explorer" feature that gave them advantages to exploratory things during adventures?
Yep, that makes sense. That was my approach in designing "Camp Talents" for my fighter homebrew.
Some kind of innate leadership quality definitely strikes me as a sub-class thing.
In other words, leave it to the subclasses for the players to decide what they want their place in the world to be and become. Make a subclass that can ascend to a political/feudal spot, if they so choose. But I don't see how you can make that a base class feature/line/built-in flavor for the Fighter...not without ticking off a lot of people.
That seems like a sound strategy to me.
