D&D General Vote Up a 5e-alike: Poll 6: Archetypes and Fighters/Warriors NOW WITH EXTREME FIRST DRAFT!

[Faolyn]

This one is entirely write-in. I think there's too much to talk about that merely checking a button wouldn't work.

General Class Questions

1. Archetypes: Yea or nay? By archetype, I mean the way they're currently done in 5e. If archetypes aren't done like that, they could be done in the sense of "to play a Green Knight, take this class, these options, and these feats," but you would still be free to deviate however you want.

EDIT: By archetypes, I mean subclasses.

2. If you want there to be archetypes, should all archetypes be taken at the same level? If so, what level? I would say level 2: it prevents 1-level dipping and represents a training period, while also not making you want too long for the cool stuff. Or should we have them still taken at various levels?

3. Should all archetype features be granted at the same levels regardless of class--thus possibly allowing for different classes to take the same archetype? (I really liked the idea when it was presented in a UA, but it doesn't work at all with the current 5e setup.) In fact, should archetypes be limited by class, or should they be available to anyone who can meet the prereqs?

4. Should there be a single Warrior class, and you can use in-class choices and feats to model barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. (including possibly things like swordmages)? For instance, at level 2, you can choose between a smite, a rage, beastmaster abilities, and other, more fighter-y abilities? Or should all those be separate classes?

5. Or should there be a single Warrior class but there are archetypes that model barbarians, rangers, swordmages, etc.? Remember, this is supposed to be a lower-magic, slightly gritty type of system.

6. Should there be Warlords/Marshals (a non-magical support class), or a similar option available via choices and feats? I don't like the Warlord name, but the class is fine and there are plenty of other options for names.

7. Should we keep things like d10 Hit Dice for fighters and spending HD to regain hp at short rests and other such basics?

8. Should we keep short and long rests? The actual length of time for those rests doesn't matter right now; I just mean the concept.

Actual Fighter Questions
We have generally decided that classes are going to be mostly front-loaded, so assume that the abilities I'm talking about are going to be obtainable, at least in basic form, before 10th level.

1. Weapon Proficiencies: Should fighters be proficient in all weapons, or should we limit the number of weapons or weapon groups they know? If so, how many? Should fighters gain a Weapon Mastery ability which grants them benefits when using their favored weapon? If so, at what level(s)?

2. Fighting Styles: Should Fighting Styles be part of the Fighter class, or should they be represented solely by feats? If Fighting Styles are part of the Fighter class, should feats be available to enhance them (e.g., take the Archery style and the Sharpshooter feat), or should the styles increase in power and versatility as you go up in level, thus allowing you to spend feats on other options?

3. Maneuvers: The Battle Master has a selection of 20+ maneuvers (including the ones from TCE) and grants Superiority Dice with which to use them. Level Up has a collection of well over 100 maneuvers, divided into Traditions and tiers (levels), requires the expenditure of exertion points to activate them, and all non-caster classes have access to at least some of them, although fighters get the most. Dungeon Crawl Classics, which I have never played or really read, apparently allows fighters to do whatever they want as long as they roll high enough on their deed die. Should our Fighters have maneuvers baked into the class (instead of being part of an archetype)? If so, should there be a short list of options (5e), a long list (LU), or should it be freeform (DCC)? Or something else? I'm inclined towards something a little more complicated than the Battle Master's maneuvers but far less complicate that Level Up's.

4. Expanded Criticals: Should all fighters gain increased crit ranges as they level up, like Champions? If you want archetypes, should they be limited to specific archetypes? Should masterwork weapons grant increased crit ranges?

5. Exploration Options: Level Up gives each class options that support the exploration pillar, such as by allowing for different or faster movement speeds, giving bonuses to various rolls when in certain environments, allowing the character to require less sleep or march longer without taking exhaustion, by gaining a new sense for a brief time, etc.? Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

6. Social Options: Level Up also gives each class options that support the social pillar, by allowing bonuses to certain Charisma rolls at certain times or by causing others to have disad against the fighter at certain times. Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

7. Specialized Knowledge: Should there be an option where you choose a particular type of fighter-related knowledge? Examples: gaining a bonus to rolls to know about weapons and armor, historical battles, or knightly orders, or to know how to set or detect ambushes, etc?

(Note: the above three would be options granted at different levels. At level 2 you may gain a Specialized Knowledge, at level 4, an Exploration Option, and at level 6, a Social Ability.)

8. Action Surge/Extra Attacks: Should this be a thing, or should we use the 3x model where all classes can get multiple actions and attack as they increase in level, with a penalty to attack rolls if you take more than one? Regardless, how often should fighters gain extra attacks or actions? Some people have previously suggested at 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. levels.

9. Indomitable: Should fighters keep this ability, or should they gain proficiency in a new save, both, or something else?

What else should these fighters have that 5e fighters don't?

 

[Scribe]

To clarify, archetype = subclass?

 

[CreamCloud0]

hoo boy imma need some time to process all these and what my answers to them are going to be

 

[Tonguez]

lots to think about here, so this is mainly placeholder to get it on my alerts list.

I understand that the system is using Class Feats - so having Styles incorporated there makes sense to me and allows Archetypes via Feat trees.
Be good to be able to get Strength Fighter - Dex Fighter - Con Fighter - Wis Fighter - Cha Fighter built on the same base and expressed as Barbarian, Ranger, Knight, Archer, Swashbuckler, Brawler, Tactician, Marshal etc and yes a Marshal/Warlord archetype that gets to rally and inspire troops is a definite want.
Does Levelup have maneuvers that effectively work as 'summon bodyguard' and 'summon troops' type things - I'd like to see that too

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This one is entirely write-in. I think there's too much to talk about that merely checking a button wouldn't work.

General Class Questions

1. Archetypes: Yea or nay? By archetype, I mean the way they're currently done in 5e. If archetypes aren't done like that, they could be done in the sense of "to play a Green Knight, take this class, these options, and these feats," but you would still be free to deviate however you want.

I’d prefer subclasses to exist as feat trees. Not really chains, where each requires the last, but more where you take the main feat and then the rest just have level requirements and require the main feat.

2. If you want there to be archetypes, should all archetypes be taken at the same level? If so, what level? I would say level 2: it prevents 1-level dipping and represents a training period, while also not making you want too long for the cool stuff. Or should we have them still taken at various levels?

Level 2 is good.

3. Should all archetype features be granted at the same levels regardless of class--thus possibly allowing for different classes to take the same archetype? (I really liked the idea when it was presented in a UA, but it doesn't work at all with the current 5e setup.) In fact, should archetypes be limited by class, or should they be available to anyone who can meet the prereqs?

Some should be class specific, so they can leverage the class mechanics. Others don’t need to be, and can just require stuff like “must have spell slots” and “must have extra attack”, instead.

4. Should there be a single Warrior class, and you can use in-class choices and feats to model barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. (including possibly things like swordmages)? For instance, at level 2, you can choose between a smite, a rage, beastmaster abilities, and other, more fighter-y abilities? Or should all those be separate classes?

Purpose built classes always do a better job with all of those concepts, with the possible exception that the Barbarian could be split up into fighter and ranger stuff.

5. Or should there be a single Warrior class but there are archetypes that model barbarians, rangers, swordmages, etc.? Remember, this is supposed to be a lower-magic, slightly gritty type of system.

Can you elaborate on the connection between the question and it being a low magic gritty game?

6. Should there be Warlords/Marshals (a non-magical support class), or a similar option available via choices and feats? I don't like the Warlord name, but the class is fine and there are plenty of other options for names.

Captain will always be the best name, but yeah it’s a class concept IMO. Every attempt to model it with less mechanical heft than that in 5e sucks at modeling it, for a reason.

7. Should we keep things like d10 Hit Dice for fighters and spending HD to regain hp at short rests and other such basics?

Unless you want to switch to a “damage threshold and wounds” mechanic, I see no reason to drop that stuff.

8. Should we keep short and long rests? The actual length of time for those rests doesn't matter right now; I just mean the concept.

Yes, and add extended rest, make LR give less back, and ER is required to get back to 100% fully. And make SR matter for all characters.

Actual Fighter Questions
We have generally decided that classes are going to be mostly front-loaded, so assume that the abilities I'm talking about are going to be obtainable, at least in basic form, before 10th level.

1. Weapon Proficiencies: Should fighters be proficient in all weapons, or should we limit the number of weapons or weapon groups they know? If so, how many? Should fighters gain a Weapon Mastery ability which grants them benefits when using their favored weapon? If so, at what level(s)?

I think just using the current setup works fine. I’d love to see weapon masteries become a diegetic advancement reward, like spells for wizards.

2. Fighting Styles: Should Fighting Styles be part of the Fighter class, or should they be represented solely by feats? If Fighting Styles are part of the Fighter class, should feats be available to enhance them (e.g., take the Archery style and the Sharpshooter feat), or should the styles increase in power and versatility as you go up in level, thus allowing you to spend feats on other options?

If they gonna get better with levels, I wouldn’t want them tied as strongly to a class.

3. Maneuvers: The Battle Master has a selection of 20+ maneuvers (including the ones from TCE) and grants Superiority Dice with which to use them. Level Up has a collection of well over 100 maneuvers, divided into Traditions and tiers (levels), requires the expenditure of exertion points to activate them, and all non-caster classes have access to at least some of them, although fighters get the most. Dungeon Crawl Classics, which I have never played or really read, apparently allows fighters to do whatever they want as long as they roll high enough on their deed die. Should our Fighters have maneuvers baked into the class (instead of being part of an archetype)? If so, should there be a short list of options (5e), a long list (LU), or should it be freeform (DCC)? Or something else? I'm inclined towards something a little more complicated than the Battle Master's maneuvers but far less complicate that Level Up's.

What if each weapon proficiency group (eg Martial One Handed Melee Weapons) has a default mastery, and you can learn more in the world, and you can learn BM style manuevers as well the same way, and you can also use each weapon type proficiency like a skill a la DCC.

Basically, you’re rolling for it early on, and as you learn techniques you gains cool moves that don’t require a strong manuever die roll.

4. Expanded Criticals: Should all fighters gain increased crit ranges as they level up, like Champions? If you want archetypes, should they be limited to specific archetypes? Should masterwork weapons grant increased crit ranges?

Weapon Expertise could be a thing you can take in feats, but fighters get automatically at tier levels, that increases your crit range with those weapons.

5. Exploration Options: Level Up gives each class options that support the exploration pillar, such as by allowing for different or faster movement speeds, giving bonuses to various rolls when in certain environments, allowing the character to require less sleep or march longer without taking exhaustion, by gaining a new sense for a brief time, etc.? Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Yes

6. Social Options: Level Up also gives each class options that support the social pillar, by allowing bonuses to certain Charisma rolls at certain times or by causing others to have disad against the fighter at certain times. Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Yes

7. Specialized Knowledge: Should there be an option where you choose a particular type of fighter-related knowledge? Examples: gaining a bonus to rolls to know about weapons and armor, historical battles, or knightly orders, or to know how to set or detect ambushes, etc?

Hell yea. Each class should have a level - feature IMO that is basically Expertise in “knowledge directly related to the forms and functions of your class”, so the Wizard is an arcane spellcraft expert, the priest is a religion and divine magic expert, the fighter is a weapons and battlefield tactics expert, etc.

(Note: the above three would be options granted at different levels. At level 2 you may gain a Specialized Knowledge, at level 4, an Exploration Option, and at level 6, a Social Ability.)

8. Action Surge/Extra Attacks: Should this be a thing, or should we use the 3x model where all classes can get multiple actions and attack as they increase in level, with a penalty to attack rolls if you take more than one? Regardless, how often should fighters gain extra attacks or actions? Some people have previously suggested at 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. levels.

I despise that aspect of 3/.5e with such a deep and intense hatred that this one choice would ensure absolutely that I would never even open a PDF of the resulting game. It is one of the worst mechanical dynamics ever used in any version of D&D. I’d rather have to hit tables and different dice to do different activities rather than unified d20, and like…different xp tables, than have the BAB multiple attacks dynamic from 3/.5e back. I’d rather never be allowed to play D&D again, than have to play with a system that uses it.

9. Indomitable: Should fighters keep this ability, or should they gain proficiency in a new save, both, or something else?

“Heroic Determination. When you fail a d20 test, you can choose to succeed instead. You cannot do so again until you complete a long rest. At higher levels you gain additional uses of this ability.”

What else should these fighters have that 5e fighters don't?

skills, and hooks into the game world. An identity.

 

[Scribe]

1. Archetypes/Subclasses: Yep, as per 5e.
2. Yes, same level, 2 is good.
3. I like the idea of subclasses that are shared between classes. Its Prestige Classes ya? 3.5/PF1 foreverrrrrrrrrrrrr.
4. No. Fighter != Barb != Rogue.
5. No. Same as 4. Distinct classes.
6. Yes to a 'warlord' whatever you want to call it.
7/8. Yes.

 

[Lanefan]

This one is entirely write-in. I think there's too much to talk about that merely checking a button wouldn't work.

General Class Questions

1. Archetypes: Yea or nay? By archetype, I mean the way they're currently done in 5e. If archetypes aren't done like that, they could be done in the sense of "to play a Green Knight, take this class, these options, and these feats," but you would still be free to deviate however you want.

2. If you want there to be archetypes, should all archetypes be taken at the same level? If so, what level? I would say level 2: it prevents 1-level dipping and represents a training period, while also not making you want too long for the cool stuff. Or should we have them still taken at various levels?

3. Should all archetype features be granted at the same levels regardless of class--thus possibly allowing for different classes to take the same archetype? (I really liked the idea when it was presented in a UA, but it doesn't work at all with the current 5e setup.) In fact, should archetypes be limited by class, or should they be available to anyone who can meet the prereqs?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'archetype' here.

To me, an archetype is the (stereo)typical representation of something e.g. the scholarly old wizard or the lithe Elven Rogue or the strong-arm thick-head Part-Orc warrior. And for me, an archetype isn't something to start with, it's something to build toward over the long term. For example, you can't be a scholarly old wizard without first having been a less-scholarly young wizard; and the levels from 1-to-capstone represent the journey from one state to the other.

But you seem to be using the term to mean (or as a substitute for) sub-classes. Please clarify.

4. Should there be a single Warrior class, and you can use in-class choices and feats to model barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. (including possibly things like swordmages)? For instance, at level 2, you can choose between a smite, a rage, beastmaster abilities, and other, more fighter-y abilities? Or should all those be separate classes?

Most of those should be separate classes right out the gate.

6. Should there be Warlords/Marshals (a non-magical support class), or a similar option available via choices and feats? I don't like the Warlord name, but the class is fine and there are plenty of other options for names.

Flat hard no.

7. Should we keep things like d10 Hit Dice for fighters and spending HD to regain hp at short rests and other such basics?

D10 hit dice, yes. I'm not a fan of the HD mechanic as used in 5e in any way, but a short rest should give back a few h.p. (maybe a dice the size of your level e.g. a 5th-level Fighter gets back d5 h.p. on a short rest).

8. Should we keep short and long rests? The actual length of time for those rests doesn't matter right now; I just mean the concept.

That's a much bigger can of worms and probably worth its own entire poll; because it also opens up rest and recovery rates, ability refresh rates, and a bunch of other variables.

Actual Fighter Questions
We have generally decided that classes are going to be mostly front-loaded, so assume that the abilities I'm talking about are going to be obtainable, at least in basic form, before 10th level.

1. Weapon Proficiencies: Should fighters be proficient in all weapons, or should we limit the number of weapons or weapon groups they know? If so, how many? Should fighters gain a Weapon Mastery ability which grants them benefits when using their favored weapon? If so, at what level(s)?

Fighters should be able to become proficient with any weapon (i.e. they can choose any weapon they like) but the number of weapons you can be proficient in should be very limited a la 1e (and even more limited for non-warrior classes).

Specialization with a proficient weapon? Yes please. What I'd like to end up with are warriors that are vaguely decent (but not perfect) with anything they pick up, quite good with a very few proficient weapons, and amazing with the one weapon they really focus on.

2. Fighting Styles: Should Fighting Styles be part of the Fighter class, or should they be represented solely by feats? If Fighting Styles are part of the Fighter class, should feats be available to enhance them (e.g., take the Archery style and the Sharpshooter feat), or should the styles increase in power and versatility as you go up in level, thus allowing you to spend feats on other options?

Archer should be its own class. Swashbuckler should be its own class. The styles used should be baked in to those classes and emphasized there, while a generalist Fighter can only learn the basics of any given style(s).

3. Maneuvers: The Battle Master has a selection of 20+ maneuvers (including the ones from TCE) and grants Superiority Dice with which to use them. Level Up has a collection of well over 100 maneuvers, divided into Traditions and tiers (levels), requires the expenditure of exertion points to activate them, and all non-caster classes have access to at least some of them, although fighters get the most. Dungeon Crawl Classics, which I have never played or really read, apparently allows fighters to do whatever they want as long as they roll high enough on their deed die. Should our Fighters have maneuvers baked into the class (instead of being part of an archetype)? If so, should there be a short list of options (5e), a long list (LU), or should it be freeform (DCC)? Or something else? I'm inclined towards something a little more complicated than the Battle Master's maneuvers but far less complicate that Level Up's.

Keep it short, keep it simple. Fighters should neither be complicated to generate (or build - hate that term) nor to play.

4. Expanded Criticals: Should all fighters gain increased crit ranges as they level up, like Champions? If you want archetypes, should they be limited to specific archetypes? Should masterwork weapons grant increased crit ranges?

Increased crit ranges, as in critting more often? No. Crits (and fumbles) shouldn't be predictable.

Increased crit effects, such that when a Fighter does crit it packs a bigger punch? Hell yeah. Maybe when a Fighter crits the Fighter's level is added to the damage and then all the damage is multiplied (none of this rolling another die, just add it all up and double it).

5. Exploration Options: Level Up gives each class options that support the exploration pillar, such as by allowing for different or faster movement speeds, giving bonuses to various rolls when in certain environments, allowing the character to require less sleep or march longer without taking exhaustion, by gaining a new sense for a brief time, etc.? Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Different elements of this idea (which I like) could - and I think should - be applied to different classes. Fighters could get the march-without-exhaustion piece, Rogues could get the needs-less-sleep piece (they're trained to sleep lightly), Monks could get the gain-a-new-sense ability, and so on.

6. Social Options: Level Up also gives each class options that support the social pillar, by allowing bonuses to certain Charisma rolls at certain times or by causing others to have disad against the fighter at certain times. Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

No, mostly because I want social mechanics to largely come out altogether and this goes the other way.

7. Specialized Knowledge: Should there be an option where you choose a particular type of fighter-related knowledge? Examples: gaining a bonus to rolls to know about weapons and armor, historical battles, or knightly orders, or to know how to set or detect ambushes, etc?

I'd say this kind of thing should be baked in - if you're a Fighter, your knowledge of such things is likely to be better than that of the average Joe. That said, "better" doesn't mean "perfect"; and it'd be easy to overdo this.

(Note: the above three would be options granted at different levels. At level 2 you may gain a Specialized Knowledge, at level 4, an Exploration Option, and at level 6, a Social Ability.)

8. Action Surge/Extra Attacks: Should this be a thing, or should we use the 3x model where all classes can get multiple actions and attack as they increase in level, with a penalty to attack rolls if you take more than one? Regardless, how often should fighters gain extra attacks or actions? Some people have previously suggested at 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. levels.

Here's one of the few places where I support a bit of front-loading: Fighters should gain extra attacks (at no penalty) at 4th-7th-10th but only if using a proficient weapon, and then stop there. I could even be talked into 2nd-5th-8th on this one for their specialized weapon only.

Other classes should also gain extra attacks but much more slowly and maybe not so evenly-spaced e.g. Clerics might get them at 6th-15th while Thieves get them at 8th-12th and Mage types never get them at all.

As for what else Fighters should get? The one thing that leaps to mind is the cap should come off as to how many magic items they can use, i.e. Fighters get to ignore attunement limits. That way, high-level Fighters who have accumulated some tinker toys are better positioned to keep up with the casters.

 

[Lanefan]

I despise that aspect of 3/.5e with such a deep and intense hatred that this one choice would ensure absolutely that I would never even open a PDF of the resulting game. It is one of the worst mechanical dynamics ever used in any version of D&D. I’d rather have to hit tables and different dice to do different activities rather than unified d20, and like…different xp tables, than have the BAB multiple attacks dynamic from 3/.5e back. I’d rather never be allowed to play D&D again, than have to play with a system that uses it.

Curious - what's so bad about multiple attacks? I didn't like the 3e version where each successive attack was at a bigger minus to hit, but even in 1e Fighters got multiple attacks starting at 7th (eariler if using UA weapon specialization), so it's not like this is a new development.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This one is entirely write-in. I think there's too much to talk about that merely checking a button wouldn't work.

General Class Questions

1. Archetypes: Yea or nay? By archetype, I mean the way they're currently done in 5e. If archetypes aren't done like that, they could be done in the sense of "to play a Green Knight, take this class, these options, and these feats," but you would still be free to deviate however you want.

EDIT: By archetypes, I mean subclasses.

Archtypes as feat families that are easier for certain classes to get, but not gated to any class.

2. If you want there to be archetypes, should all archetypes be taken at the same level? If so, what level? I would say level 2: it prevents 1-level dipping and represents a training period, while also not making you want too long for the cool stuff. Or should we have them still taken at various levels?

From level 1. You should be able to play your concept from the word go. Have optional rules for training/0 levels.

3. Should all archetype features be granted at the same levels regardless of class--thus possibly allowing for different classes to take the same archetype? (I really liked the idea when it was presented in a UA, but it doesn't work at all with the current 5e setup.) In fact, should archetypes be limited by class, or should they be available to anyone who can meet the prereqs?

Anyone should be able to get the archtype as long as they meet prereqs.

4. Should there be a single Warrior class, and you can use in-class choices and feats to model barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. (including possibly things like swordmages)? For instance, at level 2, you can choose between a smite, a rage, beastmaster abilities, and other, more fighter-y abilities? Or should all those be separate classes?

Barbars at this point are their own thing (angry magical girls). Rangers are a rogue archetype, possibly several rogue archtypes (actual ranger, beastmaster, druid with a bow). Paladins are a cleric archtype that lets thme be fighter-like. Let they be a gish class.

6. Should there be Warlords/Marshals (a non-magical support class), or a similar option available via choices and feats? I don't like the Warlord name, but the class is fine and there are plenty of other options for names.

Yes, I like good game design that lets you fill vital roles with whatever flavor you wish.

7. Should we keep things like d10 Hit Dice for fighters and spending HD to regain hp at short rests and other such basics?

Get rid of HD as a healing option. Just regen a certain amount of HP per encounter.

8. Should we keep short and long rests? The actual length of time for those rests doesn't matter right now; I just mean the concept.

5 minute short rest. Delete the long rest.

1. Weapon Proficiencies: Should fighters be proficient in all weapons, or should we limit the number of weapons or weapon groups they know? If so, how many? Should fighters gain a Weapon Mastery ability which grants them benefits when using their favored weapon? If so, at what level(s)?

Pick 3 weapons + INT modifier, keep masteries.

2. Fighting Styles: Should Fighting Styles be part of the Fighter class, or should they be represented solely by feats? If Fighting Styles are part of the Fighter class, should feats be available to enhance them (e.g., take the Archery style and the Sharpshooter feat), or should the styles increase in power and versatility as you go up in level, thus allowing you to spend feats on other options?

Let more things be feats, but give them to the fighter for free.

3. Maneuvers: The Battle Master has a selection of 20+ maneuvers (including the ones from TCE) and grants Superiority Dice with which to use them. Level Up has a collection of well over 100 maneuvers, divided into Traditions and tiers (levels), requires the expenditure of exertion points to activate them, and all non-caster classes have access to at least some of them, although fighters get the most. Dungeon Crawl Classics, which I have never played or really read, apparently allows fighters to do whatever they want as long as they roll high enough on their deed die. Should our Fighters have maneuvers baked into the class (instead of being part of an archetype)? If so, should there be a short list of options (5e), a long list (LU), or should it be freeform (DCC)? Or something else? I'm inclined towards something a little more complicated than the Battle Master's maneuvers but far less complicate that Level Up's.

100 maneuvers is a good start for the core book. 2 maneuvers for every spell. Because two for flinching, nerd.

4. Expanded Criticals: Should all fighters gain increased crit ranges as they level up, like Champions? If you want archetypes, should they be limited to specific archetypes? Should masterwork weapons grant increased crit ranges?

Crits should be tied to weapons again.

5. Exploration Options: Level Up gives each class options that support the exploration pillar, such as by allowing for different or faster movement speeds, giving bonuses to various rolls when in certain environments, allowing the character to require less sleep or march longer without taking exhaustion, by gaining a new sense for a brief time, etc.? Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Climb speed! Jump Speed!

6. Social Options: Level Up also gives each class options that support the social pillar, by allowing bonuses to certain Charisma rolls at certain times or by causing others to have disad against the fighter at certain times. Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Give fighters more skills. Let them be people outside of 'thing what stabs people'.

7. Specialized Knowledge: Should there be an option where you choose a particular type of fighter-related knowledge? Examples: gaining a bonus to rolls to know about weapons and armor, historical battles, or knightly orders, or to know how to set or detect ambushes, etc?

(Note: the above three would be options granted at different levels. At level 2 you may gain a Specialized Knowledge, at level 4, an Exploration Option, and at level 6, a Social Ability.)

Every archetype should come with a thing that gives you Expertise to anything to do with that archetype.

8. Action Surge/Extra Attacks: Should this be a thing, or should we use the 3x model where all classes can get multiple actions and attack as they increase in level, with a penalty to attack rolls if you take more than one? Regardless, how often should fighters gain extra attacks or actions? Some people have previously suggested at 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. levels.

If's fine. Just let me do maneuvers instead of attacks.

9. Indomitable: Should fighters keep this ability, or should they gain proficiency in a new save, both, or something else?

Every class should have more saves.

What else should these fighters have that 5e fighters don't?

Game Design Priority.

 

[Corinnguard]

Does Levelup have maneuvers that effectively work as 'summon bodyguard' and 'summon troops' type things - I'd like to see that too

I am not sure if there is a Combat Tradition in Level Up that has maneuvers that do either of those things. The closest Combat Tradition that comes close IMO is Sanguine Knot.

Legion, Teamwork, Trust

A battle fought alone is often a battle already lost and practitioners of the Sanguine Knot tradition focus on the opportunities presented when an ally is nearby to help. While they may be weaker alone ,these warriors are lethal in tandem and the trust they have for their companions make them truly valuable adventurers to keep nearby.

Bodyguard is a 4th degree Sanguine Knot reaction.

You interpose yourself to take a hit for your ally. When an ally within your reach is hit by an attack, you can use your reaction to swap places with them and become the target of that attack, taking half as much damage as normal.