D&D 5E Next up is Fighter, what do you want from UA?

[BoldItalic]

I predict that there will be a fighter who harnesses the power of the feywild, and another who is somehow linked to the death domain. Not that fighters aren't dealing out death all the time, which is what they do, after all, but something to do with necromancy and undead-ed-ness.

Not saying those are what I want to see, but a theme is beginning to emerge in these weekly UA articles, isn't it?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I predict that there will be a fighter who harnesses the power of the feywild, and another who is somehow linked to the death domain. Not that fighters aren't dealing out death all the time, which is what they do, after all, but something to do with necromancy and undead-ed-ness.

Not saying those are what I want to see, but a theme is beginning to emerge in these weekly UA articles, isn't it?

Drat, you beat me too it. Although at the rate they are going, the "undead slayer" fighter will do necrotic damage.....

 

[gyor]

Combat Medic that uses healing kits in new awesome ways.

Instead of a Crusader subclass, something more like the Divine Champion of 3.5e, not a spellcaster, but uses divine magic in a whole other way.

Umbriri the Swordmage PP from 4e that used shadow magic instead of arcane, updated as a fighter subclass.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say we'll get probably 3 or so of the previous UA's 'Monster Hunter' / 'Scout' / 'Cavalier' style subclasses, which were basically Battlemasters with pre-selected maneuvers and a special feature.

And if one of those is a 'Warlord'... it'll basically be the same kinda thing-- Commander's Strike, Rally, and maybe a new featured maneuver. But with the Banneret already in play, I don't expect we'll see a 'Warlord' at all.

I think the only way we will see subclasses repeated is if they were unpopular when they first came out in UA's (unless they are going to pull an UA ranger and completely redo the fighter--eldritch knight picks a spell level based on what his/her marital superiority dice roll up). My memory of the reaction they got isn't so great, but I think the scout went over pretty well. I liked the monster hunter, but I might be in the minority, and I don't think I gave the cavalier a second thought.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think the fighter needs a divine caster sublcass. That's pretty much a paladin. Gladiator would be cool, but that's pretty much battlemaster. They seem to be on a spirit thing, so maybe a fighter that uses spirits sort of like the barbarian or recent shepherd druid class? When I created my "classes of the Far East", I had a bushi fighter subclass that used Chi sort of similar to a monk's Ki to augment certain abilities. Maybe something like that? I also know they tinkered with a swashbuckler rogue, but I'd rather see an unarmored fighter variant instead.

And of course cue all the "where is the warlord" demands

Really, the Paladin is fairly far removed from relation to a deity in 5E: it's about the Oath. A Domain fuelled one-third caster would infringe slightly on that territory, but the subclasses at this point are doing that in general: mixed concepts.
[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has mentioned a Samurai-esque "Dedicated Defender" concept, would be interesting to see.

In general, expect themed variations on the Battlemaster as seen previously, or variations on the Eldritch Knight like a Crusader. Possibly, more fighting styles, as the Druid article shoes they are willing to work beyond subclass variants here.

 

[TwoSix]

Just give me a warlord and a subclass with damage on a miss abilities, and I'm good to go. Bonus points if they have an ability that can shout an arm back on.

 

[Jester David]

The idea of a crusader - a 1/3rd cleric - is weak as it overlaps too much with the paladin.
If it was an inquisitor or witch hunter that might be more interesting.


Fights be tricky, as the flavour of the class doesn't touch the subclasses. They really failed that design. So many options could be condensed into a battle master or champion. Like the swashbuckler/duelist, archer, etc.
Looking at roles is is a good way.
A more tanky defender would be a good option. A heavily armoured fighter that's sticky and knows how to take advantage of second wind. Another idea would be a fighter focused around using a shield. (I did my own attempts at these for the Guild, so I'm personally less interested, but someone might dig them.)

An unarmed brawler/ pugilist might be cool as well: a monk without mysticism.
A related concept might be a wrestler that focuses on grappling, fighting with a free hand to grab opponents.

A dragoon/ lancer/ spear fighter might be cool. Either like Oberon Martell or a Spartan. Hopefully able to do both.

 

[mrpopstar]

I see the Fighter and its archetypes as something of a lost cause, really. The game needs more martial options, but the existing structure of archetypes doesn't have the design space for them.

Yeah, the battle master is comprehensive in the best and worst way.

That said, more 1/3rd caster options would make sense: Crusader (1/3rd Cleric), Duskblade (1/3rd Warlock), Fianna (1/3rd Druid), Scion (1/3rd Sorcerer), Skald (1/3rd Bard), Soulknife (1/3rd Mystic).

Makes sense to me, and I'm not opposed to any of the above named options.

 

[Uchawi]

It is hard to predict since the fighter class is definitely two classes with the battle master and ek, and the champion being simple just for the sake of nostalgia. So you have three directions to take the class with any given subclass. So which one do you use to represent a weapon master, kensai, samurai, cavalier, defender, etc.

 

[flametitan]

Personally I'd like to see a revamped Scout built around non-combat skills, exploration, etc.

The fighter already has a solid base for fighting; it can afford a subclass where it trades some battlefield prowess for more to do outside the arena.