D&D 5E My Super Simple Idea for a Better Fighter

[Bill Zebub]

I threw this out there in another thread and NOBODY RESPONDED. /sob

I started trying to design a Fighter subclass that had special moves that could be used infinitely, without consuming resources (X times/rest) but instead were gated situationally, or with an action/bonus action/reaction cost. But most of my ideas for those abilities overlapped with feats. So I thought, "Well, why not feats?"

Presenting....the world's least verbose subclass!

Warrior
Whenever you gain a subclass feature, choose one feat from Mobility, Alert, Charger, Grappler, Shield Master, Mage Slayer, Defensive Duelist, and Sentinel.

EDIT: Also the new Tasha's feat that lets you choose a fighting style.

Notes:
- I did not include any feats that give an ASI
- I also left off Polearm Master/GWM/SS. The Fighter still has plenty of feats if you want those.
- In general I was going for feats that give you something new to do, give you a new way to use something you have, or change the calculus on when you would use it. And then there's Alert, which I just like.

Thoughts? OP?

 

[Ancalagon]

So it's a fighter with more feats?

5 extra feats over 20 levels, or probably 3 over an average campaign. It's certainly better than some subclasses...

 

[Bill Zebub]

So it's a fighter with more feats?

Yes.

5 extra feats over 20 levels, or probably 3 over an average campaign. It's certainly better than some subclasses...

That makes it sound like "what it is now, just more so". But since, at least in my experience, those first four feats (4,6,8,10) are heavily weighted toward ASIs or feats not on this list, the result would be Fighters that actually have more choices...and maybe feel a little more heroic...in combat. Not just hitting harder, but doing cool stuff.

 

[DeviousQuail]

It seems in line with the average fighter subclass. You could maybe add the Tough feat to your list.

 

[Quickleaf]

Looks like it's at the higher tier of fighter subclass power, but not totally unreasonable to me. At least we have one clear point of comparison for 10th level fighter subclass features in the Champion's Additional Fighting Style which exactly equates to the feat Fighting Initiate from TCoE. I'd let a player run a fighter like this.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It seems in line with the average fighter subclass. You could maybe add the Tough feat to your list.

I thought about Lucky, too. I hardly ever see Fighters take it.

 

[Charlaquin]

You’ve pretty much circled back around to the 3e/3.5e fighter. I remember during the playtest this concept got a lot of pushback because folks (myself included) wanted to make sure the fighter had its own distinct identity that wasn’t just “the same thing anyone else can do, but more of it.” That said, I agree with you that abilities that are restricted by action economy, situational use, and potentially drawbacks, rather than the expenditure of an abstract resource, feels right for the fighter, and in 5e such abilities tend to end up as feats.

I’m onboard with the idea of the Fighter getting extra feats, so long as there’s something else unique to the fighter that draws people to it specifically. Maybe Second Wind and Action Surge are enough? I don’t really know. It’s hard when classes are just vague archetypes instead of occupying a more specific design space like they did in 4e.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You’ve pretty much circled back around to the 3e/3.5e fighter. I remember during the playtest this concept got a lot of pushback because folks (myself included) wanted to make sure the fighter had its own distinct identity that wasn’t just “the same thing anyone else can do, but more of it.” That said, I agree with you that abilities that are restricted by action economy, situational use, and potentially drawbacks, rather than the expenditure of an abstract resource, feels right for the fighter, and in 5e such abilities tend to end up as feats.

I’m onboard with the idea of the Fighter getting extra feats, so long as there’s something else unique to the fighter that draws people to it specifically. Maybe Second Wind and Action Surge are enough? I don’t really know. It’s hard when classes are just vague archetypes instead of occupying a more specific design space like they did in 4e.

I forgot to include "risk/reward" mechanics in my list, what you call "potential drawbacks". My favorite example is the Barbarian's Reckless Attack. Great mechanic.

 

[Yaarel]

This feat-only Fighter works better if there are new higher tier feats with level prereqs.

Normal feats are available at level "0" or 1 at character creation.

Probably have the prereqs at level 5 (normally taken for the feat at level 8 but this Fighter might get it sooner), level 9, 13, and 17.

The feats can offer benefits comparable to high level spells.

Avoid feat chains, unless a later feat truly needs the earlier benefit, and the earlier one is excellent by itself.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This feat-only Fighter works better if there are new higher tier feats with level prereqs.

Normal feats are available at level "0" or 1 at character creation.

Probably have the prereqs at level 5 (normally taken for the feat at level 8 but this Fighter might get it sooner), level 9, 13, and 17.

The feats can offer benefits comparable to high level spells.

Avoid feat chains, unless a later feat truly needs the earlier benefit, and the earlier one is excellent by itself.

For the most part I don't think higher level feats are necessary; it works just fine as it is. But your post did make me realize that my scheme is missing the "capstone" concept present in most subclasses.

And even if I thought of a good one, I kind of like the one-line subclass. Would hate to add more text.

Then again, the vast majority of characters never reach that level.