• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) Fighter Class rewrite

DnD Warlord

I would take the champion fighter with improved crit and indomitable. Then add the psi warrior psi die mechanic (but use the old one where it goes up and down) instead of the psychic powers I would use the battle master manuvers.

log in or register to remove this ad


Not for damage, no. Is there something out there on the net which you'd recommend?
I mean, there is a half decent on done over in LU5E on this forum. They just calculated spike and at-will damage.

Or do something like 1-4 encounters between rests, 0-3 short rests/day, 2-5 rounds per encounter, and work out total damage done over number of rounds given a model of the adventuring day, and then report both average DPR and variance over the "adventure space".

Depends how much of a math geek you are I guess. :)

However, in the old post I did a breakdown of how the bonus attacks granted by Action Surge, Against the Horde, and Stalwart Defender compare to each other: D&D 5E - The Warrior Based on my assumptions/analysis/playtesting they were fairly balanced.
Great, that is an example of a model.

What I do when I'm doing that is I stuff that kind of analysis in [ spoiler ] blocks adjacent to the feature. So people who don't care can skip them. (also, I put design notes there). Dunno if it actually helps.
Absolutely feel you there. The challenge I encountered with that previously was two-fold: (1) Because not every fighter could be imagined to have the same non-combat roles, it was far easier to design disparate Camp Talents (think Eldritch Invocations, but for fighters) that could be chosen from. (2) When I made camp talents the word count shot up and it bloated the class design.

Your framework – four scaling features at "tier jump" levels – is elegant, and I like it, but gets back to that first challenge: Pinning down non-combat features that players can universally get behind as belonging to the fighter. And if you can surmount that significant obstacle, then you're faced with the challenge of finding design space within 5e's "hands-off" approach to non-combat rules (where things like henchmen & followers & strongholds don't really have a place).
Ya, the problem with "invocations" is that you require a book.

With subclass-ish cases, you can write 2 or 3 thematic ones, and leave the rest up to the imagination. And because they are in packages each individual feature need not be as tightly balanced.

Profession: You had a life before adventuring. At 1st level, select a profession you had before you became a fighter, and gain the associated benefits.

Soldier: You know how to set up a bivouac. If you spend an hour setting up camp during a rest, anyone spending a HD to regain HP may reroll it once (but must keep the new result), and during a long rest creatures may sacrifice a HD to regain 1 additional level of exhaustion. Setting up camp does not prevent you from taking a rest.

Guard: Your passive perception is increased by 5, and creatures have disadvantage on deception checks opposed by you.

Smith: You are proficiency in smiths tools, and when you make an attribute check where you add proficiecny due to smith tools, instead add twice your proficiency bonus. You can craft masterwork melee weapons, shields and armor that are primarily made of metal. These gain a non-magical bonus to their AC or attack and damage rolls of up to 1/2 of your proficiency bonus (round down); if the material you use is magical, they are also considered magical; some magical components may even permit the weapon to have other properties (such items usually require attunement). This crafting requires 1 month of downtime time per +1 bonus the item has, and requires materials that cost at least 5x the base price of the item per +1 bonus (so x5, x25 and x125) (if you find magical materials, this may replace this cost). If non-magical, such masterwork items require regular maintenence if in use. Every month that at least a week's downtime (by their user, or someone proficient in smiths tools) has not been spent maintaining them and they are in use, they lose a +1 bonus until repaired by someone proficient in smiths tools for a week. In addition, nonmagical masterwork shields lose +1 bonus every time you suffer a critical hit.

Finally, you have advantage on all attribute checks your smithing knowledge could apply to, including checks opposed by metal golems, constructs, or concerning smithed objects.

Simple Farmer: You gain proficiency in animal handling, and you make an attribute check where you add proficiecny due to smith tools, instead add twice your proficiency bonus. Without training, you have left your farm to seek adventure, have seen terrible things, and are not cowed. You have advantage on saving throws against fear and charm effects, and friendly creatures who see you succeed against such a saving throw also gain advantage against the same effect for the next minute.

Useless Dandy: You lived a life of comfort and got bored. You gain proficiency in deception and persuasion. The fact you aren't a quivering wreck when faced with the dangers of adventure makes everyone else feel they need to step up. When you use your fighter's second wind, up to your charisma bonus creatures (min 1) you choose who can see or hear gain temporary HP equal to the HP you heal from second wind. While they have those temporary HP, they have advantage on attacks on creatures adjacent to you.

I guess this also adds to word count.
Last edited:


@Quickleaf , have you looked at the levelUp fighter? I feel like it is trying to do a lot of the things you want to do. Not sure how much has changed since the playtest, but we will know soon!

I like a lot of what you are proposing, but I haven't reviewed it in detail. One of the things I think a fighter needs to do is be the best at fighting. So I think it needs some benefits that are combatants don't get. Some of the simple things we implemented are:
  • OA. A fighter gets all the typical 3e OA.
  • The fighter can trade in extra attacks for more damage on a single attack.
  • Instead of healing you can spend your second wind to add 1d10+lvl damage to one attack.


@dave2008 Glad to see folks reading this a year later. I've glimpsed a little at LevelUp's public playtest – a lot of it is very interesting, and I think quite well done, but definitely turning up the complexity dial an order of magnitude.

I was aiming for something a bit lighter or tighter in focus. My first try at homebrewing the fighter ended up with big lists of maneuver-like things to choose from, and it was just too much bloat. So this was my slimmer take.

I like a lot of those changes for your home game. The idea of the fighter being the "gets the most out of reactions" class has a lot going for it. I know that wasn't baked into 3e, but apparently Combat Reflexes was one of the more popular feat options from what I've heard.


I think the class here is way more powerful than the current 5E class and will outshine all other martials (including Rogues) by quite a bit. I like a few of the ideas, but I think they need to be reworked in terms of power. Here are my comments FWIW:

Iron Guard
I think Bulwark needs some tweaking. First state the dodge has to be taken as an action and no other actions are allowed on that turn except bonus action. This avoids the abuse you would get by combining it with haste, action surge or a Monk multiclass.

Second, eliminate "You gain a saving throw against any spells or effects which would cause automatic damage "

The idea of automatic damage is it is automatic. If I use this I can jump off a cliff and save to avoid falling damage, I can decide to swim through lava and save to avoid fire damage. I can save to avoid damage from booming blade or hex .....

The other two are fine.

The reaction attack is good. The rest of it is essentially four free skill proficiencies (Deception, Persuasion, Performance and Intimidation). This infringes quite a bit on the Rogue and Bard, almost to the point of making those classes irrelevant.

I think if you want to add your proficiency bonus to charisma skills, a more balanced approach is to include all of these charisma skills in the fighter pool and let him choose them instead of other skills. Then with the right background you could get all of them if that is the fighter you want to be.

So if you want to be the noble everyman you can be by selecting those skills. If you want to be the cruel mercenary working for slave traders you can be that instead.

I think your reasoning here is going against the grain in terms of the direction the game is going. Certainly this castle-owning lord type was a part of being a fighter in AD&D but I think that represents a medieval trope and the designers are trying to move away from those stereotypes and to more diversity in each class.

Warriors Multiattack
The proficiency bonus number of attacks is ok, but I would limit it to once per short rest.

Not needing reactions to make an OA is a big problem with bounded accuracy, the maximum number of OAs you should ever be able to make is 1.

Weapon Expertise
For balance reasons these should not be a class feature IMO. I think they make more sense as battlemaster maneuvers with a use limit. I would substitute the battlemaster damage dice for the weapon damage dice on attacks that hit multiple targets though and I would require more than one dice to be used on attacks that hit more than one target.

Power Strike
With bounded accuracy, the damage here should be 1d6 not full weapon damage.

This should be scrapped IMO. Diamond soul should be more powerful than indomitable because the fighter deals a lot more damage than a monk of similar level, has more hit points and a better AC. I think you can work this into a homebrew feat that any class can take, but I would limit uses per day

Improved Fighting Style
I think a better option is to allow an additional fighting style. Also Paladins and Rangers do not select from the same styles, unarmed combat and blind fighting are unique to fighters already. Superior technique is also unique to fighters I think and this is the "master of combat" vibe lacking in the other classes. I think TCE really upped the game so that everyone can benefit substantially from an additional fighting style and I think that would be preferable to an improved style.

These should require a reaction to use IMO.
Last edited:


I think the class here is way more powerful than the current 5E class and will outshine all other martials (including Rogues) by quite a bit. I like a few of the ideas, but I think they need to be reworked in terms of power. Here are my comments FWIW:
Thanks for your feedback ECMO3!

I think it's worth reiterating that this rewrite was born of a blend of things – one of which is specific deficiencies (mentioned in my OP) with the PHB fighter class as compared to "warrior types" like the barbarian, paladin, and ranger. I can reiterate those if it would be helpful, but, yeah, it is intended to be somewhat more powerful than the default fighter – because one of my objectives was filling those deficiencies. There is definitely room for fine-tuning how much more powerful, but the premise here is that it SHOULD be more powerful than the PHB fighter, because that class is lacking features at key levels which its other "warrior type" counterpart have.

Just clarifying that if the discussion is #1 "how much more powerful is appropriate/desirable?" then I am very happy to have that discussion.

Whereas if the discussion is #2 "I disagree with your premise. It shouldn't be any more powerful than the PHB fighter." well, that's actually a discussion about the premises in my OP. So it's a very different conversation.

I'm assuming we're having a #1 discussion, but if I'm assuming incorrectly, please correct me.

ECMO3 said:
I think your reasoning here is going against the grain in terms of the direction the game is going. Certainly this castle-owning lord type was a part of being a fighter in AD&D but I think that represents a medieval trope and the designers are trying to move away from those stereotypes and to more diversity in each class.

I know I'm responding out of order a little, but I wanted to reply to this comment first. The whole point of fan-made classes is to approach design with a different lens than the designers, right?

Otherwise, if I was moving in the exact same grain with the same design philosophy, I'd basically recreate the fighter with minor, if any, differences. And there's no point in that. It's "milk toast."

What I'm saying is that, there is merit in challenging the design ethos which resulted in a particular class or rules implementation.

In this case, my design thinking is – hey, I agree with Mike Mearls' thoughts about the fighter being designed toward mechanics first, not story first, and my tl;dr explanation for that is that removing all that AD&D vassalage stuff left a void in the fighter that hasn't been filled since.

I also am under no illusion that there's a lot of demand for this. I've looked at all the existing data points we have exhaustively, and by and large ~75% of players are totally happy with the 5e fighter. So obviously, I'm not "fixing something that isn't broken for the people who like it already", rather I'm trying to create big effects with minimalistic changes for the minority of us who want something different (and even then my approach won't work for others in that minority - it's hardly unified). In other words, I'm not trying to recreate 4th edition's level of complexity, but I'm trying to keep towards the more streamlined 5th edition. Small changes for maximum effect is where I'm coming from in this re-write.

Back to work, but you have some great ideas for tweaking the power and adjusting. I like a lot of it, and it deserves a well thought-out response, just need to have a block of time to thoughtfully respond.


@Quickleaf or even @NotAYakk have you congealed your ideas and perhaps put them in a pretty/clear pdf format?
No, it is a lot of work. Needing 1 "profession" per tier is a challenge, even with 3 choices per tier.

"Profession" overlaps with background too much. Maybe ditch it, or give a 2nd background.

"Destiny of the"
Smith, Reborn, Fool

"Conquest over"
Order, Chaos, Fate

"Legend of the"
Ruler, Revolution, Destruction

Remove ads