As i said before.... play a champion with JUST heavy armor mastery (not a "choice" feat.. its always on, minimal "thinking" required and the Shield Mastery Feat... always an option, can use any time, no limit on uses) and then play one without those feats...
its a night and day difference in survivability (-3 damage seems small until your hit 10 times and saved 30hp of healing time/spells/potions) and flexability (shove as a bonus action, cover-like bonus from dex save spells and effects.. the most common save)
I've already played without those feats. I've done so because it's only a couple of feats while most ASI's already get spent on ability score increases. I see more "moar damage" builds in play than defensive builds and they are playing while not spending the limited number of feats on heavy armor master or shield master.
This isn't Shrodinger's fighter where he has whatever applicable feat works for the current debate point. It's also not a case of "if you aren't first you're last" and need the best defense possible just to play adequately.
Without feats, in a basic game, fighters will use the grapple and pin option more frequently because it means the group is not taking as much damage and replaces what your heavy armor master feat is doing.
and not pick up new skills along the way... proficiency bonus is huge, without feats they will always be nearly passable when using those skills...
saves are nice but again, without the proficiency bonus (another choice though feats) your "mhu".... a +2 to charisma save is not going to do much against a DC: 15 save or suck effect... a +5 on the other hand...
5e isn't a treadmill of getting the highest bonus possible and back to "if you're not first you're last" and Shrodinger's fighter again. Characters don't have heavy armor master and shield master and resilient and skilled and whatever else because there aren't that many feats / ASI's available and by the time we've gotten 4 of them most classes would only have 1 left for the final 2 levels of progression from 19th level onward.
An ability score increase is the same as a small bonus to multiple skills and saving throw all for the same cost as a larger bonus to one skill or saving throw. The backbone of the system is the ability check instead of needing to be skilled like past editions in order to keep the options open to all characters regardless of proficiency, and why DC's are low, and why we have bounded accuracy baked into the design. Without feats to spend on skilled (which again isn't going to be there for all fighters or even most fighters in my experience) the DC's don't change and the character still performs the same actions.
If a person steps back and looks at the system, spending a feat to have proficiency in 3 saves instead of 2 is still leaving 3 without proficiency in which the ability scores help with and are functional. Having 7 skill proficiencies instead of 4 skill proficiencies is still 1 skills in which the character is not proficient but the character can still do those skills. There are also several ability checks for which there is no proficiency and no CON skills in the game, so bonuses to the relevant ability scores are the only way to improve those checks. It's hardly a bad trade off because if missing the proficiency bonus in a couple skills is bad then missing any bonus in more skills is also bad, which isn't how 5e is designed.
see above, even if you choose "simple" feats like gaining skills or packing up a new save or gaining DR: 3 against melee attacks (heavy armor mastery) you are still light-years better then a stranded champion
feats do not always = complexity so this argument falls flat.
My argument was that a person doesn't need to play a champion. There are 2 other fighter subclasses if a person wants more complexity regardless of feats. Your response about your opinion of a champion falls flat when not all fighters are champions nor are players required to play champion fighters if they want to play a fighter. You opinion that champions are lacking is irrelevant if you aren't playing a champion.
see above as well
I broke down before how dealing damage is commonly a far far better option then special maneuvers, unless you can get away with using them as a bonus action. the only acceptation is high AC targets, shoving them to get advantage on your next 2 attacks may be worth it.
but most of the time you want to take the target out so it stops dealing damage... the more actions you take away from the GM the better is it for your party
You also broke down damage reduction from a feat that has an opportunity cost in the build choices but chose to ignore the damage reduction from action denial in the existing additional choices and then stated survivability was like night and day. You might want to try some of the other survivability options available instead of dismissing them just because they don't cost feats in your build.
I absolutely agree that dead is the best status effect and fighters excel at it due to multiple attacks. I disagree on it being the best course of action because to pull it of the group needs to be killing monsters in one turn and that's not necessarily the case. Normally a choice based on current situation makes more sense.
FYI, grappled and knocked down changes movement to 0 feet and uses actions to break the grapple, so does what you are stating in taking actions away from the GM and preventing damage.
see what I said above, the CHA investment is really not worth it unless you have a CHA skill.
how do you get one after character creation 1) take a year to learn it... if the GM is nice 2) feat 3) mutli-class
As I said above, this is not correct. It's the opposite of the design approach that opened up ability checks to everyone. The DC's are based on the premise any PC can reasonably make checks. That's why most DC's are 5, 10, and 15.
never said they were not a good class... but they are far far far better when you allow feats.
they get more bang for the buck from feats then any other class because they can get more of them
Every class has more options with feats. Fighters only get 2 more and they have several other abilities that are completely unrelated to those feats. Abililties like second wind, action surge, multiple extra attacks for permutations of options in combat, fighting styles, the same number of skills and proficiencies as most classes but guaranteed to have more ability score modifiers than most classes when feats do not exist, indomitable, equipment, and out-of-combat options for every subclass (champion -- remarkable athlete, survivor; battlemaster -- student of war; know your enemy; eldritch knight -- spells). If that's not enough play one that's more complex, multiclass options in that you might want, or play a weapon-user / martial class that suits your style more like a rogue or monk.
As it stands, fighters are the most appealing than I've seen them in any edition so far. That's due to definite concept of combat that's effective, options, bounded accuracy, high damage, backgrounds, and limitations added to spellcasters.
If you don't agree, then you don't agree. WotC cannot please everyone, but I think you might need to take a closer look at your argument because you seem to be looking at it from the perspective of requiring high numbers like past editions needed, both with skills and damage, and ignoring available options for the character.
