All you need if to have customizable class features, and 3.5/pathfinder fighter ain't half bad at that. You just need to improve on it.
Honestly, if you are going to have customizable class features, you may as well just break those features down into either separate classes or clearly defined sub-classes. Trying to force too many things into a single class in the name of customizability leads to watered down options, overly opaque class concepts, and a landmine of system mastery.
But if you want to see bloated, look no further than a PHB that broke down fighter into several additional classes...
Yeah, 4E basically killed the Fighter and broke it down into two totally different classes in the Essentials books. The Knight and the Slayer are not the same class; they're two totally separate classes. That isn't "bloat", that's a good example of what needs to be done.
As far as I'm concerned, class bloat as it is commonly described (as the creation of too many classes) is not a major issue for the game. It simply is not a problem. The real bloat comes from when a single class has a large number of rules scattered across every book and supplement produced for the game. The 3E spellcasting classes were bloated. The 3E Fighter, with its large feat dependancy, was bloated. 4E classes, which are for the most part completely self-contained, won't become bloated no matter how many of them there are. Ultimately, "bloat" is a problem of data management and organization. It is much easier to control the amount of data if you use a large number of self-contained elements to reference (small, focused classes) rather than large pools of data that are not self-contained (large, generalized and heavily supported classes).
This is why I prefer books like the Tome of Battle over things like the Complete books or the Power books.
I think we can both agree you won't get your wish, though.
Nope. Actually, the general trend across the history of D&D is in my favor. The game started with a few number of broad classes. Modern editions like 3E and 4E tend towards a much larger number of more focused classes. Across the length of 3E itself you could see the shift. 4E continues the trend even further, with things like the Knight/Slayer divide that establishes "Fighter" as an class category with no mechanical teeth.
I have every reason to imagine that, so long as the 5E design team doesn't succumb to foolish reactionist behavior, that trend will continue in my favor.
More customization in basic classes, not more basic classes. That's what we'll hopefully get, that's been the trend for a long time. When you get the D&D book with the eight alternative basic fighter classes, that's when you know we are one or two years removed from 6th edition.
You keep saying "lots of Fighter classes" like I'm supposed to think its a bad thing. I don't. I like the idea.