I do hope you're wrong about this. I dislike the disconnect of saying you're one thing but not taking that speciality for mechanical reasons. The mechanics should fit the story.
I think that's precisely what they want: to connect mechanics with story.
But what story fits "gladiator" isn't not necessarily unique, in fact you already mention you can clearly think of a low-complexity gladiator. Perhaps one gladiator is a hulking dumb giant who always wins just by swinging his club with superhuman force, while another is a cunning and highly technical skirmisher. IIRC the previous Gladiator subclass was built around two ideas: technical tricks (represented with the high-complexity mechanic) and some abilities to represent pleasing the crowd and getting boosted in return. Immediately a lot of people liked the maneuvers mechanics (or whatever they were at that point) but contested that they should be forced to play an arena-type gladiator... hence the quick name change to Weapon Master, which now is changed to Battle Master because the maneuvers have expanded beyond matters of skilled weapon use and are more encompassing.
They really are trying to associate mechanics with story IMHO. But at the same time, they absolutely want to stick to their plan of allowing low-complexity and high-complexity characters at the same table, and they pretty much have only feats and subclasses at the moment to dial complexity.
Maybe.
For other classes yes, as they exist for narrative reasons as much as mechanical distinction. The fighter subclasses currently seem to only serve a mechanical distinction: simple or complex. And you don't need more variations on that one theme, that's just bloat. It reduces fighter subclasses to whatever new mechanic they support, like spellcasting.
We really don't need five variants on the complex fighter, each with slightly different maneuvers. Just provide different maneuvers.
It's not only for the mechanical distinction. There are other subclasses planned, mentioned or previously shown.
Indeed the "
Warrior" is clearly meant to provide the lowest complexity. IMHO narratively it best represents a
veteran, not so much in military sense (thus not someone who's necessarily been part of an army or fought a war) but more generically someone who's been fighting
repetitively without directional training. Mostly, his abilities represent
increased accuracy in the form of more powerful critical hits.
And by opposite, "
Battle Master" is meant to provide highest complexity, but then IMHO they are including maneuvers of different types specifically to let this subclass serve as a basis for
multiple narrative concepts. Note that other classes have worked a little bit like this already: the Monk has an elemental subclass, but you can mix and match the elements and be an "Earth Monk" or "Air Monk" or just a mix, and the Barbarian can mix and match different animal abilities. The Battle Master takes this a step further, since obviously someone focusing on weapon tricks is narratively significantly different than someone focusing on inspiring allies.
But other Fighter subclasses serve(d) other purposes. "
Eldritch Knight" is announced as a subclass the main purpose of which is to represent a hybrid Fighter/Mage without using the multiclassing rules. That's a very different way of using subclasses.
And then there are truly narrative-based subclasses: the "
Knight" we've seen before although removed from the last packet, was meant to represent a noble mounted fighter, and grant mounted combat benefits plus knowledge and social abilities related to his courtly education. The "
Samurai" was mentioned as a very probably Fighter subclass, but perhaps not for the core books.
So at least we have 3 ways of using subclasses: complexity control, class hybridization, implementation of a narrative concept.
Other classes have even more uses: shifting focus on different iconic abilities (Bards subclasses used to allow different people's vision on "what the Bard is supposed to be"), encapsulating contested abilities or concepts (one Druid subclass is used to enable wildshape in combat), and perhaps switching mechanics (not yet, but it's still probably under discussion whether spellcasting mechanics could be swapped or at least significantly changed by subclasses).
Clearly, that's A LOT OF STUFF all into the same subclasses framework!
But if they don't do it with subclasses, people are going to want these things done in other ways anyway...
I like the idea of the one-big-choice for players who dislike many, many choices each level and just want to get more powerful and keep playing. But it's nice to be able to opt into more choices, and choices each level. Something D&D5 is really missing at the moment. I hope the complex fighter is something that can be added overtop the class for more complexity and choices at every level, for people who like that sort of building.
Currently, the lack of being able to "build" characters is keeping my players away from D&D5 and still in Pathfinder.
Let's never forget that it WILL be always possible to mix and match subclasses, so we will be able to increase or decrease complexity of a low- and high- complexity subclass respectively, just by substituting
some of its features.
This also means, that a group who revels in customizations, should probably play by picking subclass features a'la carte. That means probably a significant choice at the majority of levels.
