D&D 5E Next up is Fighter, what do you want from UA?

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah, I honestly think the most mostly likely subclass we'll see is one around stances. A new mechanic, since pretty much everything else is or can be already covered. And then additional fighting styles.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I honestly think the most mostly likely subclass we'll see is one around stances.

A subclass that uses versitile weapons, and has abilities based on if he is using one or 2 handed stance.

1. Slayer - The killiest killing machine.
2. Warlord - THE leader.
3. Knight - The ultimate defender.
4. Combat medic would be cool, but I'm not sure how to make it unique.

A 'defender' would be a stretch on the fighter's Tanky-DPR chassis and any sort of non-trivial support functionality is far beyond it (as the BM & PDK illustrate).

What would differentiate the Slayer & Champion? Giving it the Essentials Slayer's DEX bonus to damage with all attacks would be a bit much, especially considering how well double-dipping with ranged & finesse weapons would work in 5e. Slayer utilities are obviously out, that leaves Power Strike (which is pretty close to being the Essentials version of CS dice, just more potent/less flexible) and/or Stances...

Hmm... stances have come up several times now. Maybe we could get a War^E^E^E^E-blade Archetype that revived the original stances and combat focus? It'd be comparable in complexity to the BM.

 

[Horwath]

Fighter archetype: Field scout.

3rd level: outdoor training; you gain proficiency in 3 skills from the following list; athletics,stealth,nature,survival,perception,animal handling,
medium armor finesse; medium armor does not give stealth penalty,

7th level: fleet of foot, you can take Dash action as bonus action,

10th level: expertise; you gain expertise in two skill that you are proficient from 3rd lvl list.

15th level: Vanish, you can use Hide action as bonus action,

18th level: expertise, you gain expertise in two skill that you are proficient from 3rd lvl list.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fighter archetype: Field scout.

3rd level: outdoor training; you gain proficiency in 3 skills from the following list; athletics,stealth,nature,survival,perception,animal handling,
medium armor finesse; medium armor does not give stealth penalty,

7th level: fleet of foot, you can take Dash action as bonus action,

10th level: expertise; you gain expertise in two skill that you are proficient from 3rd lvl list.

15th level: Vanish, you can use Hide action as bonus action,

18th level: expertise, you gain expertise in two skill that you are proficient from 3rd lvl list.

Why not just be a rogue and get all of that at much lower levels?

 

[Horwath]

Why not just be a rogue and get all of that at much lower levels?

Because then I would be rogue

This way I could have martial power and some skills to back it up.

 

[Istbor]

I believe someone said Skald? I am here for the Skald...

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I always wished the Champion had had stances. There's no reason you couldn't make a simple stance system, with the expanded crit range being one of them. Having said that, a "stance" based subclass sounds fun.

Honestly, I'd rather see more Fighting Styles, Maneuvers, and Feats. Maybe some more exotic weapons, but honestly that doesn't really scratch much of an itch for me either. If we get more of the first three I mentioned, we're approaching the modularity and customization that I feel comes from spellcasters. If you have more maneuvers, Fighting Styles, and Feats, those a lot of different options at different levels. I truly believe a pretty good portion of Fighter customization comes from their extra feats/ASI's.

Having said that, I think the Scout, Cavalier, Monster Hunter route is fine. Sure, it's a "less generalized Battlemaster", but I still think that's fine. You still get different 7th and 10th level features, if nothing else, usually. And an additional "flavor" 3rd level feature sometimes too. I think it's perfectly fine to approach things this way. If I recall, they were generally well-received.

 

[Jago]

Is not the idea of a "Skald" (the Warrior-Poet and such) not encapsulated in the College of Valor Bard ..?

Edit: Alternatively, Barbarian or Fighter and the Entertainer Background would suit this as well.

 

[Richard Hag]

Playing as a Druid I really enjoyed using Pounce, and Pack Tactics; it would be neat if they made an archetype that has a similar feel.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is not the idea of a "Skald" (the Warrior-Poet and such) not encapsulated in the College of Valor Bard ..?
Edit: Alternatively, Barbarian or Fighter and the Entertainer Background would suit this as well.

Those are two extremes of the concept, sure, one a full caster with limited martial skill (Lore Bard would be the all-in-caster extreme), the other not a caster at all. A 1/3rd Bard 'Skald' Archetype would be closer to the martial side, but still able to do some magical bard stuff, so distinct from both. 5e seems to go in for that kind of thing, giving us both the EK and Bladesinger, for just two of many instances, in spite of also having Soldier & Sage Backgrounds, Martial Adept & Magical Adept feats, and optional Multi-classing - and some folks still want a Swordmage or other dedicated 'gish class.'