Quickleaf
Legend
I'll be presenting my updated Warrior class (a revision of the Fighter), which I'd begun but lost during the database crash. My biggest challenge is keeping the page count down – because it was easily as lengthy as the latest Mystic Unearthed Arcana (~ 30 pages).
Here are my design goals:
The Warrior is as Simple or Complex as the Player Likes. Players can recreate fighters from any previous edition that feel very similar to OD&D, AD&D, Basic, 3e, or 4e fighters based on their choices during character creation between passive talents, active talents, stances and martial archetypes. You can create a warrior whose abilities you micro-manage at the table or a warrior who just swings his axe all day, and not be penalized for your choice.
The Warrior Feels Visceral, Believable, Dynamic, and Powerful in Battle. The warrior offers differentiation of various fighting styles according to weapon type, using Western Martial Arts for inspiration. In particular, active fighting talents echo “weapon mastery” originally found in Basic D&D and merge it with a version of 4e powers free from the artificial At-Will/Encounter/Daily structure.
The Warrior Keeps His/Her Guard Up. I removed the innate healing of Second Wind, instead relying on Parry (and for some archetypes temporary hit points) as a practiced “guard” to keep the warrior from falling. This provides increased survivability without potential dissonance of non-magical healing, and creates a simple mechanic which can be referenced in other areas.
The Warrior Does More than Just Fight. The warrior gets camp talents (siloed apart from fighting talents) which give exploration benefits to the party. While the ranger seeks the horizon, the warrior protects the hearth.
The Warrior’s Life is Full of Glory. The Prestige feature and various warrior archetype features offer ways to emphasize the trope of the warrior gaining fame, fortune, and respect above other characters.
The Warrior of Many Tales. The 8 martial archetypes presented herein — Borderlands Guard, Cavalier, Destined Hero, Monster Slayer, Swashbuckler, Veteran, Warlord, and Weapons Master — have more evocative stories than the PHB martial archetypes, helping to determine the warrior’s place within the campaign. One of the regrets I have about the PHB is how many subclass choices Clerics and Wizards get, and how comparatively few Fighters and Rogues get (I would do the same for rogues, but I only have so much energy/time!).
Questions/Assumptions
We had a vigorous poll/discussion about the merits of how the fighter class was designed for 5e as well as previous editions. I'd like to pick that back up. "The Fighter" is an ongoing debate online, so it would be great if we bring our best selves to the discussion, keep open minds, and maintain a civil conversation.
There were 3 questions raised about the 5e fighter (and this has been discussed in other editions as well):
(1) Regardless of any theory, is it fun in actual play?
I think it's fun, and IIRC from the previous poll/discussion a lot of people agreed with that. I also think it could be "more fun."
(2) Is it "balanced" compared to other fighting-type classes? Is it "balanced" compared to spellcaster classes?
When discussing "balance" let's try to be clear about what sense we're using it in. For example, a lot of people say "balance" when they mean "DPR under rather specific assumptions" or "can't do as much defined cool non-combat stuff compared to a wizard."
(3) Does it have a distinct enough identity?
Mike Mearls mentioned on a TomeShow interview that he regretted the fighter subclasses lacking the identity that the subclasses of other classes have.
Design Philosophy
I think there is a fundamental "philosophical" difference when it comes to the Fighter class.
As near as I can pin it down (and I'm sure there are individual permutations), there is one school of thought — Traditionalist Fighter — rooted in the oldest wargaming tradition that echoes through D&D. It goes like this:
[SECTION]The Fighter has traditionally been the most generic class serving as a container for the most diverse martial character concepts in D&D. Moreover, this is how it should be. Because to do otherwise would insert flavor into the Fighter that would limit the number of concepts it can handle. Thus, the mandate of the Fighter's design should be limited to fighting.[/SECTION]
Opposing this school of thought is another — Multiple Fighting Classes — that was embodied in Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. It goes something like this:
[SECTION]The Fighter has been a generic container for far too many martial character concepts. By contrast, magic-users in D&D have been differentiated into Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard, while the Fighter remains stuck trying to accommodate too many concepts. This leads to a diluted generic design by necessity. Instead, we should have multiple martial classes instead of or in addition to the Fighter, focusing on more specific character concepts.[/SECTION]
Finally, there's a school of thought that I've been advocating — The Warrior — which can be viewed as lying somewhere between these two views and also on a completely different chart from them. It goes like this:
[SECTION]The Fighter feels generic and lacking a distinct identity to some players because it doesn't say anything meaningful about the character's place in the world or society. "Warrior" is a better name (and design imperative) because it implies a different design approach focusing on the totality of warfare (not just combat) and the context of the character within a culture that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste. This conception helps design to accommodate the breadth of martial character concepts without falling into the trap of being too generic or pigeonholing the class to a too narrow definition.[/SECTION]
Here are my design goals:
The Warrior is as Simple or Complex as the Player Likes. Players can recreate fighters from any previous edition that feel very similar to OD&D, AD&D, Basic, 3e, or 4e fighters based on their choices during character creation between passive talents, active talents, stances and martial archetypes. You can create a warrior whose abilities you micro-manage at the table or a warrior who just swings his axe all day, and not be penalized for your choice.
The Warrior Feels Visceral, Believable, Dynamic, and Powerful in Battle. The warrior offers differentiation of various fighting styles according to weapon type, using Western Martial Arts for inspiration. In particular, active fighting talents echo “weapon mastery” originally found in Basic D&D and merge it with a version of 4e powers free from the artificial At-Will/Encounter/Daily structure.
The Warrior Keeps His/Her Guard Up. I removed the innate healing of Second Wind, instead relying on Parry (and for some archetypes temporary hit points) as a practiced “guard” to keep the warrior from falling. This provides increased survivability without potential dissonance of non-magical healing, and creates a simple mechanic which can be referenced in other areas.
The Warrior Does More than Just Fight. The warrior gets camp talents (siloed apart from fighting talents) which give exploration benefits to the party. While the ranger seeks the horizon, the warrior protects the hearth.
The Warrior’s Life is Full of Glory. The Prestige feature and various warrior archetype features offer ways to emphasize the trope of the warrior gaining fame, fortune, and respect above other characters.
The Warrior of Many Tales. The 8 martial archetypes presented herein — Borderlands Guard, Cavalier, Destined Hero, Monster Slayer, Swashbuckler, Veteran, Warlord, and Weapons Master — have more evocative stories than the PHB martial archetypes, helping to determine the warrior’s place within the campaign. One of the regrets I have about the PHB is how many subclass choices Clerics and Wizards get, and how comparatively few Fighters and Rogues get (I would do the same for rogues, but I only have so much energy/time!).
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Questions/Assumptions
We had a vigorous poll/discussion about the merits of how the fighter class was designed for 5e as well as previous editions. I'd like to pick that back up. "The Fighter" is an ongoing debate online, so it would be great if we bring our best selves to the discussion, keep open minds, and maintain a civil conversation.

There were 3 questions raised about the 5e fighter (and this has been discussed in other editions as well):
(1) Regardless of any theory, is it fun in actual play?
I think it's fun, and IIRC from the previous poll/discussion a lot of people agreed with that. I also think it could be "more fun."
(2) Is it "balanced" compared to other fighting-type classes? Is it "balanced" compared to spellcaster classes?
When discussing "balance" let's try to be clear about what sense we're using it in. For example, a lot of people say "balance" when they mean "DPR under rather specific assumptions" or "can't do as much defined cool non-combat stuff compared to a wizard."
(3) Does it have a distinct enough identity?
Mike Mearls mentioned on a TomeShow interview that he regretted the fighter subclasses lacking the identity that the subclasses of other classes have.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Design Philosophy
I think there is a fundamental "philosophical" difference when it comes to the Fighter class.
As near as I can pin it down (and I'm sure there are individual permutations), there is one school of thought — Traditionalist Fighter — rooted in the oldest wargaming tradition that echoes through D&D. It goes like this:
[SECTION]The Fighter has traditionally been the most generic class serving as a container for the most diverse martial character concepts in D&D. Moreover, this is how it should be. Because to do otherwise would insert flavor into the Fighter that would limit the number of concepts it can handle. Thus, the mandate of the Fighter's design should be limited to fighting.[/SECTION]
Opposing this school of thought is another — Multiple Fighting Classes — that was embodied in Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. It goes something like this:
[SECTION]The Fighter has been a generic container for far too many martial character concepts. By contrast, magic-users in D&D have been differentiated into Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard, while the Fighter remains stuck trying to accommodate too many concepts. This leads to a diluted generic design by necessity. Instead, we should have multiple martial classes instead of or in addition to the Fighter, focusing on more specific character concepts.[/SECTION]
Finally, there's a school of thought that I've been advocating — The Warrior — which can be viewed as lying somewhere between these two views and also on a completely different chart from them. It goes like this:
[SECTION]The Fighter feels generic and lacking a distinct identity to some players because it doesn't say anything meaningful about the character's place in the world or society. "Warrior" is a better name (and design imperative) because it implies a different design approach focusing on the totality of warfare (not just combat) and the context of the character within a culture that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste. This conception helps design to accommodate the breadth of martial character concepts without falling into the trap of being too generic or pigeonholing the class to a too narrow definition.[/SECTION]
Last edited: