The fighter is defined by being normal. It is not given them to do things other people can't do. At best they just get to do those things a little better. That's the most archetypal thing about it; as soon as you start using other words for "warrior" you get a more of specific concept that's allowed to do more.
I strongly disagree with this, and it raises the question, what is the fighter defined as?
Conceptually, it is extremely broad.
Here’s my definition:
A fighter is an archetype that is good at fighting and:
1. Is not a rogue, ranger, barbarian or monk; and
2. Cannot cast spells.
Even so, if you look at the heroes of history, myth and fiction, there are an enormous amount of them who would qualify as fighters:
- King Arthur of the Round Table;
- Odysseus;
- Teucer the Archer;
- the Three Musketeers;
- Cu Culhainn;
- Most “normal” superheroes including Captain America, Batman, Elektra, Black Widow and Hawkeye;
- Zorro;
- Paul Bunyan;
- John Henry;
- Suleiman the Magnificent;
- Alexander Farnese;
So, how would you adjust for the fact that if you wanted to play King Arthur, you would expect to have different class features than Zorro or John Henry?
Well, if you are WotC, you concentrate on the “good at fighting” part, you give them two bonus ASIs, and you call it a day.
This fuels a lot of the strife on these boards. If I want to play Alexander Farnese, I’m not willing to trade my features that make me a leader of men for class features that Cu Culhainn would find appropriate, and vice-versa.
Interestingly, this stands in direct contrast with how wizards were treated.
Wizards are also a broad archetype, encompassing everyone who casts spells who isn’t a cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock or bard. It also accommodates very different characters like enchanters (items), enchanters (mind), elementalists, elementalists focussing on a single element, diviners, necromancers, etc.
But in operationalizing the class, WotC took the exact opposite approach they took with fighters. Instead of saying “we will only include in the base class the stuff everyone agrees on”, they said “we’ll put all the spells in the base class and let the players build their character themself”. Oh, and also, we’ll give them 8 subclasses in the PHB just so everyone knows they’re the favorites.
To me, this also points to the solution for fighters: the class itself needs to be smaller, so the sub-classes can be larger. The sub-classes should better track the archetypes people want to play (and probably should focus on the non-combat aspect of the archetype).
I would also suggest implementing more customization fir fighters. I’ve found that adapting the warlock’s invocation system (as Level Up did) works (though I’ve expanded it in my game).
