Sorry, but at a certain point, people don't want solutions.
Speaking for myself, yes I absolutely am interested in solutions. Years back, I took a sincere stab at
redesigning the fighter. I encountered design challenges that I didn't have the time/resources to resolve, but that didn't deter me from seeking solutions.
Based on their survey and a series of polls on ENWorld (lost in the crash) and RPG.Net, I believe design of the fighter class is definitely working OK enough for most players. However, I’d like it to be better than OK. If someone asked, “How’s your performance at your job?” “OK enough.” “How’s your relationship?” “OK enough.” I’d like it to be great. I’d like it to be the best fighter we’ve seen in any edition with wide appeal.
Here's my own copy of the (now lost, sadly) fighter polls, dated 6-19-2016:
Let's start with the obvious. What is the class name?
It is the Fighter. It is not the Socializer, or the Explorer. So from the very beginning, we need to start with the assumption that this character will be some sort of ... Fighting Man. That there may be an emphasis on .... fighting. On .... combat.
That's right. From a certain perspective, the idea that "Fighter are terrible because they fight" is somewhat akin to saying that you hate water because it is wet, or, more on point, that you don't like Wizards because you don't like Magic.
We all understand that, right?
The "fighters fight" argument is a slippery slope. On the one hand, yes, it's absolutely true - fighters do fight. On the other hand, it's turning a blind eye to ALL others D&D characters also fighting. And several D&D classes have overlapping features with the fighter allowing them to fight in similar ways (Extra Attack & Fighting Style)...so they're not even fighting in some uniquely masterful way.
Finally, it only looks at the fighter in it's current 3e+ incarnation, without drawing upon the many years of history the class had prior to that. "Fighter as baron/lord." In other words, fighting
isn't the only thing fighter class did, dating back to very early in D&D. The design choice to cut the other part of the fighter's identity away and not introduce anything to take its place was just that: a design choice. If that choice
hadn't been made, I sincerely wonder whether "fighters - it's in the name" would even be a part of the dialogue.
This is why, in my own redesign, I encouraged players/DMs to hear "warrior" when someone says "fighter", to shift the focus toward a more holistic identity, rather than one entirely defined between the confines of rolling initiative.
Now, there are specific criticisms of the fighter, which tend to get bandied about interchangeably, which makes all of these threads annoying and pointless because these argument are inevitably conflated. <snip>
I don't really fit into any of those three categories, so perhaps I represent a 4th criticism? It could be summed up as "the fighter needs identity, a lens through which new players can view the worlds of D&D."
And it is the most popular class for a reason. Because some people enjoy the flexibility, and other people enjoy ... relaxing. And hitting stuff. And that's fine.
What's profoundly weird, IMO, is that the single most popular class in all of D&D is singled out as being, somehow, not good enough.
That's one possible reason for it's popularity.
Another is that "fighter" is an archetype – independent of any mechanics – that resonates with a lot of players.
Another is that it's mechanically attractive. It would be fascinating to see data pertaining to the
last class/race survey distinguishing single-class fighters from multi-class fighters. In that particular survey, "characters with multiple classes count once for each class" irrespective of how many levels they had in each class.
Speaking personally, I like to run fighters because the archetype appeals to me, yet I find the 5e treatment to be
sufficient but not
great. It's the closest I can get to what I'd lean toward in 5e, but it's still off the mark (for me). My historical experience running fighters was that I mostly had fun running fighters
in spite of the class mechanics (thanks to stepping up my role-playing), not because of them, not inspired by them. 5e just ever so slightly moved that dial for me, but I'd like to see it developed much further.
Put more simply, the fighter is, IMO, the quintessential example of preference- that not everything can please every player. There are twelve classes, and you might not like all of them equally; and that should be okay. But a difference in preferences (or, concomitantly, the fact that different tables play differently and that players at one table will have great fun and success with a fighter out of combat, and at another table they will not because of a lack of clearly defined class abilities, aka buttons to push) does not make something a problem to be solved.
I think that's a fair comment when looking outside of an archetype, say, going from "fighter" to "holy champion" or "thief." Kinda related, but they are also distinct archetypes that may involve an undesired narrative for a player looking for a non-magical non-shady "fighter" type.
I don't know...
isn't significant variance in how a class plays from table-to-table at least an item of concern worth further inquiry? One of the objectives of game design is to minimize undesirable variances among play groups, while encouraging desirable creative/stylistic variances, right?
EDIT: As an aside, when you describe out-of-combat abilities as "buttons to push", I think that's assuming a bit more than you want to about out-of-combat abilities needing to be actively managed. For example, druids have the Druidic language – it's not a "button to push" yet it has inspired & contributed to some fascinating out-of-combat scenarios in my games.
