Fighters are boring

[akaddk]

There seems to be a few people who think that the vanilla fighter presented in the basic rules is lacking in flavour and texture and amounts to a monotonous sludge of boringness. I have argued against these people all to no avail. In fact, I'm so out of arguments that I think they might've convinced me that they're right. It's a terrible burden to be someone who can be swayed by evidence, logic and reason. It really takes all the fun out of arguing on the internet.

Anyway, early on in the playtest process I advocated for making manoeuvres standard in the core rules for everyone, but allowing fighters to take especial advantage of their skill and training in combat to exploit such manoeuvres as part of their non-subclass design. This would be my solution to their boringness.

My question is, what is your solution or is there even any solution at all?

[Fwiffo86]

There seems to be a few people who think that the vanilla fighter presented in the basic rules is lacking in flavour and texture and amounts to a monotonous sludge of boringness. I have argued against these people all to no avail. In fact, I'm so out of arguments that I think they might've convinced me that they're right. It's a terrible burden to be someone who can be swayed by evidence, logic and reason. It really takes all the fun out of arguing on the internet.

Anyway, early on in the playtest process I advocated for making manoeuvres standard in the core rules for everyone, but allowing fighters to take especial advantage of their skill and training in combat to exploit such manoeuvres as part of their non-subclass design. This would be my solution to their boringness.

My question is, what is your solution or is there even any solution at all?

I offer what I do.

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

Solves the multi-class issue, a MC fighter will never be as good at fighting as full fighter. Gives fighters something no other class can have. Makes fighters EXTREMELY dangerous when they get in your face. (hard to cast when your on your back).

Everyone else has something else. Pallys have auras and spells, Rangers have pets and spells, etc. They are not fighters. They lose in these contests.

Fighter wins in the following:
Disarm
Trip
Shield Bash (see bullrush or trip)
Bull rushing
Feint

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.

[akaddk]

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.

That's staggeringly simple and yet almost beautiful in its simplicity.

I'm not sure I agree that it isn't overpowered though but I guess it's something I'd have to see the effects of in game before deciding. It certainly sounds extremely powerful at first blush.

How do you resolve contests between fighters or monsters of equivalent strength?

[Knaight]

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

So, basically the system just gets bypassed entirely. Not only is this not relevant to what the system actually has in it, it seems questionably functional. A level 1 fighter automatically disarming a level 20 barbarian or similar just seems absurd.

As for the actual system - yes, Fighters are boring. That's not really a problem, as some people like boring, and they are at least capable of contributing this time. One persons meaningful mechanical options is another person's pointless busywork.

[Callin]

So the Champion is boring. Not the fighter. I can sort of get behind this but its not supposed to be multidimensional. Its the basic of the basic. For people who dont play Table Tops. Who its their first character. Sure he gets some nice things. Extra crit is nice, better physical skills, a SECOND Fighting Style, and Fast Healing 5+Con when under half hp. Thats nothing fancy but its not shabby either. Its basic and for basic I personally dont feel that its bad. The fighter wants versatility then take a diverse background that gives better skills. Spread out your stat increases.

[Tengu_temp]

To stop fighters from being boring, the first thing you need to do is fix the mindset with which they're designed - the mindset of pandering to grognards who think only spellcasters should have options, and if you're a fighter all you need to do is auto-attack. Tome of Battle didn't do that, DND 4e didn't do that, many non-DND RPGs don't do that - and guess what, grognards don't like any of them!

I hate the mindset of "fighter should be simple and easy, it's a class for noobs and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". It's arrogant and condescending, and makes you look down on people who like to play physical characters. It's also way too common among people who like oldschool gaming.

[da_chicken]

As for the actual system - yes, Fighters are boring. That's not really a problem, as some people like boring, and they are at least capable of contributing this time. One persons meaningful mechanical options is another person's pointless busywork.

Pretty much this. I find it astonishing, but a significant portion of the D&D population really does just want to move and attack every turn, find as much loot as they can carry, and blow it all on ale and whores. I predict the Champion Fighter will consistently be one of the most popular choices at D&D Encounters.

[Squirrel_Dude]

There seems to be a few people who think that the vanilla fighter presented in the basic rules is lacking in flavour and texture and amounts to a monotonous sludge of boringness. I have argued against these people all to no avail. In fact, I'm so out of arguments that I think they might've convinced me that they're right. It's a terrible burden to be someone who can be swayed by evidence, logic and reason. It really takes all the fun out of arguing on the internet.

Anyway, early on in the playtest process I advocated for making manoeuvres standard in the core rules for everyone, but allowing fighters to take especial advantage of their skill and training in combat to exploit such manoeuvres as part of their non-subclass design. This would be my solution to their boringness.

My question is, what is your solution or is there even any solution at all?

So, here's the unfortunate thing about the fighter since 3rd edition. The reason the class can't be saved from being boring. The class seems to be of designed from the ground up to be a boring and generic blank slate of a class that the player can impart whatever character they want on it. He's not generic in spite of the design efforts by the dev teams, but on purpose. Apparently that is some niche that needs to be filled.


Let's be clear, I'm not talking about how fighters are boring because they're weak mechanically. They're boring because they're boring mechanically.

[akaddk]

So the Champion is boring. Not the fighter.

No. Forget the sub-classes entirely. Compare the base fighter class to the base of other classes.

[A Stray Cat]

Isn't the fighter's plight an artifact of its being the base class from which all others have been differentiated?

[Callin]

Ok then lets see what we got

Cleric- 9th Level Casting, Channel Divinity 3/Short Rest, Destroy Undead, Divine Intervention,

Fighter- 1 Fighting Style, 4 Attacks, the Ability to Reroll Saves 3/day, 2 Action Surges/Short Rest.

Rogue- Expertise, Thieves Cant (pfft I mean how is this a class feature?), Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge (I like this), Cunning Action, Evasion, Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive, and Stroke of Luck (Wow thats alot of different ablilities)

Wizard- 9th Level Casting, Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell.

So YEA they are all pretty basic with the ROGUE actually getting the most base Class Features. Fighter, Wizard and Cleric Tie if you count Spell Casting.. and I feel you should. So yea fighters are the ones with the least Versatility when it comes to Class Features but its only the Base Barebones Class. Nothing wrong with their abilities. The man fights. Its what he does, and his abilities allow him to do that well. More attacks than ANYONE at lvl 20 with a Burst of 8 Attacks in a round two rounds in a row. So in 2 rounds you attack 16 times.... yea thats going to smart.

Its like comparing a Sugar Cookie to an Oatmeal Raisin. Its plain, its simple and it took less time to prepare, but it can still be just as good to the taste buds as that Oatmeal Raisin Cookie.

[TheOOB]

The fighter in the basic rules is boring, but in the players handbook we'll have different martial paths and feats to play with.

As for the champion being boring, that's working as intended. The game need simple and streamlined characters, characters that don't require a lot of decision making to play. Different players have different levels of investment, some players just want to hang out with their friends and don't care that much about the game, so they want something easy to play, or they are interested in the story, but not the mechanics that much. Thus there should be an option for those people that is still useful to the party, without requiring a lot if any tough choices.

[Sartharina]

Ok then lets see what we got

Cleric- 9th Level Casting, Channel Divinity 3/Short Rest, Destroy Undead, Divine Intervention,

Fighter- 1 Fighting Style, 4 Attacks, the Ability to Reroll Saves 3/day, 2 Action Surges/Short Rest.

Rogue- Expertise, Thieves Cant (pfft I mean how is this a class feature?), Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge (I like this), Cunning Action, Evasion, Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive, and Stroke of Luck (Wow thats alot of different ablilities)

Wizard- 9th Level Casting, Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell.

So YEA they are all pretty basic with the ROGUE actually getting the most base Class Features. Fighter, Wizard and Cleric Tie if you count Spell Casting.. and I feel you should. So yea fighters are the ones with the least Versatility when it comes to Class Features but its only the Base Barebones Class. Nothing wrong with their abilities. The man fights. Its what he does, and his abilities allow him to do that well. More attacks than ANYONE at lvl 20 with a Burst of 8 Attacks in a round two rounds in a row. So in 2 rounds you attack 16 times.... yea thats going to smart.

Its like comparing a Sugar Cookie to an Oatmeal Raisin. Its plain, its simple and it took less time to prepare, but it can still be just as good to the taste buds as that Oatmeal Raisin Cookie.

You forgot the self-healing! And weapon swapping, though the loss of weapon-based powers is something I find annoying.

[Pex]

I offer what I do.

Fighters win. Period. If a fighter attempts to disarm a non-fighter... they get disarmed. (monsters with equivalent or superior strength are counted as fighters) If a fighter attempts to trip a non-fighter/non-monk. They get tripped. No maneuvers. No resources to spend. The fighter is doing what the fighter is meant to do. Fight. Only when fighters are battling each other should there be rolls involved, and only IF the fighter's levels are comparable +/- 1 or 2 levels. Otherwise, the more experience fighter wins.

Solves the multi-class issue, a MC fighter will never be as good at fighting as full fighter. Gives fighters something no other class can have. Makes fighters EXTREMELY dangerous when they get in your face. (hard to cast when your on your back).

Everyone else has something else. Pallys have auras and spells, Rangers have pets and spells, etc. They are not fighters. They lose in these contests.

Fighter wins in the following:
Disarm
Trip
Shield Bash (see bullrush or trip)
Bull rushing
Feint

It's tested in every edition, including 5e. It works. It's simple. It isn't overpowered. It gives fighters back what they are missing. I recommend it.

Point taken but too powerful. As powerful as spells are, you do get a saving throw. Every paladin loses and dies at the hand of Evil McFighter Evilness because they are automatically tripped and disarmed, poof, done, then slaughtered.

[Person_Man]

The 5E Fighter is specifically designed to be simple, because there is a sub-set of D&D players who like playing a very simple class. When they added slightly more complicated class features in the play test, this vocal minority complained about it bitterly, and so they took them out. My guess is that one of the Fighter subclasses will have slightly more maneuver-ish or combat expertise dice options, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Having said that, I don't like the 5E Fighter design either. There are ways that you can have simple options that are also more powerful and more flexible. For example, they could have made Action Surge and Second Wind once per encounter and not once per Short Rest (1 hour). They could could have made renamed Fighting Style and had the bonus apply to all attack rolls and Athletics checks (which would have helped with Grapple and Shove). They could have given him more Ability Score increases (and thus more chances for Feats, which are far more useful in 5E). And so on.

[Sartharina]

The fighter already has the most Ability Score increases/chances for feats out of all the classes.

[Human Paragon 3]

The 5E Fighter is specifically designed to be simple, because there is a sub-set of D&D players who like playing a very simple class. .

This is exactly right. Some players want a character that just attacks and is good at it, that they don't have to think hard about - so they can walk up to a goblin with a big sword and roll a d20 that makes that goblin dead.

Some people have a lot of fun doing that. I think it's important to give them that option.

If you don't like it, you can play a different class. You can multi-class, or play the maneuver fighter, or both. Play the eldritch knight archetype. Multiclass barbarian and rogue. Or use fighter as a dip. There are many ways for players who crave tactical and strategic challenge (people like us on the optimization board that want our intellects challenged every round, so we can feel like we are GOOD AT D&D). The system supports us.

It also supports people who just want to hit people with pointy sticks. This is a good thing.

[Knaight]

I hate the mindset of "fighter should be simple and easy, it's a class for noobs and people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". It's arrogant and condescending, and makes you look down on people who like to play physical characters. It's also way too common among people who like oldschool gaming.

Fighters and martial classes in general are not the same thing. Meanwhile, "simply and easy" doesn't mean that it is for "noobs" and "people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". Plenty of people with tons of RPG experience favor simple systems. Plenty of very smart people favor simple systems. Moreover, the Fighter being a good class for new people - and it looks like it is back to that - hardly precludes it from also being a good class for more veteran players.

[Tengu_temp]

Fighters and martial classes in general are not the same thing. Meanwhile, "simply and easy" doesn't mean that it is for "noobs" and "people who are not smart enough to play spellcasters". Plenty of people with tons of RPG experience favor simple systems. Plenty of very smart people favor simple systems. Moreover, the Fighter being a good class for new people - and it looks like it is back to that - hardly precludes it from also being a good class for more veteran players.

You approach this from a rational point of view, but this doesn't change the fact that anti-fighter bias is alive and well. People who harbor it don't often say it aloud, but between the lines what they think is obvious: fighter is the class for noobs and dumb jocks (dumb jock class for a dumb jock player), smart people (like them) "graduate" to playing spellcasters. As long as designers pander to the group which harbors this bias, fighter will be a boring class.

[Tholomyes]

I'd wait to give final judgement until I've seen the full version, and even until I've seen it in play, for a bit, but I think there are ways to make the fighter not so boring while still making them hold something of their flavor-neutral feel to them. I feel that one necessity for this is to give both meaningful choices in build, but also meaningful choices in character building. In 3e, there were reasonably meaningful choices in build, but in play, you tended to do one thing over and over. Often times this was just full-attacking, but even with more nuanced builds, this was still the case. Trip-masters, for example, still followed the paradigm of Trip the opponent, and reap tons of opportunity attacks. But you could still effectively play combat on auto-pilot. That is honestly my biggest problem with martial-caster disparity in that edition. Not that casters are more powerful, but that they have options. Were it Martials, who were absurdly powerful, and the casters who fell behind, I'd still prefer casters, mechanically, due to their options.

5e could solve this with the battlemaster fighter, and feats, but the issue is that there will need to be support in future books. Based on the number of feats and maneuvers that are expected in the PHB, I can easily see the Battlemaster devolve into the 3e Trip-master, where they are conceptually more interesting, but in practice, they still can be played on auto-pilot.

The second thing which I think is important is, if they're going to be doing something that every other class can do (only better), make sure that they're better in a way that makes them play differently than other classes.

For example, I had a Homebrew system that I was working on for a while (actually, before 5e, despite some mechanical similarities), where all martial characters (and some casters, such as battle clerics) had Martial Maneuver dice, with which they could perform maneuvers (either 'basic', which were available to everyone, or 'advanced' which were given or chosen by class). Without boring people with too much of the details on how it worked, the short version was that for most maneuvers, you didn't spend dice to perform the manuevers, but instead rolled versus a target number (based on the specific maneuver) to see if you lost a Maneuver die. Even if you lost the die, you'd still perform the maneuver (albeit with a slight penalty).

Despite the fact that this maneuver system was something all martials used (and most had additional class features on top of maneuvers), fighters still played differently than other classes, because they had more dice, better dice, and an inherent across-the-board reduction on the target numbers for maneuvers. Rather than conserving their manuever dice for important moments, Fighters were more safe in using maneuvers each round, and potentially risking performing more difficult maneuvers

I'm not certain how 5e could solve this issue for non-battlemaster fighters (who, unless the maneuver system is expanded to other classes, doesn't suffer this problem as much), but I think there's the possibility for adding feats which add conditions on successful attacks. Thus, since the fighter gets the most attacks, it's more able to attack multiple targets, thus spreading the conditions to more foes (though to be honest, this specific solution is probably more thematic for the monk, and mechanically, the monk gets to flurry for extra attacks, anyway)

The third thing which I think is important (and the one I saved for last, because, honestly, 5e seems to be doing fairly well with it, anyway), is to make sure that the fighter isn't just about combat. Or, at least, that a character whose class is fighter, still has non-combat utility. Fortunately, the addition of backgrounds, and the fact that the fighter isn't nearly as bad in the skill-game as in previous editions seem to make this less of an issue. True, there are still spells which obsolete skills, somewhat, but with the reduction in spells per day (as well as the fact that you can't just throw it into a single low-level spell slot, but have to use a more limited resource on it), and the fact that wands of knock et al won't be an issue as much any more, mean that skills still play a role, even at higher levels.

-------------------------

As a bit of an aside, I want to say I don't dislike the notion of having a more simple option for people who don't want to deal with more complex options such as casters. However, that being said, the argument of "Fighters should be boring (or simple, or what have you), because some people like that" isn't one I can get behind. I've played a lot of fighters in the past. I'd say they're probably my most common class I play, simply because they fit thematically with the type of character I like to play. I remember one of my first characters came about because I saw everyone maligning the "Big Dumb Human Fighter" concept, so I decided to turn it on it's head. Yeah, he's a human. Yeah, he's a fighter. Yeah, he's got high Str and Con. Yeah his Int and Cha are pretty low (well, at least his Cha; I still wanted the skill points, and he still wasn't above a 10 Int), but he has an interesting backstory and characterization, and he's got more going for him than the Elven Wizard who decides to go fight goblins, because... reasons. And so I sat down to play him, and was bored out of my mind, because for all the work I'd done to make him interesting, he still ran on autopilot, during fights, and didn't have the skills to keep up with the Bard in the skill game, and didn't have the utility of the casters in the party, so I ended up retiring him, despite him still being one of my favorite characters, conceptually and backstory wise, to this day.

[Doug Lampert]

The 5E Fighter is specifically designed to be simple, because there is a sub-set of D&D players who like playing a very simple class. When they added slightly more complicated class features in the play test, this vocal minority complained about it bitterly, and so they took them out. My guess is that one of the Fighter subclasses will have slightly more maneuver-ish or combat expertise dice options, but we'll just have to wait and see.

The thing is, if ALL the fighter maneuvers were available freely to all fighters then that doesn't make the fighter any less capable of walking up to people and whacking them.

Trip, grapple, parry, protecting a nearby ally, ...
ALL of these should be available to EVERY trained combatant! These aren't special maneuvers or skills, these are baseline competence at combat. Every fighter type should have all of them for free, and then the people who want to ignore them can do so, they don't waste time choosing maneuvers they won't use, because they get all the maneuvers for free. They don't need to do anything more than walk up to people and hit them, because they're still good at that.

You don't NEED to separate out maneuvers to have a simple to build and simple to play fighter. Make the maneuvers the complicated fighter gets be something that CAN'T be done by any idiot whose spent six months in a dojo a couple of hours each week!

[Tholomyes]

The thing is, if ALL the fighter maneuvers were available freely to all fighters then that doesn't make the fighter any less capable of walking up to people and whacking them.

Trip, grapple, parry, protecting a nearby ally, ...
ALL of these should be available to EVERY trained combatant! These aren't special maneuvers or skills, these are baseline competence at combat. Every fighter type should have all of them for free, and then the people who want to ignore them can do so, they don't waste time choosing maneuvers they won't use, because they get all the maneuvers for free. They don't need to do anything more than walk up to people and hit them, because they're still good at that.

You don't NEED to separate out maneuvers to have a simple to build and simple to play fighter. Make the maneuvers the complicated fighter gets be something that CAN'T be done by any idiot whose spent six months in a dojo a couple of hours each week!

I agree wholeheartedly with this, as an idea, but the only issue I have is, in practice, it often results in maneuvers which are so situationally dependent that they're rarely used. A potential option would be to have the battlemaster style maneuvers (maybe scaled back a tad, but still either strictly or usually better than the opportunity cost of just attacking) be standard to all classes. However, you gain static bonuses for having unspent Superiority dice, so someone who wants to play a simple fighter doesn't feel like they're giving up too much, by sticking to their preferred playstyle; They just ignore the fact that they have this resource of superiority dice, and factor the static bonuses into their character sheet.

Then a fighter who chooses to further specialize in maneuvers, can choose to boost up the basic ones into better maneuvers, via feats or subclasses.

[JusticeZero]

The class seems to be of designed from the ground up to be a boring and generic blank slate of a class that the player can impart whatever character they want on it...

I'd be okay with that if the Fighter actually had the resources and options to fulfill that, but in practice, the fighter is not only boring at its root, but also condemned to boringness. You can't kick it up to fill the interesting concepts that might call for a blank slate effectively.

[TheOOB]

I'd be okay with that if the Fighter actually had the resources and options to fulfill that, but in practice, the fighter is not only boring at its root, but also condemned to boringness. You can't kick it up to fill the interesting concepts that might call for a blank slate effectively.

You don't have the full rules for the game or the fighter yet, and as mentioned, the class being "boring" is the point. If you want a class with more play and build options, the Champion Fighter isn't for you.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

The fighter already has the most Ability Score increases/chances for feats out of all the classes.

This. Cleric gets 5, Fighter gets 7, Rogue gets 6, and Wizard gets 5. All of the interesting fighter abilities are going to come from the feats they take, similar to 3rd edition. Even when feats aren't used, a fighter is going to have awesome stats, and if he gets to pick and choose magic items he will be able to ignore ability-boosting magic items in favor of more interesting ones.

Anyways, I think the fighter's lack of versatility is made up for by the action surge and the ability to burst 16 attacks in two rounds (and you can move and spread those attacks out anywhere along your movement, which makes even the wizard's AOE spells look lackluster). Smart players will be able to be awesome in any combat encounter. Fighters with access to use-activated magic items will be able to use those items in combat with action surge and won't lose tempo from their full attacks.

[akaddk]

This. Cleric gets 5, Fighter gets 7, Rogue gets 6, and Wizard gets 5. All of the interesting fighter abilities are going to come from the feats they take, similar to 3rd edition. Even when feats aren't used, a fighter is going to have awesome stats, and if he gets to pick and choose magic items he will be able to ignore ability-boosting magic items in favor of more interesting ones.

Anyways, I think the fighter's lack of versatility is made up for by the action surge and the ability to burst 16 attacks in two rounds (and you can move and spread those attacks out anywhere along your movement, which makes even the wizard's AOE spells look lackluster). Smart players will be able to be awesome in any combat encounter. Fighters with access to use-activated magic items will be able to use those items in combat with action surge and won't lose tempo from their full attacks.

I think this may have just changed my mind back to liking the fighter. Feats are huge in 5e and even having just one more feat than a rogue is a big deal that will allow you to customise your fighter more than any other class. A (variant) human fighter will be especially unique and powerful from 1st-level onwards, and the human is also criticised as being "boring".

[Sartharina]

Most feats might also be weapon- and attack-focused, so fighters have a larger pool of feats they can be effective with. And, because of the way D&D Next has horizontal progression (And no feat chains or clusters! Except maybe those armor ones. I don't like the looks of those.), each one expands the fighter's capabilities as well.

[Tholomyes]

This. Cleric gets 5, Fighter gets 7, Rogue gets 6, and Wizard gets 5. All of the interesting fighter abilities are going to come from the feats they take, similar to 3rd edition. Even when feats aren't used, a fighter is going to have awesome stats, and if he gets to pick and choose magic items he will be able to ignore ability-boosting magic items in favor of more interesting ones.

The problem I have with this is that Fighters get 7 feats over their career, sure, but they only get their first one at 4th level, like everyone else. Over the course of the campaign, they really don't seem to have much more than the rest of the classes. For the first 5 levels, they're exactly on-par with everyone else, in terms of feats. And once you enter the late game, you've already picked up the feats you really want (at least, until they release a book with new feat options), so you may be two feats ahead, but those feats are worth less.

In 3.5e, as a comparison, the fighter starts off with a Feat at first level, and then one at every even level. Normal progression is one at first, then one at third and every three levels after. So fighters start off with twice the feats, and gain more at more than twice the rate, and even then they were still considered incredibly uninteresting. Now, feats in 5e are more powerful and more interesting than 3e's feats, but fighters also have less of a complete domination on the feat game.

Simply put, they have a leg up on feats, but they need interesting things from their class, as well, to keep them from becoming superfluous.

[D-naras]

The problem I have with this is that Fighters get 7 feats over their career, sure, but they only get their first one at 4th level, like everyone else...

I wanted to address the bolded part, because I think that is one of the good things they did when they designed this edition. Not having to pick a feat before 4th level is an excellent way to create characters fast. If you start at first level, which the game assumes you are still a newbie adventurer (seriously, look at the amount of xp required to reach 3rd level. Levels 1-3 are the training levels and the game actually starts with the characters being 4th level), you can easily create a character by choosing race, class and background. No need to look over a large list of feats that you don't even know how they will measure up before you've started playing. If a get a total newbie to make a fighter in 3rd edition, he will either be frustrated over the huge size of the feat list or ask me to pick 2 or 3 feats for him. 5th will not have this problem. You even pick your subclass at 3rd level which is the first major mechanical choice when you create your character. I foresee most games starting at 4th level after the first few games for each group. That's when players will be experienced enough to know whether on not to pick a feat instead of an ability score increase and it's right after the Fantasy Vietnam stage of the game.

[Morty]

Fighters in the Basic Set are indeed dreadfully dull, and I don't think they're going to get much better. The Battlemster sub-class looks like it'd be a pretty good fit for the Basit Set, if it also got the Champion's passives - and, of course, a maneuver list that doesn't look like it was cobbled together in five minutes. Feats are nice, but, like Tholomyes said, they're an even scarcer resource than they are in 3e. And the feats we saw in the playtest were nice, and of better quality than most 3e Player's Handbook feats - not a huge achievment, mind you - but not ground-breaking. Of course, with the combat system looking the way it does, there's only so much you can really do.

I'm going to be quite honest and say that I do not understand the thought process behind the Champion-variant Fighter at all. I do understand that not all people want to tangle with a list of abilities comparable to that of a ToB martial adept. But during the development of D&D Next, everything beyond "I hit it again" was deemed complex. Simplicity is a fine goal, but proper simplicity takes finesse and subtlety to achieve. D&D Next 'martial' classes, and non-magical combat in general, were treated with all the finesse and subtlety of an aspirant lumberjack. What's the point of rolling the same thing over and over again? You might as well do what some systems do, and resolve the combat in a single roll. Even the Slayer variant of the 4e Fighter is still miles ahead of the 5e basic Fighter, and it was specifically designed for simplicity.

Speaking of the Slayer, I think that might be the way to go when designing simple variants that are still more or less comparable to the more complex ones. Design a system of maneuvers for warrior classes, then have the Fighter sub-class in the basic rules only use a handful of passive, powerful stances they can shift between, and some utilities here and there. This way you don't need to strip down the whole class for the sake of the simple option, but people who want it can still play someone who relies on basic attacks. Although, like I said, it would also help a lot if the combat system had some depth to it and rudimentary options didn't require spending character-building resources on them.