Good to hear. Give them something fun and unique!
Aelryinth wrote:But be aware that I really Don't Care about the Brawler and the SLayer. They are subsets of the Fighter and the Rogue. BOth of the primary classes should be designed so that Brawler, slayer and swashbuckler are simply Not Necessary.Perhaps...but they (with the exception of Swashbuckler) actually work mechanically and are enjoyed by people. Brawler and Slayer are thus a good benchmark of whether something purely non-magical is 'too good' since things that invalidate them will upset people and is just generally poor design unless you intend to get rid of them entirely. Which would be a valid goal...but doesn't seem to be the goal of this particular Fighter variant.
It's worth mentioning that the Slayer and Brawler were designed by Sean K. Reynolds during a period where he became particularly disenchanted with the fighter/wizard disparity. I feel this makes the brawler and slayer very decent benchmarks for a non-spellcasting martials. As Deadmanwalking says, don't write off these classes so easily.
SKR noted that prepared spellcasters essentially have the ability to rebuild their character on a daily basis. He illustrated this in a rather hilarious quote during an interview.
If you're a fire wizard, you're like, "I got tons of fire spells. I love fire. I got my fire shield, my fireball and fire bolt and fire eyes and fire butt and fire feet! Oh crap, we're going to fight some fire giants? Okay, um, magic missile and blink and haste." Your character is now entirely different.
But if you're the fighter, then "Okay, I got Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword). I got Power Attack, I got Cleave, and this and that. Oh, I'm fighting swarms. This is gonna be a dungeon full of swarms or a dungeon full of things resistant to slashing damage. I'm screwed and going to be ineffective for the rest of the time we're in this dungeon."
This observation led to the design of Martial Flexibility. My first point is that the brawler and slayer very decent benchmarks for a non-spellcasting martials. They were both designed as fun, effective, and balanced non-spellcasting classes in a game dominated by magic. My second point is that it takes more than giving bonus feats and defensive buffs to make a fun martial in this game.
If you think about it, even the Ranger's combat styles fit SKR's description of making an effective martial class. Combat styles allow you to dip in multiple branches in the feat tree, essentially allowing you to have a secondary build. Even Treatmonk's Guide to the Ranger recommends using the archery style to grab ranged feats while using your normal feats on melee-related stuff. This is why I scratched my head at the idea of giving fighters both martial flexibility and combat styles. They accomplish similar things: give the class more combat versatility.