That's the thing. Feats are not concepts. They're not even a mechanical niche that other classes don't have.Partly because we're pissed everybody else gets gimped so the Fighter can have the niche of getting the large Feat chains, which are largely worthwhile only for preference, not for power.Complaining about having to be a Fighter to do the most complex, feat-intensive stuff is like complaining that you have to be a Paladin to Smite Evil; and you're doing at the same time that you're saying "everyone gets feats, they're not a concept".
You could build that exact same thing with a lot of classes. It's a fighting style. Not a class concept.You can't build that exact same thing with a lot of classes by level 9, because they simply don't have the feats to do it. Not even close. The Slayer's two bonus feats would barely begin to cover it even if they could use them in heavy armor while moving full speed, and Studied Target costs a swift action for the combat buffs you get from Weapon Training.
Studied Target trumps Weapon Training because it applies its full bonus to all weapons. Which, funnily enough, means he does that fighting style BETTER than the Fighter.
He doesn't need the 17 Dex as well, so he can stack on even more attack/damage on top of that.
Never challenge a Ranger or Slayer to the "Who can TWF better" game.
But you are correct in that the Fighter can have Crane on top of the basic Feats (though that's not saying much, they're not the greatest) since a Slayer only gets 9 Feats by 9th, not 12, and thus can't afford Combat Style Master.
Individual feats are not a class concept, but the ability to stack more combat feats together is. I really don't understand how "stacks together fighting styles and special mechanics far beyond what other warriors can, to do interesting and powerful things" is somehow an invalid basis for a class.
Even if you want to stick to more mundane styles, the Fighter can use bonus feats to grab their common feats and use their normal feats to do all sorts of things most people don't ever even think about on a build because they're "not worth a feat" because the classes they use can't afford it.
If Combat Feats in general were better, all of this would be perfectly valid. But they're not, is the status of the game.
Most Feat chains simply aren't worth it even to a Fighter, which is why "master of Feats" is not a worthwhile niche even if once in a blue moon you can find a decent enough combo to make it worth it.
Edit: if you don't think that a stack of bonus feats can be interesting, or powerful, or part of a 'concept', consider stacking Spring Attack and Hurtful at an early level.
Neat idea, but not exactly some earth shattering combo that makes me want to play a Fighter.
The problem with 'has a lot of feats' as a defining feature of a class, is that the Fighter simply doesn't get nearly enough of them to actually pull that off and be any good at it.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'be any good at it'. Weapon Training alone on top of full BAB isn't very different from what most martial classes are working with. Weapon Training plus just two bonus feats bring a Fighter up to the same a/d bonuses a Barbarian gets from Rage and 2-hand.
The problem with 'has a lot of feats' as a defining feature of a class, is that the Fighter simply doesn't get nearly enough of them to actually pull that off and be any good at it.I'm not sure what you mean by 'be any good at it'. Weapon Training alone on top of full BAB isn't very different from what most martial classes are working with. Weapon Training plus just two bonus feats bring a Fighter up to the same a/d bonuses a Barbarian gets from Rage and 2-hand.
But not the same as the Barbarian gets when factoring in Rage Powers.
I ran the math a while back, Barbarian wins at everything until 20th, where Weapon Mastery takes Fighter up to 11 as far as DPR goes.
F!~@ if I know.
Studied Target trumps Weapon Training because it applies its full bonus to all weapons. Which, funnily enough, means he does that fighting style BETTER than the Fighter.
If the Fighter uses a Monk Group sword there's no issue. If he splits groups at 9, he's still at +4/+3 training with some Gloves of Dueling and he doesn't have to burn swift actions to re-study targets. He'll likely start out with one point lower strength for a -1 at half his levels, but he'll also gain the benefits of dexterity.
But you are correct in that the Fighter can have Crane on top of the basic Feats (though that's not saying much, they're not the greatest) since a Slayer only gets 9 Feats by 9th, not 12, and thus can't afford Combat Style Master.
The inclusion of the Crane chain means +4/6AC and potentially an extra attack every round. Add that to full-plate and high dex and he's got a defensive edge of around 8-11 AC.
Anyhow if I was aiming at power-gaming I would have picked up 1 level of Monk for that. I simply tossed those feats together as an example of Fighter 'concept' - a consummate 'martial artist' in the universal sense, fighting with a unique, complex style that other classes can't imitate and other Fighters typically don't, since they're doing their own unique thing.
Neat idea, but not exactly some earth shattering combo that makes me want to play a Fighter.
It comes down to the fact that within a given context it's only something a Fighter could do - other classes get it later and/or give up a lot of other options to do it. Whether or not you consider it powerful enough for you to want to play a Fighter is neither here nor there.
I ran the math a while back, Barbarian wins at everything until 20th, where Weapon Mastery takes Fighter up to 11 as far as DPR goes.
It's not a thread about who has the best overall DPR. It's not even really a thread about whether Fighters are 'good'.
It's not a thread about who has the best overall DPR. It's not even really a thread about whether Fighters are 'good'.
Then why do you keep bringing up "Yeah but my Fighter can take Feat ABC and achieve Damage Output D"?
Our group playtested this fighter and rather liked it
I really like the idea/theme you have going here. A few comments:
My suggestion would be to create certain style groupings with certain key feats in them. Then allow a fighter to select a grouping to make it one of his available stances.
So if there is a stance that deals with tripping, for example, it might include Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip. While in that stance, the fighter can utilize all of those feats.
If the fighter already has a feat that is part of the stance, then he can select a different feat in its place.
While this would likely result in a similar setup to what you've proposed, it provides some structure and is more thematic IMO.
In addition - I wouldn't make the fighter's # of stances limited to his Wisdom modifier. I would give him one stance + one additional stance every 4 levels. The fighter often already needs STR, DEX, and CON, adding WIS on seems like overkill.
Stamina - I would try to make the benefits of stamina more generic. Rather than being able to negate penalties from specific feats, add general bonuses. Eliminating a critical hit and re-rolling a fort save are both good examples.
Conditioning - if you want to go with full immunity, it seems like you would have to make some of these immunities require a higher level to take than others. Personally I would rather grant the fighter Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Lightning Reflexes here, then grant them one of the other two 2 levels later, the last one 2 levels later, then the improved versions.
I like a lot of the rest - though the extra standard actions concern me a bit.
Overall it seems like you're trying to make the fighter very versatile. While I understand the reasoning behind that (or at least I can guess,) I would aim more towards allowing them to master many combat tactics.
This is mostly a thematic thing for me - I dislike the idea of a fighter rebuilding a large portion of his feats each day because it implies he "forgets" how to perform them on various days.
Is there any "logic" when a barbarian (a low level barbarian I might add) suddenly sprouts claws from his fingers? Or when he gets to channel the energy of fire or thunder?
I'm not familiar with that ability - my group generally plays CRB only. When we allow other stuff, it has to be reviewed and accepted. I would agree with your assessment that sprouting claws or channeling fire or thunder without some kind of magical explanation wouldn't be logical.
I would agree with your assessment that sprouting claws or channeling fire or thunder without some kind of magical explanation wouldn't be logical.
What about a supernatural explanation? If not, what is the meaningful difference between a magical source versus a supernatural source?
No no. Antagonize works by having the enemy try and then not be able to hit you. It also calls them over to you, so you don't have to. You cause them to not hit the wizard, who is made of paper mache.
Feat TaxI support this. Thunder and Fang, Whip Mastery..I did this in an experimental Fighter Fix by giving the Fighter Class two bonus feats per level [alongside all good saves and more skill points and Weapon Training being a flat bonus to all weapons rather than a downward ladder of reduced effectiveness.]
It worked pretty well, but did require even more homework for the players to level up.
That sounds almost playable. I still like the Hunter more though. :D
What about a supernatural explanation? If not, what is the meaningful difference between a magical source versus a supernatural source?
In this context, supernatural and magic mean basically the same thing.
"How is this possible?"
"It's supernatural" works as well as "It's magic."
Again, I'm not familiar with the explanation behind barbarian totems, how they're explained, but if it is something like a magical connection to a spirit animal and the spirit animal provides the "magic" part, then sure.
In this context, supernatural and magic mean basically the same thing.
In the context of Pathfinder they are most definitely not the same thing. Magic operates under very different rules to supernatural.
"How is this possible?"
"It's supernatural" works as well as "It's magic."Again, I'm not familiar with the explanation behind barbarian totems, how they're explained, but if it is something like a magical connection to a spirit animal and the spirit animal provides the "magic" part, then sure.
Barbarian totem abilities are a supernatural ability. Based on what you've said you're willing to give supernatural abilities the same suspension of disbelief that you give magical abilities. So for you there is no issue with regards to the totem abilities as they are supernatural in nature.
In the context of Pathfinder they are most definitely not the same thing. Magic operates under very different rules to supernatural.
Sure, but just as there if a difference between a Fighter (the class) and a fighter (any ole person that fights), there's a difference between Supernatural (Su) (the mechanic) and supernatural (the word).
If you want to make a character that can do unrealistic things, they should have some kind of rationale behind them for being able to do so. If you can shoot lightning out of your eyes, and the rationale is that you're Zeus' descendant, sounds good. Regardless if it is magical, supernatural, psychic power, superhero powers, etc.
If you want to make a character that can do unrealistic things, they should have some kind of rationale behind them for being able to do so. If you can shoot lightning out of your eyes, and the rationale is that you're Zeus' descendant, sounds good. Regardless if it is magical, supernatural, psychic power, superhero powers, etc.
Given the context it is pretty clear that the (Su) abilities come from the barbarian tapping into abilities of a totem spirit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our group playtested this fighter and rather liked itI really like the idea/theme you have going here. A few comments:
** spoiler omitted **...
It's very difficult to create a fighter that can tangle with spellcasters and be seen as equivalent. I do not know how to make "the swordsman" an equivalent concept without going the path of war route or rewriting the system.
So what I end up making is a generalist that is more of a master of any and all martial combat. I give them full rein over the feat system so that they can make the most of it. I give them the ability to just be immune to condition because I find that more interest than +100 to saves. Early, full immunity to certain conditions is powerful, but it is also an ability you don't have to justify with magic. The fighter could have been immune to the effects just by rolling high on their saves.
I also feel that one of the better ways to keep martials playing with casters at higher levels is to expand their action economy. A fighter with 3 standard actions at level 20 has effective pounce, could be a UMD master, a combat maneuver savant, feint/intimidate with immunity, drink a potion-move-and then vital strike the target twice.
I think part of the problem is that feats don't compound upon each other well enough, so having a lot of them isn't as beneficial as it could be.
Imagine if weapon focus gave an additional +1 to attack for every feat you have that has its weapon's focus as a prerequisite. Many feats could have similar logic. Combat Expertise could offer a +1 to AC for every feat you take that has it as a prerequisite.
The whole feat system could have been set up in that way, where prerequisites aren't just stepping stones, but themselves dependant upon how much you focus on them through their descendant feats. And no one would benefit from this more than the guy with all of the bonus feats.
I think part of the problem is that feats don't compound upon each other well enough, so having a lot of them isn't as beneficial as it could be.
Imagine if weapon focus gave an additional +1 to attack for every feat you have that has its weapon's focus as a prerequisite. Many feats could have similar logic. Combat Expertise could offer a +1 to AC for every feat you take that has it as a prerequisite.
The whole feat system could have been set up in that way, where prerequisites aren't just stepping stones, but themselves dependant upon how much you focus on them through their descendant feats. And no one would benefit from this more than the guy with all of the bonus feats.
that just narrows down the available options, it makes you want specific feats over others, even more so.
that just narrows down the available options, it makes you want specific feats over others, even more so.
Not if all feats operate under similar mechanics. But it does encourage you to go further up a feat tree, instead of just dipping here and there. This logic is already in the game. It's why so many classes wait till level 2 to give you key abilities, because you don't want to encourage dipping too much.
It's very difficult to create a fighter that can tangle with spellcasters and be seen as equivalent. I do not know how to make "the swordsman" an equivalent concept without going the path of war route or rewriting the system.
I understand what you're saying. Personally, I don't think the fighter class should be designed to tangle with spellcasters, it should be more of a generic weapon master kind of guy.
Having feats that allow a fighter to become more of a mage-hunter (like a Templar from Dragon Age) would be fine with me, but the basic fighter shouldn't be shoe-horned that way.
Early, full immunity to certain conditions is powerful, but it is also an ability you don't have to justify with magic. The fighter could have been immune to the effects just by rolling high on their saves.
Well, with your write up, the fighter can eventually change what he is immune to, which does make me think of magic. I mean, if he's super-trained to the point that charm doesn't work on him at all (that makes sense to me,) today, but then he switches his immunity tomorrow, suddenly charm can work on him (that part doesn't make sense to me.)
If a stance provided immunity or resistance to certain attacks, that could also make sense, within reason. Like a defense-oriented stance making you immune to gaze attacks. While in that stance, you are specifically focusing on preventing gaze attacks (perhaps by closing your eyes and using your other senses or something.)
Some limits of course would have to apply.
Overall though, sounds like a cool idea. It is definitely better to me than many other suggestions that basically turn the fighter into a caster by giving him magic by another name.
It's very difficult to create a fighter that can tangle with spellcasters and be seen as equivalent. I do not know how to make "the swordsman" an equivalent concept without going the path of war route or rewriting the system.I understand what you're saying. Personally, I don't think the fighter class should be designed to tangle with spellcasters, it should be more of a generic weapon master kind of guy.
Having feats that allow a fighter to become more of a mage-hunter (like a Templar from Dragon Age) would be fine with me, but the basic fighter shouldn't be shoe-horned that way.
Early, full immunity to certain conditions is powerful, but it is also an ability you don't have to justify with magic. The fighter could have been immune to the effects just by rolling high on their saves.Well, with your write up, the fighter can eventually change what he is immune to, which does make me think of magic. I mean, if he's super-trained to the point that charm doesn't work on him at all (that makes sense to me,) today, but then he switches his immunity tomorrow, suddenly charm can work on him (that part doesn't make sense to me.)
If a stance provided immunity or resistance to certain attacks, that could also make sense, within reason. Like a defense-oriented stance making you immune to gaze attacks. While in that stance, you are specifically focusing on preventing gaze attacks (perhaps by closing your eyes and using your other senses or something.)
Some limits of course would have to apply.
Overall though, sounds like a cool idea. It is definitely better to me than many other suggestions that basically turn the fighter into a caster by giving him magic by another name.
I would consider the immunities like blocking. If you prepare yourself to block one way, you aren't blocking from other ways. A better warrior can block from more directions.
I consider the fighter knowing how to defend from these conditions but can only defend from so many at the same time. I also consider it complicated enough that the fighter couldn't change it round by round, but not so fixed that he couldn't change it day by day.
Fighting in a unit is a class feature for Inquisitors, Cavaliers, and Vanguard Slayers, though. Get all the benefits of those teamwork feats without requiring your teammates to invest in them. There's really nothing about the Fighter that makes him better as a member of a party than as a solo character, besides the fact that he literally does not function in most mid-to-high CR situations without a spellcaster.Learning to fight in a unit is not a class feature.
Teamwork feats exist, and are perfect for soldiers. Fighters can get more of them then anyone.
Quickly maximizing use of a single weapon is easiest for fighters. Soldiers are typically grouped by weapon mastery, after all.
Wearing heavy armor is a natural for fighters.Being great soldiers is pretty much the ONLY thing fighters have excellence at doing.
Being champions, hunters, teachers, warlords and bodyguards, the other five primary roles for melees...best to look to other classes.
==Aelryinth
Their class features include the abilty to 'give away' teamwork feats, which is a Warlord ability. "Follow my orders, and do this!"
The soldier just has them.
And yeah, I never said that having teamwork feats was great. I was talking about the role of a soldier...which is you ARE fighting with your mates, shoulder to shoulder, with the same weapon and gear. Yes, fighters do VERY WELL at being a soldier.
And they suck at pretty much every other martial role (Master teacher, Warlord, Hunter, Champion, Guardian). Which is why they make lousy adventurers.
==Aelryinth
Fighter vs Barb AC is generally not a thing.
Barbs get a Scaling Nat AC Rage Power going from +1 to +5. Nothing in the fighter arsenal can match it. Dexterity bonus in heavy armor sounds great, until you realize 1) you actually have to have that level of Dex and 2)Mithral does half/most of the job. When money buys out your best class features, what does that tell you? Are you actually going to have a 16 dex by level 8 to take advantage of it? By standard point buy, the answer is generally 'no', because you can't afford a +4 Dex booster by then, and actually maxing the bonus out REQUIRES you get a +5 Inherent bonus!
More Ugh.
Barbs can use a stance to gain an extra bonus vs missile fire on top of that Nat AC, I believe, AND then they get DR, which can be boosted significantly.
A fighter needs an archetype to get DR before level 19. Just, more ugh.
Kindly note that full movement in heavy armor is a thing that dwarves get at level ONE. It's not extra movement...it's the removal of a penalty!
Crane WIng gives an AC bonus, sure. You're now using a one handed weapon. An honest comparison with the Barb would now concern...simply using a shield. And not having a TH penalty to go with your boosted defensive fighting.
Crane Wing's power was in the parry, not the AC bonus. It simply made one handed weapon fighting, naught in the other hand, somewhat viable.
So....more ugh.
==Aelryinth
To get back on focus the question was what CONCEPT a fighter fits better than the other martial type classes and so far it seems Aelryinth may be correct in that the soldier is one of the few ideas. ..
The only other idea i can think of is the Roman Phalanx. The Phalanx soldier archetype for the fighter allows one handing of pole arms with Shields and get boosts to Tower Shields And adjacent allies. Not the strongest ADVENTURING guy but solid NPC unit if GMs wanted to make a Roman Phalanx...
Oh and I guess fighter may make better Gladiators when using the alternate rules for gladitorial type fights with pazzazz and stuff
Phalanx soldier is quintessential soldier archetype. Yep, Fighters do okay...as long as you take magic out of the equation.
Gladiators...as long as BAB can sub for skill points, and performance combat feats are based on BAB and not skill points, and you take magic out of the equation...yeah, Fighters can be okay gladiators. Hopefully it's easy to sub out Charisma for Str or something, too.
Once you add magic back in, fighters lack the defenses to perform the role of Champion, which is what a Gladiator traditionally is. They also lack burst effects vs single foes/buffing vs specific enemies.
It doesn't matter at level 10 if you're +5/+6 with a longsword. That ranger over there is +6/+6 against any human with any weapon he puts his hands on. If you're a human fighting him, you're probably going to lose. It's just a TH/dmg bonus, and there are many ways to get them. Unless you have some way to make them stack and grab more of them then other classes...oh, well.
==Aelryinth
To get back on focus the question was what CONCEPT a fighter fits better than the other martial type classes and so far it seems Aelryinth may be correct in that the soldier is one of the few ideas.
I'd say the unique CONCEPT is of a heavily armored warrior. There just isn't much of a place in the game's mechanics for that concept. If heavy armor was more relevant and if there were better ways to draw "aggro", then the concept would be desired.
The other concept is a master of an individual weapon style, and I'd say they do this fairly well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm terribly sorry, I didn't notice this thread until now.
Congratulations! Your unique take on the ongoing debate has been added to the Index! This debate has been rolling along for five years now, and I'm glad you all decided to take the next step in advancing it into new territory.
Just to clarify for people, my question relates to say... a players comes and says "I want to play a pirate" or "i want to play aknight in shining armor" or whatever trope you want to fill in, when would fighter be the go to class over the other guys.
Just to clarify for people, my question relates to say... a players comes and says "I want to play a pirate" or "i want to play aknight in shining armor" or whatever trope you want to fill in, when would fighter be the go to class over the other guys.
I think, never.
Like, Swashbuckler SCREAMS pirate.
Paladin SCREAMS "Knight in shining armor" (as does Cavalier, to a lesser extent).
The Fighter kind of vocalizes under his breath, sheepishly "City guardsman who gets knocked out by the main characters?"
Most fightery archetypes—such as the soldier, or the guard captain—get covered pretty handily by Slayer, Ranger, Paladin or Cavalier. The one concept that's easiest to play as a fighter probably involves a character who uses a tower shield—it saves you having to dump a feat on proficiency.
Rynjin's already expounded on the tower shield's practical applications, but they're irrelevant to the subject of this thread. The tower shield is a highly thematic item that might be necessary for a given concept. The fighter saves a feat on it.
When you think "fighter" you should think about the likes of Achilles, Sandor Clegane, Gimli (the Tolkien version), Gotrek Gurnisson, Rambo and so on.
Clegane/Gimli lived in very restricted magic worlds, most of their opponents were Warriors, with possibly a few Fighters, Rogues, Cavaliers, or Swashbucklers.
I'd be quite happy if the Fighter, in addition to being proficient with it, could also make the tower shield not suck. Be able to provide cover to allies with it, add his shield bonus to his saves against AoE and rays, that sort of thing.
Then why do you keep bringing up "Yeah but my Fighter can take Feat ABC and achieve Damage Output D"?
It's not a thread about who has the best overall DPR. It's not even really a thread about whether Fighters are 'good'.
The point is "this fighter can mix Feat ABC into a build in a combination no other class can, thus giving them the theme/concept of 'combat feats class'".
If I mention "and achieve Damage Output D", it's only because of the assertion that having more feats never does anything worthwhile or interesting. The lack of imagination with feats and styles among many gamers (not directing this at you personally) is a constant surprise to me, and I don't tend to go through with any character whose numbers don't come out at least decent.
Here's a simple example: take any typical 1/3/5/7... martial character who uses most or all of his normal feats to build up combat ability. Shift those feats into Fighter 1/2/4/6 bonus feats. Now spend those newly liberated feats on anything you want, combat or otherwise. Whether you're grabbing a full-level Animal Companion through feats or grabbing a ton of Aasimar Feats or picking up effective switch-hitting or taking a series of Skill Focus feats relating to proper lawn maintenance, you've got a character that could only be done with a Fighter.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing some improvements here and there - but saying the class that gets more feats than anyone else has no real concept is just bizarre to me.
See, there's the disconnect, in assuming it's a character that can only be done by the Fighter. Very, VERY rarely is that true, and it's really only on the huge Feat chains or combos of such that still, again, constitute a FIGHTING STYLE, not a character concept.
A lot of classes get bonus Feats. The Fighter just happens to get a few more. A Brawler can do the Aasimar wing Feats thing quite well (I know, I've done it).
Or, some classes don't require the Feats to do the same thing. Hunters, Druids, and Rangers for the Animal Companion for instance.
Or even just being a Human for Skill Focus (Advanced Study is a pretty great alternate racial trait, I take it fairly often).
Even when they are a character concept, they're not one unique to the Fighter class.
So many godo memories, but I'm surprised you didn't include the big fighter thread of 3000+ posts.I'm terribly sorry, I didn't notice this thread until now.
Congratulations! Your unique take on the ongoing debate has been added to the Index! This debate has been rolling along for five years now, and I'm glad you all decided to take the next step in advancing it into new territory.
Yeah, the one that got locked, but I can't remember the name of.
Just speaking from experience as a GM, the fighter is a great class for building an NPC martial. Captain of the guard, arrogant knight, badass sell-sword... Pretty much when I need a formidable martial that is far beyond the Warrior NPC class.
As far as concepts go, other classes do fit the flavor of what a lot of players have in mind much better than the fighter class, which can be pretty generic.
That said, if a player (especially one new to the game) wants to play something fairly straightforward, like say a mercenary, the class works. I know many would disagree, but I think the class is very formidable in a fight. The options for specialization can make the PC a terror in what they trained to do.
You could also make the case, that the Fighter is a throwback to the old days, when classes were the archetypes- Fighter was the martial class, Rouge was the Thief/scoundrel class, Wizards were the primo magic users, and clerics where the healers. Out of the four, Fighters have evolved the least, and the newer martial classes are more exciting.
Just speaking from experience as a GM, the fighter is a great class for building an NPC martial. Captain of the guard, arrogant knight, badass sell-sword... Pretty much when I need a formidable martial that is far beyond the Warrior NPC class.
Fighters are great for NPCs yeah. You can throw one together in about 5 minutes and then clone them by however many you need.
There is no reason that a wizard, who spends all his time studying with his nose in his book plumbing the secrets of the multiverse, who does not NEED skills because, well, he has spells that outperform them, ends up with more skills then a fighter, who trains incessantly BECAUSE he has no spells.
Ditto reason for the Ranger. The Fighter doesn't get spells that grant bonuses to Stealth and Perception and all whatnot. He has more need for skill points then any class but the Rogue.
==Aelryinth
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Well, I'll dive into the pool and attract the sharks.
Here are some fighter concepts:
-Weapon master - someone who is the absolute best with a specific weapon.
-Civilized infantry warrior - no wilderness stuff, no sneaky stuff, no mount, just personal competence and good equipment.
-Master of many fighting techniques - true switch hitter; can have enough feats to be effective at archery AND two handed weapons AND sword and board.
From a player POV, there are players out there who really don't want to deal with any per day stuff. Fighter can work for them. His abilities are always on. Yes, this means the fighter's blandness is, in fact, a feature for some.
Could the fighter use a little love when it comes to out of combat? Sure, many would agree it has issues there. But he's not bad at combat. A level 10-11 fighter can easily have an AC in the low to mid 30s, while also maintaining a +20 or more to hit while power attacking/deadly aiming - or both in the same round.
You need to shift away from DPR. Nobody cares about fighter DPR, it's fine. Or AC, really.
It's the other stuff.
A true Weapon Master would have to be the highest DPR class in the game to be worth doing what it does. And that means outperforming a Ranger +10/+10 against a specific foe with any weapon, and generally matching up to a Smiting Paladin favorably.
That breaks the role, and ends up with the weapon master just another DPR machine who can't add his damage to different attack modes.
As it stands, he's a decent soldier as built, your civilized infantry warrior, BECAUSE he's so weapon centered (soldiers are) and can take teamwork feats easily (because soldiers should and do).
He's definitely NOT the master of many fighting techniques. I'm not even sure how you'd define that in Pathfinder. Weapons? Enemies? Martial combat style/feats? Etc?
==Aelryinth
Melee combat isn't exactly a rich, diverse experience in Pathfinder. The Style feats are pretty neat, but most of the time you can just categorize weapons as so:
Ranged
Reach
Close
There ends the variation in (mundane) martial techniques. Sure, there are combat maneuvers, but you have to dedicate to them to expect success, and sometimes monsters are just immune (especially common to have Disarm be useless as nearly all monsters use natural weapons). Worst of all, you have to give up an attack to attempt them, while common animals can do damage and trip, or do damage and grapple.
It's always mind-boggling for me that animals do that better (and thus Eidolons who can evolve Trip and Grab and Push and Pull onto their natural attacks).
There should be at least feats for martials to do the same, maybe with a modest -2 to hit or something (if it's too scary to allow without cost).
Well, recently the Fighters have gotten archetypes that act like those PrCs.
Martial Master, Mutation Warrior (even though that got a slight nerf because f&*%ing everything got nerfed in the ACG Errata), Eldritch Guardian, and the new Sensate archetype from Occult Adventures are pretty solid.
i don't like either of those archetypes because they're still mostly fighter 'w'
It's really hard to come up with what a fighter does better that would fit a concept, because they really don't do much better. You might get to do some things sooner, but eventually another class can do it and do it better.
I have an archer fighter, and after the Slayer came out, I only stick with him because Pin down is a level 11 fighter only feat.
I personally feel Slayer is just way better than the fighter, but I still play the fighter because I have a mental disorder I guess.