Charles Evans's page

If the concern is that the fighter doesn't hit often enough with the iterative attacks, then the appropriate solution would be to increase the attack bonus of the iterative attacks. Increasing the the fighter's overall attack bonus makes it difficult for the DM to create a challenge for the fighter that doesn't make the attack rolls for the other PCs futile. We could easily reduce the BAB reduction between iterative attacks. Heck, you could reduce the reduction in attack bonus all the way to 0 for all I care, as long as we are not stacking yet another bonus on top the fighter's existing pile of bonuses.

I am concerned about the effect of the fighter's weapon training bonus on the existing attack bonus power gap. As it is, a enemy with an AC that is challenging for a fighter to hit is almost impossible for others in the party. If the fighter's to-hit bonus increases more, than the DM will have three choices: 1) raise the supposedly-tough-to-hit monster's AC as well, making the monster impossible to hit for anyone but the fighter; or 2) accept the fact that the supposedly-tough-to-hit monster will not be tough to hit for the fighter, providing almost no challenge to the PC; or 3) give the supposedly-tough-to-hit monster some kind of special feature, such as concealment, to introduce a random chance of failure despite the fighter's awesome attack bonus. That last option pretty much sucks, as it essentially makes the fighter's class features worthless the way crit immunity shuts down sneak attack.

Personally, I don't think the fighter has a problem hitting things numerically. I don't understand why Paizo would want to screw up the math by throwing in extra attack bonuses unless they were planning on cutting out bonuses from someplace else. Fighters do deserve some extra features to keep them on par with other classes, both in terms of flavor and damage. However, providing an attack bonus just widens the attack bonus power gap to a degree that hampers DMs when designing encounters. Bad idea, Paizo.