JiCi wrote:Part of the point of the fighter is to not have unique class features. It is a Tabula Rasa that is mechanically flexible enough to focus on almost any style of martial combat, and lacks any flavor which might clash with your own vision. It is the vanilla ice cream of classes. Some people like it on its own, but it also the best base to build a Sunday off of... where things like the barbarian are more like Chocolate Cookie Dough you eat straight out of the pint container.
The fighter may be balanced, but I feel like it's missing unique class features to differenciate it from other martial classes.
Some will be quick to defend the Legendary proficiencies, but... what else?
This has always sounded like Fighter should be an NPC class to me.
IMO, the +2 proficiency bonus is a pretty huge advantage (the maths bear this out). But also, looking at the kinds of mechanics other classes have in Pathfinder and Starfinder--Fighter, along with Monk, and followed by Cleric and Ranger, are designs that evince a different kind of philosophy vis-a-vis build paths. Unlike other classes that fulfill similar roles (e.g., Starfinder 2's Soldier) Fighter and Monk have no build path guiding mechanics (which are useful for new players) [and Clerics and Rangers have few build path guiding mechanics]. This is old news though.
At this point my primary gripe with all four of the classes--fighter and monk in particular--is how tired their designs look when compared to fresher class packages being tested for both Pathfinder and Starfinder. Fortunately (and as always), this is a pain point that experience GMs can ameliorate through the application of house rules.