Don't forget the +1 1/2 strength bonus to damage with two-handed weapons, which benefits barbarians.
That means +2 points of damage more for the barbarian at level 20, which still puts him behind.
Honestly if you are going to do any complete look you need to do them at various levels. How do they compare are level 5, how about 10, maybe then 15. Just because they seem to display a trait when compared at level 15 doesn't mean that same trait appears at level 5 and 10.
But I agree the level 20 capstone abilities make a comparison at level 20 worthless for most discussions.
You would need to do a couple of variants for each of those levels as 2-handed fighting is different than sword and board, which is different from two-weapon fighting.
One thing to consider as well when comparing the fighter's to hit and damage output to the other full BAB classes is that the others have circumstantial modifiers to their to hit and damage (rage, favored enemy, smite), while the fighter can use his the whole fight on all attacks and all fights. For balance reasons his modifiers should be lower, but they are instead higher.
Barbarian is :
Doing less damage (beyond 12.lv it gets worse)
Survives (against melees) way much shorter.
has minimum 7 (or 5 if counting Situational the Flanking in) AC less (without counting in Dex)
has instead of 11! Bonus feats (wich translate to huge advantages)only a 5 Ragepowers ! (wich are at best 3/4 Feats).
All the Power is Situational, Depending on Rage.
And the ON/OFF/ON/OFF Rage functionality is unfortunatly designed.
The Damage reduction is no real advantage because a fighter is getting it too.
And i surely has missed something.Ah and to make some Tempers cooking:
Barbarians excel in combat, possessing the martial prowess and fortitude to take on foes seemingly far superior to themselves. With rage granting them boldness and daring beyond that of most other warriors, barbarians charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand in their way.
Am I missing something, instead of 11 feats, the barbarian get's 10 rage powers, not 5, along with several other class features.
I would like to point out that if you don't like your barbarians on-off raging abilities, then you can dictate that a player can't simply jump off his rage while the target of his rage is still there.
And when he does come off rage, he should still RP the effects of rage wearing off, presumably during the fatigue portion.
Just watch the iconic barbarian - The Hulk. He's still "hulking" in the fatigue phase, even if he doesn't get all the bonuses to his abilities, and thus trying to reason with him is still difficult and deadly, at best.
Simply mention this to your bi-polar barbarian player.
I have to admit that while I do think the Pathfinder version of the fighter is an improvment over the 3.5 one, it's one that could have been so much better.
I felt that being able to hit and damage foes was never an issue for combat focused classes. Instead of simply applying static bonuses to the fighter (bonuses most fighter's gain anyway via feats like weapon focus) I would have instead tried to give the fighter more tactical options.
I would have rather the fighter got abilities like say..the Feat Step Up as a class feature, rather than made into a combat fight any class could reasonably take. If abilities like this were added, either as flat-out abilities gained or as somthing else, like say the "Fighter Talent" idea, then it would have fixed what I felt was really wrong with the class, and that it's boring.
And let's be honest, it is. A wizard gains a level and he gains two new automatic ways to break the normal laws of physics. Cleric's and Druid's learn entire circles of magic at odd levels, with abilities laden on top. Bard's, Rangers and Rogues gain not only large sums of skill points, but loads of flavourful class features. Barbarians and paladins gain abilities which not only scale with level, gain a larger number of benifits with every level.
What does a fighter gain? Either a bonus feat or a small bonus somwhere. That's it. While I like that the fighter has a little more "ompfh", the Pathfinder version still amounts to a fairly boring class.
(big long example that totally neglects to mention the powerful rage feature powers)
You totally disregarded any of the rage powers that the barbarian can activate while in a rage, along with the aforementioned other oversights.
If we're going to be examining the differences between a fighter and a barbarian, we should take all the differences into account and not just the ones that strengthen our argument.
For example: if you compare the barbarian's to hit and damage with the fighter's you will see that at level 1-3 the barbarian is ahead with it's rage and has a +2 advantage on both compared to the fighter. On level 4 the fighter can take Weapon Specialization, and thereby becomes equal when it comes to damage, and on level 5 the fighter gains weapon training 1, which puts him 1 ahead on damage and 1 behind on to hit.On level 8 the fighter can take Greater Weapon Focus and is now has the same to hit modifier as the barbarian and is +1 in damage. On level 9 the fighter gains weapon training 2 and is now +1 in to hit and +2 in damage. On level 11 the barbarian's rage increases and the difference is now back to equal in to hit and +1 for the fighter in damage.
This does not last long though, on level 12 the fighter can take Greater Weapon Specialization and is now at +3 damage, and on level 13 weapon training increases to 3 and he's at +1 to hit and +4 damage compared to the barbarian.
The barbarian never catches up, and at level 20 the fighter has +1 to hit and +4 damage compared to the barbarian. In addition the fighter also has Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating strike, which increases...
*Only* *with* *the* *weapon* selected in the feats.
The barbarian has his bonuses with whatever weapon he chooses to use. This *is* a factor.
But I agree the level 20 capstone abilities make a comparison at level 20 worthless for most discussions.
It's useless across the board because this is not how characters are played. Any character, due to the campaign he is in will make different choices based on what is going on, versus one created from scratch and raised to 20th level all at once.
A correct analysis will take into account:
Several different level points during the life of the character
A variety of situations that the character may find himself in
*all* of the rules, instead of just the ones that prove one's point.
Cant...
Stop...
Laughing....
People....
Jealous...
OF THE FIGHTER?!?
BA HA HA HA HA HA
I know...interesting change isn't it?
Of course, it could also be seen as proof of the "Give them an inch they will try for a mile" mentality at work.
I can't believe people are complaining about Fighter Only Feats. That has got to be one of the more jaw-dropping complaints I've seen.
Feats with Rage pre reqs are Barbarian only feats, disguised.
Feats with Sneak Attack are Rogue only feats, disguised.
Feats with Ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells are Sorc/Wiz only feats, disguised.
Feats with Ability to channel or cast divine spells are cleric/paladin only, disguised.
Feats with Favored Enemy reqs are Ranger only, disguised.
Feats with Wildshape or cast Druidic spells only are Druid only, disguised.
Feats with Bardic Music use X are Bard only, disguised.
The ONLY reason they use Fighter level is because Fighters never had a distinguishing class feature. They should simply have said "Two Bonus Fighter Feats required".
If you don't like Fighter level, just say "Weapon Training +1 in the required weapon". Heck, it's BETTER...warblades can't use them, then.
Guess what? It's the EXACT SAME THING.
Quit crying and deal with it. All classes get feats only they can use.
=========
This also has to be a massively silly argument. The big thing with the barbarian was that he could do all the damage the Fighter could, yet had the same AC, better movement, more skills, and more versatility/powers the Fighter could never get.
Now, the Fighter has superior AC and melee dmg, and the Barbarian...still has all his other advantages, AND his rage is far more flexible then it was.
Color me totally unimpressed with the premise here.
===Aelryinth
*Only* *with* *the* *weapon* selected in the feats.
The barbarian has his bonuses with whatever weapon he chooses to use. This *is* a factor.
And that would put the barbarian one point further behind in the to hit department, since my math assumes that he takes Weapon Focus.
Feats with Rage pre reqs are Barbarian only feats, disguised.
1 total in PRPG.
Feats with Sneak Attack are Rogue only feats, disguised.
0 total in PRPG.
Feats with Ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells are Sorc/Wiz only feats, disguised.
5 total, and I included Improved Familiar.
Feats with Ability to channel or cast divine spells are cleric/paladin only, disguised.
8 total.
The paladin also has 2 extra mercy/lay on hands feats.
Feats with Favored Enemy reqs are Ranger only, disguised.
0 total.
Feats with Wildshape or cast Druidic spells only are Druid only, disguised.
1 total.
Feats with Bardic Music use X are Bard only, disguised.
1 total.
Fighter only feats: 9.
The ONLY reason they use Fighter level is because Fighters never had a distinguishing class feature.
True, but this is not valid anymore, since the fighter has armor training, weapon training, bravery, and weapon mastery.
All classes get feats only they can use.
No, they don't, at least not in PRPG Core. If there had been an equal number of class specific feats for all classes I would be satisfied.
Guess what? It's the EXACT SAME THING.
Quit crying and deal with it. All classes get feats only they can use.
Invalid comparison.
Firstly, in the core rules, it is not possible for most characters to benefit from Extra Channel because they can't channel energy. Secondly, if other classes could channel energy (perhaps through some weird prestige class, racial feature, or character trait) then they could take Extra Channel. Extra turning doesn't require that you be a cleric or paladin, just that you be able to channel energy.
Anyway, my hope is that the APG will fix the imbalance in class/ability specific feats.
|
I made this argument during Beta, but Jason decided to maintain backwards compatibility...(which wasn't needed since backwards is easy...only fighters had them backwards, going forwards, other people get them...)
The other classes NEED GWF to even get close to to the same MAB that fighters get...+20BAB + 2 GWF + 4 Weapon Training...= +26 MAB...ALL THE TIME...
Everyone else gets situational bonuses. Smite, Favored enemy and Rage...but during those situations, they only equal the fighter, they don't surpass, which means, they should be available.
I don't care one way or another about feats which (like Extra Channel) must by their nature be specific. In general, I feel that they add less to the game than feats that anyone can take, but I can see having a few of them around.
What I don't like are feats that are restricted to a given class "just because". The attitude seems to be "It's more special if I can take it and you can't", which strikes me as petulant and unnecessary.
Typing this, though, I have to stop to examine my own attitude. After all, I don't mind when a feat is restricted by race, or even by clan or region. However, in those cases there is generally no pretense that a feat must be restricted to a given race for balance concerns. It's all about flavor, world-building, and the sculpting of archetypes.
From a flavor/worldbuilding point of view, saying "rangers can't specialize in one weapon" is nonsense.
People who want fighter-specific feats want them because they want the fighter class to be better mechanically, but that entire position is bankrupt. If fighter-only feats are better than other feats, then they're going to hedge normal feats out of a fighter's build, which is bad game design (remember Shifter Feats?). Why pretend to give the fighter flexible bonus feats if you're then going to invent a very limited number of options which he must take to be viable?
If they aren't better than other feats, then you're only creating the illusion of a bonus, and you're imposing a silly restriction on the other 10 classes in order to do so.
I really never thought I'd be seeing a thread like this...but since I am...
I suppose you folks are right. Since feats are available to anyone who can meet the prerequisites, and requiring a class level as a prerequisite doesn't seem fair to the other classes...I think they should have removed Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specilization, and all the other fighter only feats, and instead given them as class abilities to the fighter. Not taking away any of the fighters bonus feats, or the new class abilities they got, just automatically adding in those feats effects at the appropriate levels.
There would probably be complaints about fighters getting to much then, but then again, Fighters fight. I know, mind boggling right? That the class whose entire set of abilities, and skills, and, well, everything, revolves around combat would be better at it than the rest.
I really never thought I'd be seeing a thread like this...but since I am...
I suppose you folks are right. Since feats are available to anyone who can meet the prerequisites, and requiring a class level as a prerequisite doesn't seem fair to the other classes...I think they should have removed Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specilization, and all the other fighter only feats, and instead given them as class abilities to the fighter. Not taking away any of the fighters bonus feats, or the new class abilities they got, just automatically adding in those feats effects at the appropriate levels.
Didn't they do that too?
I rather like Weapon Training, which I suppose means that I agree with you. I have no problem at all with giving fighters a damage bonus, it's just the misuse of the "feat" mechanic that bugs me.
I really never thought I'd be seeing a thread like this...but since I am...
I suppose you folks are right. Since feats are available to anyone who can meet the prerequisites, and requiring a class level as a prerequisite doesn't seem fair to the other classes...I think they should have removed Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specilization, and all the other fighter only feats, and instead given them as class abilities to the fighter. Not taking away any of the fighters bonus feats, or the new class abilities they got, just automatically adding in those feats effects at the appropriate levels.
Didn't they do that too?
I rather like Weapon Training, which I suppose means that I agree with you. I have no problem at all with giving fighters a damage bonus, it's just the misuse of the "feat" mechanic that bugs me.
I'd hesitate to call it a misuse. There is plenty of precedants for it, even in PF. They could have swapped it to requiring fighter only class features, sure (at which point people couldn't point and say its fighter only, since after all, anyone could get weapon training 3 by just taking enough levels of fighter...), but they decided to keep it the way it was, probably because the way it was worked.
There is plenty of precedants for it, even in PF. They could have swapped it to requiring fighter only class features, sure (at which point people couldn't point and say its fighter only, since after all, anyone could get weapon training 3 by just taking enough levels of fighter...),
Existing class feats don't work that way. Precise Strike doesn't require the Sneak Attack class feature, and Medusa' Wrath doesn't require Diamond Body.
Aside for fighter-only feats, the only time a feat has a class feature as a prerequisite is if it would be incoherent without that class feature.
|
Fighter only feats: 9.
In counter, how many of those realistically are going to see play often?
In my estimation, probably 5.
Critical Mastery, Greater Shield Specialization, and Spell Breaker are far too hit or miss to see any regular play. Only very narrow builds will even use Greater Shield focus, and I really don't see many Captain America builds.
I don`t like the argument
"Fighters FIGHT and therefore they has to be the best in it"A Fighter is a Fighter because through his feats he is capable of :
Fighting in every Style he wants, no matter if DW, Ranged, Sword&Board or Two handed weapon. And mostly he can spice those styles up with another feat chain or has the freedom to take a lot of tactical maneuvers.
A Fighter is non restricted. He can wear every armor or shield, and all weapons except the exotic. And he is even capable of ignoring movement penaltys through Armortraining.
> Every other class is quite limited in that case.A Fighter gets on his self a unique Bonus on Armor wich no class can emulate and he has an innate weapon training wich gives him a bonus above all other classes.
So hes the most VERSATILE and ALL-AROUND Fighter.
No one can compete him at this. It`s no question.
And on top of this he is the only class:
Which can specialize in one kind of weapon
(what he already does at a better version @ weapon training)Wich can jump around in front of casters that they can`t concentrate
(Disruptive and Spellbreaker)Wich can use 2! critical Feats together.
wich can Master a Shield (poor Paladins)
(greater shield focus)wich can ignore Damage reduction at large scale and permanent
(penetrating strike and greater penetrating strike)____________________________________________________________________
And for a class wich comes along with such great features and options why can`t a class like the barbarian wich focuesses on pure offense not dealing more devastation?
Drop a barbarians skill points to two, allow then only to rage when in a fight, make uncanny dodge only usable in a fight, make fast movement only usable in a fight, and remove trap sense, and I'll give some credence to the concept of barbarian being a pure offense class.
I probably would have written a "Spellbreaker" feat differently.
Basically, if you already have a spellcaster under control, spellbreaker lets you smack them while you're doing it.
Neither Disruptive nor Spellbreaker makes you better at stopping casters who don't bother to cast defensively (for instance, those who just put their faith in their shield/stoneskin/etc).
There is plenty of precedants for it, even in PF. They could have swapped it to requiring fighter only class features, sure (at which point people couldn't point and say its fighter only, since after all, anyone could get weapon training 3 by just taking enough levels of fighter...),Existing class feats don't work that way. Precise Strike doesn't require the Sneak Attack class feature, and Medusa' Wrath doesn't require Diamond Body.
Aside for fighter-only feats, the only time a feat has a class feature as a prerequisite is if it would be incoherent without that class feature.
Sorry it took a bit to reply, had to think of a way to not sound snarky as a reply.
I suppose they could have rewritten the fighter bonus feats class feature as combat knacks, and just put the fighter only feats in as that, selectable at the appropriate levels, or you can just take a combat feat. Same effect, different wording. The way they did it I think was more a nod to backwards compatability than anything else.
Regardless of how they got put in, I don't think the feats should be handed out to other classes, as its part of what makes the fighter class the fighter class. All this chatter about closing the gap between the fighter and the other classes...well, what about the reverse. Barbarians get extra HP when raging, uncanny dodge, and all that. Paladins get built in healing/status effect removal. Fighters get better AC and better damage output. Seems pretty fair to me, even if the way some of the fighters abilities (the fighter only feats) could have possibly been added in a more...I duuno, linguistically appealing manner. (sounds better than politically correct I think)
Trap Sense isn`t exclusive anymore, everyone can find traps, he just gets a Bonus on it, wich i cant understand at all.
Actually, trap sense provides a bonus on saves and AC vs traps, not a bonus to find them.
Regardless of how they got put in, I don't think the feats should be handed out to other classes, as its part of what makes the fighter class the fighter class.
No, not really.
The only feat which was part of the fighter class is (Improved) Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Focus, which gave the fighter access to weapon-specific attack and damage bonuses that other classes couldn't have.
That benefit has been elegantly repackaged as Weapon Training.
The rest of the stuff- Greater Shield Focus, Critical Mastery, etc- was invented by Paizo. It has nothing to do with "what makes the fighter class the fighter class".
Drop a barbarians skill points to two, allow then only to rage when in a fight, make uncanny dodge only usable in a fight, make fast movement only usable in a fight, and remove trap sense, and I'll give some credence to the concept of barbarian being a pure offense class.
2 Skillpoints are not that huge impact considering the classskills.
uncanny dodge i don`t that powerfull, surely it`s nice but it`s situational ...
Trap Sense isn`t exclusive anymore, everyone can find traps, he just gets a Bonus on it, wich i cant understand at all.
With the changes to the skill system, yes, 2 skill points is a big deal when it comes to what can you do besides fight. I'll grant, uncanny dodge might have been not such a good example, but its late, I've been up a while, and sleep eludes me.
Seriously, a barbarians class abilities have alot of non-combat uses, a fighters don't. I don't get why people feel the need to take the one area the fighter is supposed to shine (fighting) and 'even things out' when all they look at is damage output or a couple points of AC. How about evening out the other abilities fighters don't get at that point as well?
Regardless of how they got put in, I don't think the feats should be handed out to other classes, as its part of what makes the fighter class the fighter class.No, not really.
The only feat which was part of the fighter class is (Improved) Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Focus, which gave the fighter access to weapon-specific attack and damage bonuses that other classes couldn't have.
That benefit has been elegantly repackaged as Weapon Training.
The rest of the stuff- Greater Shield Focus, Critical Mastery, etc- was invented by Paizo. It has nothing to do with "what makes the fighter class the fighter class".
I know they weren't around before...but to me, the fighter really should, mechanically speaking, be better at fighting. Kind of a brook no competion thing. Rogues don't have any challengers to inflicting pain by suprise, paladins have no equals in the area of smacking down evil and living to tell about it, why should fighters have competition in the arena of generalized combat? Its kind of what they do...
The fighter only feats that seems to bug most anti-fighter only feat posters are Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. These are very weapon specific.
I am getting the impression that the anti-fighter only posters haven't played mid-level barbarians in actual game play, but are only theorizing based on their preferences and views.
I have an ongoing campaign where there is a 10th level fighter (heavy crossbow) and a 10th level barbarian (earthbreaker).
In a lot of situations in the campaign, the fighter cannot use his specific weapon. Example, when the party was ambushed in a feast hall, the fighter used a chair until he got a sword and even then, non of his weapon specific feats applied. The barbarian raged, picked up a table and used it as his weapon for the fight, being able to use all of his weapons and abilities for wielding the table.
I could go on with other examples....
Most of the arguments seem to be based on min/max point of view, on a very narrow focus of attack and damage perspective, and only vis-a-vis fighters. Am I incorrect in this?
The fighter only feats that seems to bug most anti-fighter only feat posters are Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. These are very weapon specific.
I am getting the impression that the anti-fighter only posters haven't played mid-level barbarians in actual game play, but are only theorizing based on their preferences and views.
I have an ongoing campaign where there is a 10th level fighter (heavy crossbow) and a 10th level barbarian (earthbreaker).
In a lot of situations in the campaign, the fighter cannot use his specific weapon. Example, when the party was ambushed in a feast hall, the fighter used a chair until he got a sword and even then, non of his weapon specific feats applied. The barbarian raged, picked up a table and used it as his weapon for the fight, being able to use all of his weapons and abilities for wielding the table.
I could go on with other examples....
Most of the arguments seem to be based on min/max point of view, on a very narrow focus of attack and damage perspective, and only vis-a-vis fighters. Am I incorrect in this?
Not really. The shield feats and crit feats matter to some, but overall, you've got the gist of it.
I know they weren't around before...but to me, the fighter really should, mechanically speaking, be better at fighting. Kind of a brook no competion thing. Rogues don't have any challengers to inflicting pain by suprise, paladins have no equals in the area of smacking down evil and living to tell about it, why should fighters have competition in the arena of generalized combat? Its kind of what they do...
Regardless of how they got put in, I don't think the feats should be handed out to other classes, as its part of what makes the fighter class the fighter class.No, not really.
The only feat which was part of the fighter class is (Improved) Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Focus, which gave the fighter access to weapon-specific attack and damage bonuses that other classes couldn't have.
That benefit has been elegantly repackaged as Weapon Training.
The rest of the stuff- Greater Shield Focus, Critical Mastery, etc- was invented by Paizo. It has nothing to do with "what makes the fighter class the fighter class".
All classes fight. The game is about fighting.
A class that was "better at fighting" would be overpowered. By definition.I think that what you mean is that the fighter should be better at straightforward fighting. Other classes excel in specific circumstances, but of the melee combatants the fighter is the best general combatant.
If that isn't what you mean then I'm not sure how coherent your argument is.
Regardless, that does nothing to address any previous post that I've made (in particular my concerns/criticisms concerning a class which disguises class features as bonus feats). Any argument that fighter-only feats make fighters more viable is utterly false. Granting those feats to other characters would not magically make the fighter worse. It's not like there is a finite supply of Weapon Specialization: he can still take it too.
Really this issue doesn't even concern the fighter. It's not a matter of the fighter being underpowered, because what feats someone else can take has no baring on what the fighter can or can't do. It's a question of whether fighter-only feats will be balanced in the hands of other characters.
If so, there is no issue with letting them. Simple as that. Letting other classes take such feats would not change the balance of the fighter in any way.
If not, then you have a problem right from the get-go. A feat that's unbalanced for the barbarian is just as unbalanced for the fighter. If the fighter would be weaker without those feats- as some seem to be contending- then what you have is a must-take feat.
Imagine if barbarian rage were a feat that only a barbarian could take. Would that be good game design?
Not really. The shield feats and crit feats matter to some, but overall, you've got the gist of it.
That will teach me to take an hour to "write" my response.
Shakes his head, who would have thought that so many would be awake, semi-coherent and posting at this hour.
Shakes his head, who would have thought that so many would be awake, semi-coherent and posting at this hour.
I'm posting to distract myself from finish my bard overhaul.
I can't get anything done unless I have some way to distract myself from doing it.
|
|
Not really. The shield feats and crit feats matter to some, but overall, you've got the gist of it.That will teach me to take an hour to "write" my response.
Shakes his head, who would have thought that so many would be awake, semi-coherent and posting at this hour.
Nerd Rage is srs bsnss. You'd be surprised how many people will stay up till all hours of the night to argue.
Nerd Rage is srs bsnss. You'd be surprised how many people will stay up till all hours of the night to argue.
Some of us are 17th level neckbeards.
We can nerd rage without becoming fatigued.
|
|
Nerd Rage is srs bsnss. You'd be surprised how many people will stay up till all hours of the night to argue.Not really. The shield feats and crit feats matter to some, but overall, you've got the gist of it.That will teach me to take an hour to "write" my response.
Shakes his head, who would have thought that so many would be awake, semi-coherent and posting at this hour.
Some of us are 17th level neckbeards.
We can nerd rage without becoming fatigued.
Yeah, and when they take extra rages...it gets pretty hectic.
I took my beard bane sword (I call it gillete) and hacked mine off awhile ago...
All classes fight. The game is about fighting.
A class that was "better at fighting" would be overpowered. By definition.
The game isn't about fighting per se, thats only one aspect of it.
I think that what you mean is that the fighter should be better at straightforward fighting. Other classes excel in specific circumstances, but of the melee combatants the fighter is the best general combatant.
If that isn't what you mean then I'm not sure how coherent your argument is.
Yeah, you pretty much got what I meant.
Regardless, that does nothing to address any previous post that I've made (in particular my concerns/criticisms concerning a class which disguises class features as bonus feats). Any argument that fighter-only feats make fighters more viable is utterly false. Granting those feats to other characters would not magically make the fighter worse. It's not like there is a finite supply of Weapon Specialization: he can still take it too.
Really this issue doesn't even concern the fighter. It's not a matter of the fighter being underpowered, because what feats someone else can take has no baring on what the fighter can or can't do. It's a question of whether fighter-only feats will be balanced in the hands of other characters.
If so, there is no issue with letting them. Simple as that. Letting other classes take such feats would not change the balance of the fighter in any way.
If not, then you have a problem right from the get-go. A feat that's unbalanced for the barbarian is just as unbalanced for the fighter. If the fighter would be weaker without those feats- as some seem to be contending- then what you have is a must-take feat.
Imagine if barbarian rage were a feat that only a barbarian could take. Would that be good game design?
Which is why I stated earlier that perhaps instead of bonus feats, fighters should have gotten combat knacks. They could select knacks which would have the same effect as the current fighter only feats, or select any combat feat. Of course, thats only really relevant to this conversation in that the terminology would change, not whether or not the abilities should be open to a wider variety of classes.
And yes, the issue does concern the fighter, just as much as it does the other classes being mentioned. When someones arguement starts with "a, which is limited to b, should really be allowed to c as well because c is weaker b" pretty much opens up the balance can of worms, and classes need to balanced against each other as much as possible in terms of gameplay. Since this isn't an MMO, a Mini's game, or a combat sim game, non combat utility gets included in that as well.
I'm posting to distract myself from finish my bard overhaul.
LOL... I'm doing the exact same thing :D
Which is why I stated earlier that perhaps instead of bonus feats, fighters should have gotten combat knacks. They could select knacks which would have the same effect as the...
I don't see it as the barbarian needing to be able to take weapon specialization to be the equal of a fighter, I see it as there is no need to have feats restricted by class except in cases were they rely on abilities that don't exist in other classes. Weapon specialization if it is clearly more powerful then other feats shouldn't be a feat. But if it isn't more powerful then other feats should be open to everyone.
Feats should on the whole be relatively balanced with each other, if they aren't if some feats are clearly better then others in all significat ways then feats will destroy any class balance the game has. So if all feats are more or less equal it shouldn't be an issue with the barbarian taking weapon specialization. Since taking that or power attack should both be good and fair choices and he simply went for specialization. Specialization is also a trap for those without the feats of a fighter, it ties you into one specific weapon. Bob the barbarian finds a +1 longsword and decide to specialize in longswords, great next adventure Bob finds a +2 flaming battle axe...guess Bob will stick with the +1 longsword or he will toss away two of his limited supply feats. For a fighter it's not a big deal they get feats every level for weapons, but for Bob he has to be more careful. And while longswords are cool he might not want to throw 4 of his 10 feats all into them, were as the fighter with 21 feats might never give it a second thought and go for it with the longsword and the battle axe if the mood strikes him. Thus the advantage of the fighter is he can devote so much to just a single weapon and still do it all again with another weapon, and yet even then he hasn't devoted quite the 40% of his feats as the barbarian did with just going full bore with the one.
I'm houseruling in my games that non-fighters (or multiclass fighters who don't have the requisite level) can qualify for "fighter feats" if they have the equivalent BAB to the level required as well as a certain Ability Score (usually Dex or Str at 13, 15, or 17).
This makes it still easier for Fighters to qualify for the feats and thus still gives them a bit of a "special" bonus, but doesn't make it exclusive in case a player really feels one of those feats is appropriate for his/her character.
Generally, I don't like exclusive feats, particularly tailored to having a certain level in a certain class. There are other feats that require having class levels in something, but they tend to be a little more flexible (frex, the extra Ki feat obviously is for people with monk levels, but it doesn't have to be a specific number; the various spellcaster feats generally apply to ALL spellcasters, not just a specific spellcasting class, etc.)
I do agree the Fighter still could have gotten a little more flavor worked into the class build itself; feats aren't going to fix them that much. OTOH, the class is still waaaaaaaaaaay better than it was in 3.x so I'm not going to complain too much.
The only thing that distinguishes fighters from other melee is their ability to be better with a specific weapon.
Every other class gets a generic combat bonus. But the Fighter can say "I'm a swordsman" and MEAN it.
Taking away fighter-exclusive feats is non-sensical. It's a feat unique to the class...so what? Plenty of other feats (and for the previous naysayer, all those BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE sources) refer to class only features.
Backwards compatability is why this was done. If you don't like it, just House Rule it to Weapons Training +1,2,3, etc at the appropriate levels, and it amounts to the very same thing.
Uniqueness is to be prized between classes. Might as well let fighters specialize in evocations if you are going to let wizards specialize in swords. Oh, and give Fighters Poor Spellcasting, like Wizards get Poor BAB. Absolute equality, right?
anyone and everyone gets to take feats, and other melee have no problem qualifying for melee feats...the only feats fighters can take with their bonuses. Ruling some of them off-limits is the same thing as making them a 'swap' ability, or substitution level...there is NO difference. "Instead of a 4th level bonus feat, the Fighter may elect to take Weapon Specialization in a weapon he has Weapon Focus in." That's all it is!!
--
As for 'fighter knacks', why don't you just call them 'manuvers' and do what WoTC did? Eesh. Stick with feats, and pre-reqs.
===Aelryinth
Every other class gets a generic combat bonus. But the Fighter can say "I'm a swordsman" and MEAN it.
I've never really liked this, personally. I don't think that's what a fighter should be.
If anything, a fighter should be a MORE flexible warrior, as contrasted against barbarians and paladins who are forced to specialize by their lack of feats.
Occorse, if they want to take Weapon Specialization in my game they still can. Their call.
Every other class gets a generic combat bonus. But the Fighter can say "I'm a swordsman" and MEAN it.I've never really liked this, personally. I don't think that's what a fighter should be.
If anything, a fighter should be a MORE flexible warrior, as contrasted against barbarians and paladins who are forced to specialize by their lack of feats.
Occorse, if they want to take Weapon Specialization in my game they still can. Their call.
??
I'm missing somethign here. The barb and pally's abilities work all the time, on anythign they use. They are generalists in the truest sense. The pally has this extra 'kick' against Evil they can invoke.The barb has a suite of abilities giving them staying power, manuverability, and survivability in combat. Specializing in a weapon isn't neccessary, and brings up a lot of practice and discipline that isn't core to the class. You don't call a barb a fencer...you do call a fighter a fencer. Conan was perfectly happy with a sword or axe in his hands, he didn't care.
The fighter can train to be awesome with a single weapon. The Archer. The swordsman. THe lancer. The Fencer. The Spearman. Iconic types that fall into fighter roles, masters of a specific weapon.
I don't see where pally's and barbs would obsess to that degree over a weapon.
===Aelryinth