| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it odd how a class that was supposed to be a mix between ranger and rogue became the replacement of the fighter. Really odd, since the slayer doesn't replace the ranger at all and only barely replaces the rogue.
Core fighter makes a great NPC combatant class...
The archetypes are what make it unique. Rynjin made this point very well. I'm looking forward to the Sensate.
Just for the sake of discussion, which archetypes make it unique?
Looking at the d20pfsrd page, I see Lore Warden, Mutation Warrior, Eldritch Guardian, and...Martial Master seems kinda interesting. Apparently there might be an occult archetype to add to that list. That's about it. AFAIK most of the other archetypes sit between "bland and only marginally better than a stock fighter while forcing a lot more specialization" and "terrible".
-Brawler-lockdown MASTER with its combo of abilities, no one escapes, no one casts spells when in the range of his backhan- technically possible with other fighters with a fighter specific fear, but this archetype has a large boost to stand still. Lore warden can fill the maneuver, but still nowhere as good with concentration debuffs.
But yes, this is the "so you are eyeing a feat chain?" class. The fact that most of its abilities are a bit vacuous and can be traded out is kind of an advantage- you are not restricted to any particular concept of a warrior, even if you stay a vanilla fight. It is meant to be a blank sheet of paper (and an admittedly limited pallet of colors to paint it with)
But lets compare this to swashbuckler- it is hard to talk about a NON-DEX swashbuckler, right? But the actual class's abilities hardly tie it to dex at all (it is just very, very dex friendly). And because of its actual abilities, it actually removes a lot of the need for a dex build (it encourages sword and board and gives a scaling bonus to AC, so that is out; its only good save is reflex; it gives pretty good bonuses to intiative). About the only solid justification to go dex over str I could find was AoOs, and even that is a bit 'meh'.
But its flavor and the expectations of the players tie it completely to dex, even when it is not built that way.
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
Except that teamwork feats are utterly worthless unless at least one other person in the party has them. A cavalier may only get 3 bonus teamwork feats by default, but they don't require that the rest of the party spend their valuable feat slots just so the martial can have his class ability matter worth a damn. It'd be like requiring all the PCs to get the 'Alive and willing' feat just so a cleric's Channel Energy class feature could affect them. Such an arrangement would not a real healer make, thus 'all the combat bonus feats' does not a fighter turn into a teamwork-oriented soldier.
A squaddie is a great backstory, but there comes a level that in order to keep adventuring said squaddie really needs to grow beyond it.Exactly.
Experienced soldiers learn tactics and get promoted. You were a private at first level, but at 4th level you should be taking on a sergeant role. Expecting to stay a pfc for 20 levels is kind of silly.
A fighter never learns to fight in a unit, so is really a poor choice for a soldier. Fighter works (as much as it ever does) for someone dedicated to the art of single combat more like a miyamoto musashi, or a gladiator.
Samurai is a thing, y'know. They don't have to work in a unit and their class features means they excel at one-on-one fights (look at Challenge). They can even take fighter feats. So even for single combat, fighters aren't optimal concept-wise.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter should be more disciplined and premeditated than both the Barbarian and Brawler but no less lethal.
He should be tough and knowledgeable like the Ranger but without the wilderness focus and divine connection to nature.
He should be mighty and brave like the Paladin and Warpriest but without heeding any duty to the higher immortal powers.
He should be cunning like the Rogue and Slayer but less specialized in the arts of stealth and trickery.
His presence should be inspiring like the Bard and Skald but without classical training in the arts.
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
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.
The Fighter's Weapon Training combined with Gloves of Dueling is a hefty and reasonably unique skills-package boost. The Armor Training ability is unique in allowing heavy armor to be used like it was nothing.
More importantly though, the massive stock of bonus feats allow for fighting-style concepts that other classes would have a difficult or impossible time pulling off, which to me is enough alone to justify saying there's a 'Fighter concept'. Plus, with the massive amount of feats available, the Fighter can also do what another class would spend all their feats doing while having plenty of feats left over for Skill Focus or Intimidating Prowess or whatever else they want to do.
It's strange to me that in a system where people consistently gripe about feat-taxes and being feat-starved, the class whose biggest advantage is "here, have an absolute ton of feats!" is called out as lacking any real advantage or flavor.
The Fighter's Weapon Training combined with Gloves of Dueling is a hefty and reasonably unique skills-package boost.
'Here, have some more hit/damage" is not a skills package boost.
The Armor Training ability is unique in allowing heavy armor to be used like it was nothing.
Unless you're a massively Dex based character, it does nothing for you past about Armor Training 2, and little for you then.
More importantly though, the massive stock of bonus feats allow for fighting-style concepts that other classes would have a difficult or impossible time pulling off, which to me is enough alone to justify saying there's a 'Fighter concept'. Plus, with the massive amount of feats available, the Fighter can also do what another class would spend all their feats doing while having plenty of feats left over for Skill Focus or Intimidating Prowess or whatever else they want to do.
It's strange to me that in a system where people consistently gripe about feat-taxes and being feat-starved, the class whose biggest advantage is "here, have an absolute ton of feats!" is called out as lacking any real advantage or flavor.
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.
And it still doesn't change the fact that they have zero good or interesting class features. Weapon Training: +numbers, Armor Training: +/-numbers, Bravery: The worst save booster in the game. Like, wow.
And then there's Feats...which everyone gets, just less of. I'll take a class who struggles with a Feat chain and gets oodles of interesting class features (Like the Inquisitor. Or Ranger. or Paladin. or any other class but Fighter.) every time over the guy whose only mechanical and thematic niche is "I can use this one weapon good and access some generally not worthwhile Feats really fast".
There are a few, VERY few Feat chains you can point to and say "Yeah, I'm taking that because it's really strong" instead of "Yeah, that sounds neat even though I'll probably be better off just two handing a Greatsword" (lookin' at you, Whip Feats, the Feat Tax-y-est weapon style this side of crossbows).
There are a few, VERY few Feat chains you can point to and say "Yeah, I'm taking that because it's really strong" instead of "Yeah, that sounds neat even though I'll probably be better off just two handing a Greatsword" (lookin' at you, Whip Feats, the Feat Tax-y-est weapon style this side of crossbows).
This thread has understandably gone schizophrenic between power and concept...
For many concepts I would also go with a more 'interesting' class, but 'ton-o-feats' can be a very interesting and potentially powerful class feature when used creatively.
As a 'basic' example without archetypes or dips (which both dramatically expand Fighters more than anyone else), start out with the classic two-hand guy in full-plate that anyone can do effectively. Now give him 17DEX and TWF stuff, and cross it with Improved Unarmed Strike, Dragon Style/Ferocity, Crane Chain, Combat Style Master. You now have a fighter whose standard attacks are two-handed, whose full attacks combine a one-handed weapon and an offhand with a two-hander strength bonus, who exploits his ton of static weapon bonus with both hands, who wears full-plate that doesn't cap his movement, and who defends and counter-attacks with Crane.
There are a few, VERY few Feat chains you can point to and say "Yeah, I'm taking that because it's really strong" instead of "Yeah, that sounds neat even though I'll probably be better off just two handing a Greatsword" (lookin' at you, Whip Feats, the Feat Tax-y-est weapon style this side of crossbows).This thread has understandably gone schizophrenic between power and concept...
For many concepts I would also go with a more 'interesting' class, but 'ton-o-feats' can be a very interesting and potentially powerful class feature when used creatively.
As a 'basic' example without archetypes or dips (which both dramatically expand Fighters more than anyone else), start out with the classic two-hand guy in full-plate that anyone can do effectively. Now give him 17DEX and TWF stuff, and cross it with Improved Unarmed Strike, Dragon Style/Ferocity, Crane Chain, Combat Style Master. You now have a fighter whose standard attacks are two-handed, whose full attacks combine a one-handed weapon and an offhand with a two-hander strength bonus, who exploits his ton of static weapon bonus with both hands, who wears full-plate that doesn't cap his movement, and who defends and counter-attacks with Crane.
So what concept is that, exactly, and how is it one the Fighter fills but others don't?
That's the thing. Feats are not concepts. They're not even a mechanical niche that other classes don't have.
You could build that exact same thing with a lot of classes. It's a fighting style. Not a class concept.
That's not how dominate spells work.And when the enemy dominates him, because of his low Will save, he will very carefully, and politely rip the nearest party member to shreds, before anyone can say:
"But fighters suck."
you can easily give them an order to kill such and such guy...
after that it's up to GM discretion on what is and is not against their nature and they simply get a new save.
The first thing the fighter needs is a good look at his concept.
The game treats the fighter as "Bob the man at arms" and that does NOT help the class any.
The fighter needs to be the best at what he does (fighting), not to be "just someone who whields a sword and wears armor". The fighter should be someone who excels at fighting, to an extent other classes should not be able to match because they all have other strengths, while fighting is the only strength of the fighter.
What the fighter should be is a champion, a master of fighting with weapons and armor, not just A soldier but THE soldier, the one who has what it takes to be the BEST. When you think "fighter" you should think about the likes of Achilles, Sandor Clegane, Gimli (the Tolkien version), Gotrek Gurnisson, Rambo and so on.
If we understand the fighter class should not be treated just as the upgraded version of the warrior NPC class then we can move on and have a solid base to upgrade the fighter as what it should be, if we keep thinking "fighters are the class to represent the common man with some fighting experience" then we are not going anywhere. The fighter can very well be a guy who's just left his farm for grand adventure, yet while 9 out of 10 of those like him go back to the farm after a week or get killed pretty soon, the fighter has the talent to actually suceed, because he's exceptionally talented in a way he can't be with the current ruleset.
One last thing: thematical discussion aside one of the reasons the fighter class has declined so badly is the lack of support. Consider this: in CORE the fighter may be at a little disadvantage if compared with other martials but it's not that bad. But play with the full ruleset and things change rapidly. Because classes like the barbarian or the monk got a lot of support while the fighter did not, almost nothing unique has been given to the class through the years while other martial classes where given a lot of attention (just check ultimate combat). This is probably due to the thematic problems discussed above yet if Paizo wants to give all classes a chance to be played and the players who could choose them a reason to play them besides "I've loved the fighter since 1st edition" this needs to change.
What the fighter should be is a champion, a master of fighting with weapons and armor, not just A soldier but THE soldier, the one who has what it takes to be the BEST. When you think "fighter" you should think about the likes of Achilles, Sandor Clegane, Gimli (the Tolkien version), Gotrek Gurnisson, Rambo and so on.
Sounds good to me. If you can buff the fighter to these levels without making him defy logic (i.e., use magic by another name,) then I'd be all for that.
What would be nice is advanced fighting styles, sort of like blademastery from Wheel of Time. You could utilize different stances, forms, etc. to perform a variety of cool, but still very "fighter"-esque abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the fighter should be is a champion, a master of fighting with weapons and armor, not just A soldier but THE soldier, the one who has what it takes to be the BEST. When you think "fighter" you should think about the likes of Achilles, Sandor Clegane, Gimli (the Tolkien version), Gotrek Gurnisson, Rambo and so on.Sounds good to me. If you can buff the fighter to these levels without making him defy logic (i.e., use magic by another name,) then I'd be all for that.
What would be nice is advanced fighting styles, sort of like blademastery from Wheel of Time. You could utilize different stances, forms, etc. to perform a variety of cool, but still very "fighter"-esque abilities.
Well this is a straight patch to fighters that allows them to burn feats for flashier stuff, if that's your persuasion.
What the fighter should be is a champion, a master of fighting with weapons and armor, not just A soldier but THE soldier, the one who has what it takes to be the BEST. When you think "fighter" you should think about the likes of Achilles, Sandor Clegane, Gimli (the Tolkien version), Gotrek Gurnisson, Rambo and so on.Sounds good to me. If you can buff the fighter to these levels without making him defy logic (i.e., use magic by another name,) then I'd be all for that.
What would be nice is advanced fighting styles, sort of like blademastery from Wheel of Time. You could utilize different stances, forms, etc. to perform a variety of cool, but still very "fighter"-esque abilities.
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?
Not really but we are supposed to accept that because he has "totemic links" and the like. The same way when a fighter fights he's more accurate than it should be possible, he wears armor and it protects him better than it would anyone else, at suitably high levels he gets to do things that can emulate the effects of magic, so they adapt their combat style to their power (jumping long distances making them able to cope with flight but not flaying, being able to hold breath far longer than a normal man would be able to, being able to identify structural weaknesses in structures and constructs, growing harder and harder to wound and so on).
I don't think the fighter should increase his utility outside of combat. Yes, getting 4 skill points should be done, but besides that the fighter is not a class meant to be adding much utility to the party, there are other classes for that, and they need to have an edge on those areas of the game to stay as viable as the fighter while being different and filling other nices.
Ok this is not meant to be a rage thing or a hate thread or whatever, I am legitimately curious of this.
What concept does the fighter cover tjat other classes just don't do better? Between Cavalier, Brawler, Slayer, Ranger, Barbarian, and swashbuckler I dont see what he has. Oh and even worse, thematically a magus does the whole "warrior with sacred weapon thing" better tha the fighter as well...
Conceptually there is no niche that is solely the fighter's. Mechanically however it provides a simple class that doesn't have a lot of moving parts. There are a number of people who want a class that provides that. See the voluminous threads on the issue across the Internet (e.g. WotC forums when 5th edition first came out) for evidence.
Rhedyn, did you author Fighter 2.0? I quite like it but I notice that the ability gained at 13 and 20 are the same. Not sure if it is an editing error, if they are intended to stack (2 additional standard actions at 20) or if there's something else going on. Do you know?
Rhedyn, did you author Fighter 2.0? I quite like it but I notice that the ability gained at 13 and 20 are the same. Not sure if it is an editing error, if they are intended to stack (2 additional standard actions at 20) or if there's something else going on. Do you know?
Yes, yes, and yes. They are additional standard action but they are still consumed with a full-attack.
Thanks!
Well this is a straight patch to fighters that allows them to burn feats for flashier stuff, if that's your persuasion.
I made a game using almost nothing but 3rd party classes, and allowed this for Fighter recently, but nobody was interested. =/
Oh well, more for me. They'll get used AGAINST the party at least.
hmm thought this would be a discussion about the fighters concept thematically, turns out to be another fighter sucks thread. Have fun
Which is sad because:
Ok this is not meant to be a rage thing or a hate thread or whatever, I am legitimately curious of this.
But to actually add something to the discussion...
Personally, the fighter is a good solid base to judge most other classes by; they are the basic melee combatant and can fulfill it adequately to fantastically depending on the build. Mostly if a melee class can't do what it's intended niche can as well as a well built fighter then the class may need to be reworked.
Well this is a straight patch to fighters that allows them to burn feats for flashier stuff, if that's your persuasion.I made a game using almost nothing but 3rd party classes, and allowed this for Fighter recently, but nobody was interested. =/
Oh well, more for me. They'll get used AGAINST the party at least.
I pity them, I know what a creative build can do with them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the fighter should be is a champion, a master of fighting with weapons and armor, not just A soldier but THE soldier, the one who has what it takes to be the BEST. When you think "fighter" you should think about the likes of Achilles, Sandor Clegane, Gimli (the Tolkien version), Gotrek Gurnisson, Rambo and so on.Sounds good to me. If you can buff the fighter to these levels without making him defy logic (i.e., use magic by another name,) then I'd be all for that.
What would be nice is advanced fighting styles, sort of like blademastery from Wheel of Time. You could utilize different stances, forms, etc. to perform a variety of cool, but still very "fighter"-esque abilities.
Stances and cool special abilities? Sounds a lot like Tome of Battle/Path of War.
Words
And yet the thing the fighter does just plain easier than the barbarian is have higher AC. Which is exactly what I have been suggesting is the Fighter's point, or theme. It doesn't matter if barbarians can dish out a little more damage, because that was not what I was trying to show.
I you don't like Antagonize, sub in furious focus. that would provide a more Two-Handed capable character. Lets go with that since is more in your taste.
An attack bonus of +11 is 1 less than twelve, I'd hardly call that a huge difference.
Two-Handed:
+11/+4 vs +12/+5
2d6+12 vs 2d6+14
AC 25 vs AC 25 (or 26)
note:it is a move action to drop a shield. In a melee, this can be done and with Quick Draw, Also do a standard action +11 2d6+12 hit with a greatsword.
One Handed
+11/+6 vs. +9/+4
1d8+5 vs. 1d6+9
AC 30 vs. 25
Ranged
2 Chakrams
+7/+7+2 vs. +11/+6
1d8+4 1d8+5
AC 30 AC 25
So for normal non-wizard enemies, the fighter has significantly higher AC, unless he should decide to drop his shield and do almost as much damage as the barbarian does. It should be noted that if the barbarian were confused and attacked this fighter, the fighter could make the barbarian only hit on a natural 20. If you are concerned with getting high touch AC, well that's the level 9 ability.
Saves:
When not raging
8 vs. 8
6 8
4 3
This is for all those times outside of rage, like diseased sewer water, surprise rounds, hazards and traps. They are about the same.
When raging you go up to +11,+11,+6 (isn't it +3 from superstition at level 6?) and you give up the ability to accept other spells, like haste, or fly, or heal. So great, you've made a trade off. Well done.
Skills, take what you like. They seem close enough. It's not hard to just take UMD instead if you value it.
WordsAnd yet the thing the fighter does just plain easier than the barbarian is have higher AC. Which is exactly what I have been suggesting is the Fighter's point, or theme. It doesn't matter if barbarians can dish out a little more damage, because that was not what I was trying to show.
I you don't like Antagonize, sub in furious focus. that would provide a more Two-Handed capable character. Lets go with that since is more in your taste.
An attack bonus of +11 is 1 less than twelve, I'd hardly call that a huge difference.
Two-Handed:
+11/+4 vs +12/+5
2d6+12 vs 2d6+14
AC 25 vs AC 25 (or 26)note:it is a move action to drop a shield. In a melee, this can be done and with Quick Draw, Also do a standard action +11 2d6+12 hit with a greatsword.
One Handed
+11/+6 vs. +9/+4
1d8+5 vs. 1d6+9
AC 30 vs. 25Ranged
2 Chakrams
+7/+7+2 vs. +11/+6
1d8+4 1d8+5
AC 30 AC 25So for normal non-wizard enemies, the fighter has significantly higher AC, unless he should decide to drop his shield and do almost as much damage as the barbarian does. It should be noted that if the barbarian were confused and attacked this fighter, the fighter could make the barbarian only hit on a natural 20. If you are concerned with getting high touch AC, well that's the level 9 ability.
Saves:
When not raging
8 vs. 8
6 8
4 3
This is for all those times outside of rage, like diseased sewer water, surprise rounds, hazards and traps. They are about the same.When raging you go up to +11,+11,+6 (isn't it +3 from superstition at level 6?) and you give up the ability to accept other spells, like haste, or fly, or heal. So great, you've made a trade off. Well done.
Skills, take what you like. They seem close enough. It's not hard to just take UMD instead if you value it.
so they walk past you and/or grapple you while the rest walk past you, high AC just means enemies will try to avoid you. antagonize is on 1 guy.(and i'm not even getting into the ways to ignore armor)
a barbarian instead gets DR and HP boosts
|
|
The fighter should be more disciplined and premeditated than both the Barbarian and Brawler but no less lethal.
He should be tough and knowledgeable like the Ranger but without the wilderness focus and divine connection to nature.
He should be mighty and brave like the Paladin and Warpriest but without heeding any duty to the higher immortal powers.
He should be cunning like the Rogue and Slayer but less specialized in the arts of stealth and trickery.
His presence should be inspiring like the Bard and Skald but without classical training in the arts.
To address these 5 concerns, my homebrew fighter applies these 5 fixes:
1 - He gains "prowess feats" on top of his regular feats prepared (like a Wizard) 1/day
2 - He gains additional Knowledge skills as class skills and Armor Training grants DR/-
3 - He gains a good will save and Weapon Training comes online at 1st level
4 - He gains 4 skill points per level and Perception as a class skill
5 - He gains Diplomacy as a class skill and adds his Bravery bonus to his Leadership score (if any)
The question was "What does a fighter do, what is its concept, what makes it unique?" Well, that's it. It moves at full speed with high AC.
Complaining about things they can't do is like saying that wizards have no point because they can't do anything in an anti-magic field. Technically correct, but it doesn't answer the original question.
If they go for a grapple, then fine. Not every enemy is a grappler, just like how not every enemy is a spellcaster. One thing you could do, is utilize the tower shield a gain total cover on one side, forcing your enemies to move around you (potentially provoking, if that is even an option given the terrain). Furthermore, if the enemy grapples using grab, it can't start if it cant hit AC, and if it is a monk, well monks are a great class then aren't they? And stopping enemies from moving past is something this build can do well, with combat relexes(4), lunge and stand still.
HP boosts are a trap, a surefire way to become dead. Especially if you resist all friendly spells.
The question was "What does a fighter do, what is its concept, what makes it unique?" Well, that's it. It moves at full speed with high AC.
...But that's not unique, and "Moves normal speed in armor" is not a character concept.
"Armor Expert" is a concept. Shield bearers, guys whose job it is is to have a big old shield, were a real thing. To be honest, it's one that has fallen by the wayside, and a lack of good options in supplements have left it as a less exciting option, and the fighter class has suffered less from power inflation/bloat. But if you go back to Core, the fighter is the only class that moves at full speed in full-plate with an armor check of 0, and is the only one to get automatic Tower Shields, whether or not you particularly like using these things.
The problem is two-fold. First, armor isn't worth much in a game where so many things avoid/ignore it and also BAB rises so much more quickly than AC. Second, even if a class did have the suitable defenses, it would still need a way of making those defenses useful to the party, which would require some sort of superior taunt type ability.
if only fighters got to pretend their armor and shield bonus were cumulative deflection bonus... then it might be really interesting.
You mean like Antagonize? Or saving shield, or shield wall, or shielded caster? I do actually think these are pretty naff, and also designed for the cavalier, which usuped the role.
You mean like Antagonize? Or saving shield, or shield wall, or shielded caster? I do actually think these are pretty naff, and also designed for the cavalier, which usuped the role.
antagonize is one person who i believe then becomes immune to it for 24 hours. so you just wasted your turn to make someone attack you. yeah so you used a standard action, to make something attack you for 1 turn...
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 Tax
I support this. Thunder and Fang, Whip Mastery..
I think of rangers as being the ones who get to ignore feat taxes. TWF having such high dexterity prerequisites is ridiculous.
Armored Rager Archetypew with Beast Totem. Not sure if can stack with indominatable rager or scarred.
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.
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.
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.
|
Lore Warden is probably the "best unique archtype". It's difficult to get CMB bonuses, and they get it like a charm.... and make high-level maneuvering viable (especially if combined with 1-2 levels of Manuever Master, but I digress).
I think that is also the best use of tons of feats that I have seen... since you can reliably avoid simply "concentrating on tripping" and be a tripping-grappling-dirty tricking machine.