Originally Posted by psiclone57
This doesn't mean you can't have nice things -- you should be the best at what you do because you're specialized at kicking ass in melee with weapons. But a Master of Arms is what a Fighter is, not 'oh, a halberd? I have seven feats sunk into using a glaive, so can't use this halberd.'
If Master At Arms is what you think a fighter should be, than why should it be called Fighter instead of Master At Arms, since the second of those is what it actually is? And what happens when someone does want to build a specialist with a particular weapon, is that just not possible? Or do we need another class for that? What about when they want their fighter to be built around battlefield cunning, instead, or pure mental focus? There's a reason people are typically happy with barbarian as a separate class — rage is a big concept, a major stylistic choice. It deserves individual attention, and so do other concepts.
The issue is that the styles of play, imagery, and mechanical concepts people envision for a "fighter" vary to a degree that makes the class doomed to fail. This goes beyond just "how do I shot sword" vs. "how do I shot axe," into questions of exactly what you want the class to be doing from round to round. And if the answer is "auto-attacking," then the fighter will still suck and still be boring.