Returning the Fighter to relevance.

[Nifft]

I mean in the sense that you can build a two-weapon fighter, a two-handed fighter, sword-and-board, heavy armor specialist, etc. Each individual fighter doesn't have much wiggle room, but the fighter chassis allows for several different styles.

It sure does.

And those styles give the appearance of relevance.

But in combat, they fail to behave in ways that are actually relevant, and that's the disconnect.

Out of combat, they fail even harder at behaving in ways that are relevant to solving the non-combat encounter, so that's bad too.

======


Basically: Fighters were never relevant in this edition.

"Make Fighters Great Again" is just an empty slogan.

[NerdHut]

Basically: Fighters were never relevant in this edition.

"Make Fighters Great Again" is just an empty slogan.

I'm not advocating "Make Fighters Great Again." I'm advocating "Make Fighters As Great As They Should Have Been To Start With! Dang It WotC, I'm Looking At You! You Done Goofed!" That slogan rolls right off the tongue.

I know Fighters started off pretty pitiful in 3.0/3.5. This isn't about when Fighters started being a weak class, it's about making them into (at least) a decent class now.

[Anthrowhale]

Many suggestions here focus on bigger numbers and new abilities for a fighter. Instead, I'd suggest focusing on versatility. Something like:

(1) The fighter may choose any 7 skills as class skills.
(2) Every feat is a fighter bonus feat.
(3) Every day, a fighter may spend one hour to swap any subset of fighter bonus feats for others.

This makes the fighter into a feat-wizard, strongly augmenting their versatility.

[Deophaun]

Many suggestions here focus on bigger numbers and new abilities for a fighter. Instead, I'd suggest focusing on versatility. Something like:

(1) The fighter may choose any 7 skills as class skills.
(2) Every feat is a fighter bonus feat.
(3) Every day, a fighter may spend one hour to swap any subset of fighter bonus feats for others.

This makes the fighter into a feat-wizard, strongly augmenting their versatility.

That just makes a one or two level dip more attractive for other classes (Wizard dips fighter for all the crafting feats! Sorcerer dips fighter for all the spells!). It does little to make Fighter 20 good.

[Anthrowhale]

That just makes a one or two level dip more attractive for other classes (Wizard dips fighter for all the crafting feats! Sorcerer dips fighter for all the spells!). It does little to make Fighter 20 good.

The goal isn't surpassing a Wizard but rather making a fighter relevant. A feat-wizard like this can be relevant in many circumstances.

[OldTrees1]

That just makes a one or two level dip more attractive for other classes (Wizard dips fighter for all the crafting feats! Sorcerer dips fighter for all the spells!). It does little to make Fighter 20 good.

Your argument is incomplete to the point of being fallacious. Abrupt Jaunt makes a Wizard 1 dip more attractive but that does not stop it from improving Wizard 20.

Any buff to Fighter 2 that is not made obsolete by Fighter levels 3-20 will buff Fighter 20.


As for "make any feat a fighter feat", there are plenty of good combat feats or utility feats a Fighter might want/need to take that are not on the Fighter list. Expanding the list is one way to allow the Fighter to take these feats. So it would indeed buff Fighter.

As for "allow the fighter to swap between bonus feats like a mage swaps between spells", this is one of the ways to expand horizontal optimization further than the desired vertical optimization would otherwise allow. Obviously this also buffs Fighter.

The question is not about whether these would buff Fighter (since they categorically and obviously do), but whether these are the right buffs to implement.

[NerdHut]

Many suggestions here focus on bigger numbers and new abilities for a fighter. Instead, I'd suggest focusing on versatility. Something like:

(1) The fighter may choose any 7 skills as class skills.
(2) Every feat is a fighter bonus feat.
(3) Every day, a fighter may spend one hour to swap any subset of fighter bonus feats for others.

This makes the fighter into a feat-wizard, strongly augmenting their versatility.

A better option might be to keep the current fighter feat list intact (subject to tweaking, but to keep the combat theme going), and to make general feats available to choose at later levels. That will discourage spellcasters from dipping into the class just for extra feats.

I do like the idea of a fighter being able to retrain fighter feats with ease though. Each day he can prepare for a different type of challenge.

[OldTrees1]

A better option might be to keep the current fighter feat list intact (subject to tweaking, but to keep the combat theme going), and to make general feats available to choose at later levels. That will discourage spellcasters from dipping into the class just for extra feats.

I do like the idea of a fighter being able to retrain fighter feats with ease though. Each day he can prepare for a different type of challenge.

So something like:

Bonus Feats
At every level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat. These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

At 11th level and onwards, the fighter is not limited to only selecting feats noted as fighter bonus feats.

Once per day, by spending 1 hour of meditation and practice, a fighter can change the feats they chose as bonus feats. Bonus feats awarded before 11th level can only be swapped for other feats noted as fighter bonus feats.

[NerdHut]

So something like:

That or a similar set-up, yeah.

[Arbane]

A better option might be to keep the current fighter feat list intact (subject to tweaking, but to keep the combat theme going), and to make general feats available to choose at later levels. That will discourage spellcasters from dipping into the class just for extra feats.

I do like the idea of a fighter being able to retrain fighter feats with ease though. Each day he can prepare for a different type of challenge.

Pathfinder came up with the Martial Master Fighter, who has a few 'floating' feats they can assign on the fly - for one minute each. It's still a Nice Thing for Fighters. (Paizo has come out with a few of these lately.)

(Bizarrely, it's a Nicer Thing For Warsighted Oracles, who get access to Martial Flexibility at first level, not fifth. What gives, Paizo? )

[Nifft]

I'm not advocating "Make Fighters Great Again." I'm advocating "Make Fighters As Great As They Should Have Been To Start With! Dang It WotC, I'm Looking At You! You Done Goofed!" That slogan rolls right off the tongue.

I know Fighters started off pretty pitiful in 3.0/3.5. This isn't about when Fighters started being a weak class, it's about making them into (at least) a decent class now.

Looking backwards, what made Fighters relevant in 1e was:
- Great saving throws.
- Faster level advancement than Wizards.
- Having more attacks meant always going first in combat.
- No bonus slots meant that a Wizard's spells were a very limited tactical resource. Using sleep meant winning one fight. You didn't get to do that all day.


Looking forwards, what makes Fighters relevant in 4e is:
- Toughness. The Fighter "skeleton" is strong.
- Tactical options. 4e strongly relies on the combat grid, and Fighter powers do a good job of exploiting enemy grid positioning with stuff like forced movement & cleaving damage into two adjacent foes.
- Defender Marking. There are a bunch of "YOUR OPPONENT IS ME" abilities which try to force a foe to attack a harder target, and the Fighter has a good one.


Looking forward more, what makes Fighters relevant in 5e is:
- Best stats or most feats in the game. Fighters get more ability boosts than any other class (and you can convert any ability boost into a feat).
- Most attacks in the game. Most combat classes top out at 2 attacks per round; a Fighter can get 4.
- Action economy exploitation. Fighters have the ability to take an extra action a few times per day. It's strong.

[arkangel111]

I see the main problem with not scrapping the class and finding another (ToB/PoW) is that any buff or change to feats affects every class ultimately leaving the fighter in the same niche (the trash). I still think it would be easier and would have far less impact on the rest of the game if you made a new discipline or 2 that grabbed what exactly it is you are wanting. I Personally, am looking at designing more maneuvers that keep the "feel" of mundane.

[Arbane]

I see the main problem with not scrapping the class and finding another (ToB/PoW) is that any buff or change to feats affects every class ultimately leaving the fighter in the same niche (the trash).

ISTR reading that at some point in D&D3's development Feats were for Fighters only. Any reason we can't have more feats that require Fighter Level X, where X > 2? (Or some other way of phrasing it that doesn't hose characters who prestige-class out of Fighter.)

[Deophaun]

The goal isn't surpassing a Wizard but rather making a fighter relevant.

Speaking of relevancy, this point is irrelevant, as the post you quoted said nothing about surpassing a wizard.

A feat-wizard like this can be relevant in many circumstances.

Yes, as a two level dip for any class that has actual features; the best feats are in support of those features. It is irrelevant to making a Fighter.

Your argument is incomplete to the point of being fallacious. Abrupt Jaunt makes a Wizard 1 dip more attractive but that does not stop it from improving Wizard 20.

But Abrupt Jaunt does little for improving Wizard 20. Is there a fallacy where you change someone's argument around so that it's something that wasn't stated or argued? Let's ask the scarecrow if he knows.

[OldTrees1]

But Abrupt Jaunt does little for improving Wizard 20. Is there a fallacy where you change someone's argument around so that it's something that wasn't stated or argued? Let's ask the scarecrow if he knows.

So you were not using "does little" as a shorthand for "does next to nothing"? If I read that wrong, then tell me so. You focused the majority of that post on the effect of a dip on a non Fighter and so your conclusion "does little for Fighter" had no support to draw from in your post. Hence why I said incomplete to the point of fallacious. You did not have any premises or statements in that post that lent themselves to your conclusion.

[Anthrowhale]

Speaking of relevancy, this point is irrelevant, as the post you quoted said nothing about surpassing a wizard.

I was assuming an implication that the goal was getting Fighter 20 to rival Wizard 20. If that's not so, then I don't understand what you were trying to say.

Incidentally, I also disagree with your dip thesis since a floating feat is not worth the lost spell progression until at least level 18. Instead, a Wizard should keep full casting and use Psychic Reformation to rejigger their last feat if necessary.

[John Longarrow]

Several people have advocated "floating feats" or "changeable feats". In game play, what would be the real difference between being able to choose a feat tree at the beginning of the day/combat/round and just having that feat?

Wouldn't it be effectively the same as just saying "OK, at this level you get this bunch of feats"? Either that style will be relevant all of the time (due to gear / stats / character build / RP) or it won't be used. If it is relevant, why deprive the fighter of it at other times?

[Seerow]

Several people have advocated "floating feats" or "changeable feats". In game play, what would be the real difference between being able to choose a feat tree at the beginning of the day/combat/round and just having that feat?

Wouldn't it be effectively the same as just saying "OK, at this level you get this bunch of feats"? Either that style will be relevant all of the time (due to gear / stats / character build / RP) or it won't be used. If it is relevant, why deprive the fighter of it at other times?

The main issue is synergy. If you give a Fighter 20 feats by level 10, he can and will invest all 20 of those feats into a single fighting style and be a monster at that fighting style, but worthless outside of it.

Give him 20 feats by level 10 that must be split up into 4 fighting styles with 5 feats each, that he can change between at will, and he'll be able to be good at 4 distinct things; the lack of synergy encourages the player to seek out other things to do.


For example, my Fighter fix gives the Fighter up to 4 distinct Fighting Styles that he can switch between easily. Each of his fighter bonus feats gives a feat for each style. So by level 20 he has 44 feats, 11 in each style. This usually ends up one of two ways. Either the player picks a primary style, and uses his baseline feats to supplement that, but then he has 3 other styles to use situationally. Alternatively the player goes for a more balanced approach using his baseline feats on generically useful things and switches between styles regularly. In either case it ends up a lot more balanced, more diverse, and more manageable than the character would be if they just had 44+ feats active at all times.

[John Longarrow]

Down side to the concept of "Switching feats" is that if feels like a video game solution not something organic.

For a wizard, the whole "Prepare spells ahead of time" has been justified with "OK, you spend a minute getting this spell ready, but when you cast you only spend a couple seconds completing it" in the past. This lets a game mechanic used for balance at least have some justification other than "Hey, its really just a game so go with it".

For feat chains you can justify, to an extent at least, learning A, then B, then C and calling them a "Style" which people generally learn. This is similar to how many martial arts are taught.

Changing between styles though feels like saying "OK, now you know how to punch but you have forgotten everything about using a bow". More important it feels like saying "OK, you want to be the best archer, you spend all your time practicing archery, now you have mastered using a shield".

For me it doesn't say "Balanced" or "Diverse", it says "You play your character how I decide".

I don't see anything wrong with letting a fighter be a lot better at one thing than any other melee character. If the PLAYER wants to build something optimized for one function I don't think the rules should prevent it, much like there is no rule that says a spell caster can't load up on ONLY offensive fire spells.

To achieve variety I'm expecting the player to learn about the game, find out that building a one trick pony isn't the best, and then taking their experience and applying it to their character. I'm also sure that what that player finds works in a given game will be different than what I would propose would work in my game. Hence why I've found every published "Style" for monks/barbarians/what ever isn't what I'd choose. I really don't want to give a player several different poor choices for THEIR game and tell them "OK, this is balance so choose between them".

I see no problem with recommended sets of feats as "Here is something you may want". I see it as a problem when if I tell them "You HAVE to choose between these".

[Seerow]

Changing between styles though feels like saying "OK, now you know how to punch but you have forgotten everything about using a bow". More important it feels like saying "OK, you want to be the best archer, you spend all your time practicing archery, now you have mastered using a shield".

That depends entirely on how hard it is to switch. Like for my fighter it ranges between a move action up to an Immediate Action. So it's not so much "You forgot how to punch a dude" it's more along the lines of shifting stances; which is totally in line with typical martial arts styles.

For me it doesn't say "Balanced" or "Diverse", it says "You play your character how I decide".

I don't see anything wrong with letting a fighter be a lot better at one thing than any other melee character. If the PLAYER wants to build something optimized for one function I don't think the rules should prevent it, much like there is no rule that says a spell caster can't load up on ONLY offensive fire spells.

If you're going to take exception to the idea of designing versatility into a class I'm not sure what the point of a discussion is. I mean if you really like the idea of the ultimate swordsman you can totally do that with stances; set it up something like one style for uber-charging shenanigans and mobility, another style for special combat maneuvers (tripping, bull rushing, etc); another style for AoO control shenanigans; and another one for fighting defensively/turtling up. It's not like anyone's forcing you to go take up ranged combat or TWFing if you don't want to. But it does force you to diversify how you utilize your abilities and making a conscious choice of how you are fighting on a round to round basis, which exactly the sort of gameplay mechanic that Fighters currently lack.

[Ludic]

Maybe make fighters an exception to the rule that Keen and Improved Critical don't stack, for instance, or even give them access to improved crit modifiers.

Normally, I'm very against houseruling; except when it comes to viability. I do this one, and when I am not the DM, I typically talk the DM into it. But only with fighters. And only if that weapon is also their weapon focus and weapon spec weapon. (Bit my current DM when I helped a buddy roll up an Earth Dwarf Half-Minotaur Fighter/War Hulk monkeygripping a Huge Fullblade though. Nothing like a 49 strength and the ability to hit everything in your threat range with one swing and a 12-20 crit threat on a weapon that deals 4d8+str and a half, plus other enhancements.)

I also allow fighters feint as a free action from the get go, because that's something those characters would do, or at least have knowledge of doing.

I treat fighter charges as a pounce.

I allow the dungeoncrasher ACF without losing bonus feats, so long as you take Shock Trooper, in fact, I incorporate it into the feat itself.

I allow fighters to ignore monkeygrip penalty and TWF penalties, unless they're TWF with a monkeygrip weapon, that's a no go. I don't care if you're a fighter, if you are a medium wielding large rapiers, you are not TWF without penalty. Period. Although it is amusing to watch.

I usually favor my martial with magic items to. It's very uncommon when I'm DMing to not have the barb or fighter find an animated shield early on.

I grant my fighters a bonded weapon from level one that is allowed one +1 enhancement bonus for free, I grow the weapon with the fighter and it will eventually become intelligent (sometimes). Bonded growth is separate from other enhancement bonuses so his bonded sword could have a total of +20 enhancement. However, the bonded increases aren't just normal things. I won't give you a flaming bonus from bonding, so much as I give you a weapon that creates a scorching heat when it connects, mimicking the effects of the Matter Agitation Power, (XPH) increasing the effect to the next level each subsequent strike, resetting after every third hit. (1 point of bonus, 1d4 points of bonus, 1d4+1d6 points of bonus, back to 1 point of bonus).

I typically allow my heavy armor fighters to stack miss chances and normally nonstackable bonuses to a point. I tell them when they can't stack anymore.

I usually ignore the fighter bonus feat selection and let them take whatever.

I give them Uncanny Dodge in up to heavy non-exotic armor.

And more skill points, and an expanded skilllist based on their backstory that I will build with them if the don't bring me one.

There's some other stuff I do for my fighters as well that I don't really remember off hand.

I was assuming an implication that the goal was getting Fighter 20 to rival Wizard 20. If that's not so, then I don't understand what you were trying to say.

I believe the goal was to make the fighter a relevant threat at level 20. Not surpassing a tier 1 or tier 2 class. But rather making him someone the BBEGs is going to look at and say 'Well, crap, I have to deal with him'.

[John Longarrow]

I was assuming an implication that the goal was getting Fighter 20 to rival Wizard 20. If that's not so, then I don't understand what you were trying to say.

Relevant isn't equal to. A fighter 20 should be able to take on crap tons of moderate threat enemies for a very long time. Wizard is going to be able to do world changing stuff with spells. They should be dealing with different issues, but the fighter isn't going to "Rival" a wizard is versatility because, well... magic.

That said, the fighter should still have something to do in a high level campaign when the wizard is pulling demons to do his fighting for him.

[John Longarrow]

If you're going to take exception to the idea of designing versatility into a class I'm not sure what the point of a discussion is. I mean if you really like the idea of the ultimate swordsman you can totally do that with stances; set it up something like one style for uber-charging shenanigans and mobility, another style for special combat maneuvers (tripping, bull rushing, etc); another style for AoO control shenanigans; and another one for fighting defensively/turtling up. It's not like anyone's forcing you to go take up ranged combat or TWFing if you don't want to. But it does force you to diversify how you utilize your abilities and making a conscious choice of how you are fighting on a round to round basis, which exactly the sort of gameplay mechanic that Fighters currently lack.

Just so I understand, you OBJECT to the player being able to choose what feats they take because you want versatility? Just to be clear, telling the player they can't choose their feats but have to choose from one of N "Styles" is supposed to increase versatility?

Not sure if you have the same definition of versatility as I do, especially if they don't get to use the different "styles" interchangeably during a fight.

I've got a friend who learned a hard style growing up but also was on the wrestling team. In a real fight he'd have no problem changing between a block, a kick, and taking someone to the ground. No need to change "Style" or "Stance" since he could use any of the techniques he'd learned any time they were relevant. So I'm trying to figure out how limiting a players choices and then limiting which of those they can use at once increases versatility. Maybe I'm totally missing something your saying but it looks like you want to reduce player choice.

[Seerow]

Just so I understand, you OBJECT to the player being able to choose what feats they take because you want versatility? Just to be clear, telling the player they can't choose their feats but have to choose from one of N "Styles" is supposed to increase versatility?

No, that is not what was said at all. The player can pick whatever feats they want, the feats they pick get grouped into styles that they switch between at will.

The only thing I am telling them is "If you are using this set of feats you can't use that other set of feats", aka saying "No you cannot spend all of your feats on one super narrow trick, broaden your horizons a little bit"

I've got a friend who learned a hard style growing up but also was on the wrestling team. In a real fight he'd have no problem changing between a block, a kick, and taking someone to the ground. No need to change "Style" or "Stance" since he could use any of the techniques he'd learned any time they were relevant. So I'm trying to figure out how limiting a players choices and then limiting which of those they can use at once increases versatility. Maybe I'm totally missing something your saying but it looks like you want to reduce player choice.

So you've never heard of needing to reposition or adjust the way you're standing or holding your weapons to fight in a certain way? Because seriously I never got beyond basic martial arts and we still had at least 3 different stances, and different techniques that would be used within those stances. Yes, you can shift stances quickly and be able to adapt to the situation, which is exactly what I suggest being able to do. We're talking about switching with a move action or a swift action (aka an adjustment measured in seconds), not minutes or hours.

[OldTrees1]

Just so I understand, you OBJECT to the player being able to choose what feats they take because you want versatility?

Nope. Nobody is objecting to that.

Let's talk hypotheticals.

You redesign Fighter and make it so a 10th level fighter with 14 feats in one combat style is balanced against level appropriate threats.

I want fighters to have more than one combat style so I naively triple their feats. Now I have a 10th level Fighter with 42 feats with me expecting a 14/14/14 split.

John Smith sees my Fighter and spends all 42 of their 10th level Fighter's feats in one combat style and becomes grossly overpowered for their level.

I return to the drawing board and try to find a way to increase the number of combat styles a Fighter has. The answer, I can give Fighters more than the bare minimum of feats to have 1 combat style by preventing the Fighter from spending more than a level appropriate amount (the 14 you originally gave them) in any one style.

This is the design challenge of all point based improvement systems (the fighter behaves like having feat points to spend towards various combat styles). How do you design the system so that players are not forced to choose between being one trick ponies and being underpowered?

[John Longarrow]

So you've never heard of needing to reposition or adjust the way you're standing or holding your weapons to fight in a certain way? Because seriously I never got beyond basic martial arts and we still had at least 3 different stances, and different techniques that would be used within those stances. Yes, you can shift stances quickly and be able to adapt to the situation, which is exactly what I suggest being able to do. We're talking about switching with a move action or a swift action (aka an adjustment measured in seconds), not minutes or hours.

Hm... When I was learning martial arts we were always changing what "stance" we'd be in depending on what we were trying to do. Shift to kick, slide foot back as you block, ect.. Didn't take whole seconds and was part of what we were doing. It didn't mean I wouldn't be able to switch to where I could kick quickly (free action) if the situation warranted either. Course much of this does depend on both the skill of the individual and how well their teacher instructs. Please note though, the styles I learned were intended to be pretty brutally practical so there wasn't a lot of ritual to them.

I still don't see how limiting what a fighter can do would enhance versatility. Saying you can only use some of your feats at any one time does not seem to add versatility. Maybe if you could give an example of the mechanics you are thinking of would help. From what I've read it reads as "The fighter gets more feats than he does now, but can use less at any given time". This doesn't seem to enhance the class.

Edit:
OldTrees1,

You make being a one trick pony for a fighter as useless as being a one trick pony (casting spells) is for a wizard?

[Seerow]

I still don't see how limiting what a fighter can do would enhance versatility. Saying you can only use some of your feats at any one time does not seem to add versatility. Maybe if you could give an example of the mechanics you are thinking of would help. From what I've read it reads as "The fighter gets more feats than he does now, but can use less at any given time". This doesn't seem to enhance the class.

I posted a link to my fix a page or two back, or it's also in my sig, if you want to check it out. But the basic idea behind the combat styles (our main point of contention here) is in providing the ability to change how you fight on the fly, rather than always fighting the exact same way. Also for what it's worth you're not getting fewer that you can use at any given time. It's not like I'm taking you from having a Fighter with 11 feats to one with 20 feats but only use 5 at a time (which would be a nerf). It's going from a Fighter with 11 feats to a Fighter with 44 feats of which he can use 11 at a time. So you have the same capability as a fighter now, but you have that capability in 4 different areas instead of just in one. It is a demonstrable improvement in versatility over the baseline. By itself it's not enough, but it is a good starting point, and one that helps root the fighter in combat feats; which is something most people looking for a Fighter fix rather than a Warblade tend to want.

Also it's worth reitterating the analogy that OldTrees has been making. Just giving the Fighter a ton of extra feats with no restrictions would be like removing the skill point cap from Rogue. Now suddenly you have rogues with 32+ ranks in hide at level 1 but nothing else. They're really good at being sneaky, but are they actually better or more versatile for having the option to do that? I would argue no, forcing the rogue to split up his skill points encourages a more versatile rogue. Similarly, forcing the Fighter to divide up feats gives you a more versatile fighter, as long as the number of feats the Fighter gets for each style is enough to actually stay competitive.

[OldTrees1]

Edit:
OldTrees1,

You make being a one trick pony for a fighter as useless as being a one trick pony (casting spells) is for a wizard?

So you are considering a possible solution of making every specialization broad enough that nobody is worried if the Fighter only can do that specialization (just as nobody is worried if the wizard can only cast spells)?

Since each player is choosing their feats themselves, how do you cause their specializations to be that broad? What prevents someone from ending up more powerful but less versatile by focusing only on a smaller subsection? If they can gain above level appropriate power by shrinking their versatility, then Fighter will become as unbalanced and broken as Wizard is. (but we should aim for higher quality design than WotC did)

Luckily there are ways to cause the player's choices to still result in broad enough specializations that end up at level appropriate amounts of power. Floating Feats and Feat Chains are 2 proposed mechanics to achieve this goal. There may be other mechanics to achieve this goal. The point is the goal of "having versatile and strong Fighters" and that we need to design a method to reach that goal.

That said neither Floating Feats nor enforcing versatility though Feat Chains is without its downsides. I will not repeat those downsides because you have stated them already. Perhaps their is a better mechanic we can find?

Sidenote: I really like the max ranks mechanic WotC used with the skill system to solve this kind of problem. By limiting the maximum investment as a function of level they were able to give everyone many times more skill points than they otherwise could. However I do not think an adaptation of that specific mechanic would work well for feats.

[Morphic tide]

Okay, to explain what this "fighting style" thing looks like to me is that you'd get slightly more feats than current Fighter in each style, (current Fighter has 11 feats at 10th level, 12 if Human) and several of these styles. You'd have to unlimit what feats can be chosen by redefining what counts as a Fighter feat, so that they get almost every combat-relevant feat, but all that still fails to solve the main Fighter problem: No out of combat focus options. At least Rogue gets the skills to go social.

One way to solve this is to redefine class skills. Make it so that you get bonuses to class skills instead of penalties to cross-class skills. Yes, this makes the classes that focus on the Diplomacy issue to be even better at it, but Fighter becomes competent at Diplomacy. Also, the almost-mandatory skills stop being something crippling to not be on your class list. Another way to implement the skill solution is to give every character free floating skills to be considered class skills for all levels. This solves basically every problem with class skills with minimal new issues(Yes, diplomancing becomes better for Wizards, but that just makes them less lower than a Bard with one PRC).

Another way to solve it is to look for ways to give Fighters access to feats that give them bonuses to Diplomacy and other non-combat skills. Like my proposed skill synergy feats, only a bit less crazy. Maybe a chain built on Dazzling Display (Yes, it's a PF feat, but PF has a lot of martial support to use in 3.5) that makes you better at more social things bit by bit and adds synergies to Intimidate. This pulls double duty by giving the martial classes an important combat action: Save-or-suck. The flee in terror detail is a nice touch...

E: Another thing that can be done which was mentioned is removing various penalties to attacks. A class feature that lets them negate some number of penalties on attacks, perhaps scaling with level in both strength of penalty and number, would make them significantly more versatile and significantly closer to the "master of melee" they tend to be seen as trying to be. You can negate the penalty for wielding a weapon too large for you, or for wielding a two handed weapon in one hand, at fairly early levels. At level 20, you might do stuff like use two Huge Full Swords as if they were appropriate size Shortswords.

Overall, it looks like the people on this thread are missing the main issue: Fighter needs out of combat abilities. They are on par for damage, especially because they have no limits on how long they can deal damage beyond survival, but they lack anything to deal with non-combat situations.

[Milo v3]

My fighter fix gave them increased skills per level, more class skills, bonus to identifying monsters equal to con mod, increased speed when it comes to retraining feats, free variant multiclassing without having to trade away feats (and options if none of the VCM's fit), able to buy cheap gear slightly cheaper, additional five foot-steps per turn, bonuses for mass combat, skill unlocks for a limited number of skills, and an ability which lets them get contacts easier in the form of "Old Allies".

Increases the character concepts and narrative options of fighters by a surprising amount (and lets fighters actually meet the character options the fluff suggests).