10 minute barbarian rage is completely incoherent

[Witty Username]

They will in 5.5e, and given that this thread is complaining about the upcoming 10-minute rage, it's a 5.5e thread.

Ok, yeah fair.

I'm not sure what you mean by "whirling frenzy style barbarian." Can't they already be that?

Whirling frenzy is a variant rage back in 3.5, its closest alegory in 5e is the berkserker's frenzy but even that is kinda a weird fit.

In short how it worked was it was rage as ferocity rather than brute strength, although that was still a factor. It gives AC bonuses and additional attacks instead of the Con bonus.

I personally think how it would work translated literally into 5e style thinking is a mix of berkserker's frenzy and cloak of displacement instead of rages normal damage resistance.

Like I said this is more an idea for a subclass, Reckless attack's only factor here is it makes assumptions on how barbarians behave in defense terms, but not every feature needs to be entirely open ended, its not how features work.

[Arkhios]

They will in 5.5e, and given that this thread is complaining about the upcoming 10-minute rage, it's a 5.5e thread.

What is this 5.5e you keep talking about?

[Psyren]

What is this 5.5e you keep talking about?

I'm willing it into the universe, don't @ me

A TWF barb i suppose, with Rage getting in the way of your offhand attack and lack of access to the fighting style.

Nick Scimitars solve the former. For the latter there's Fighting Initiate, though personally I'd probably prefer a Fighter dip or multiclass.

[Kane0]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

[Arkhios]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

But they do, kind of. Rage gives them bonus to damage rolls, much like Dueling Fighting Style does, except it scales bigger over time. Rage is as much a fighting style as it is primal fury or representation of Barbarian's anger.

[Psyren]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

As noted they don't need one. As for why, I'm guessing it's because in the fiction, they're positioned as the ferocity/'brute strength' martial as opposed to using techniques.

But Tasha's is explicitly compatible so Fighting Initiate is still an option for straight-classed Barbs.

[Dr.Samurai]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

Because 5E lacks a certain imagination, in order to improve simplicity and streamline the play experience.

Even the fact that "+2 damage" is considered a Fighting Style is silly. Or "+2 attack" or "+1 AC". These are boring simple stat boosts that you can label as anything.

If Dueling actually changed the way you fight with a one-handed weapon, that'd be a Fighting Style.

Oh well.

[Kane0]

Eh, another thing my version is addressing at any rate

[Blatant Beast]

Because 5E lacks a certain imagination, in order to improve simplicity and streamline the play experience.

Even the fact that "+2 damage" is considered a Fighting Style is silly. Or "+2 attack" or "+1 AC". These are boring simple stat boosts that you can label as anything.

If Dueling actually changed the way you fight with a one-handed weapon, that'd be a Fighting Style.

Oh well.

I will point out, that in a rolled stats game, those type of simple stat boosts are golden, because one is not guaranteed the same Ability Score Expressions that a point buy game has.

Many evaluative regimes would rank those simple bonuses highly, because they are static bonuses and not as susceptible as other types of abilities of being negated due to circumstances or game theme.

On common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

[Kane0]

One common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

Which can be less charitably expressed as they are bandaid patches.

[NeptunianOM]

They don't want DMs to be forced to track rounds outside of combat unless they want to. But making rage a rounds-based ability would pretty much force them to do that. Out of combat, for most characters there is very little difference between taking 30 seconds or 1 minute to bend some bars or pry off a grate, but when one of those characters is using a resource measured in rounds then those two become very different.

I definitely agree with that assessment for how WotC's design team was envisioning the problem. I would counter that I played, & DMed for, many Barbarians in Pathfinder 1E and I never found it to be that big of a hassle to track rage rounds used. It is more bookwork (kind of) but I would argue the "feels bad" of raging for a fight that ends in a round is worse than making a tally mark each round you rage.

[Psyren]

Because 5E lacks a certain imagination, in order to improve simplicity and streamline the play experience.

Even the fact that "+2 damage" is considered a Fighting Style is silly. Or "+2 attack" or "+1 AC". These are boring simple stat boosts that you can label as anything.

If Dueling actually changed the way you fight with a one-handed weapon, that'd be a Fighting Style.

Oh well.

I will point out, that in a rolled stats game, those type of simple stat boosts are golden, because one is not guaranteed the same Ability Score Expressions that a point buy game has.

Many evaluative regimes would rank those simple bonuses highly, because they are static bonuses and not as susceptible as other types of abilities of being negated due to circumstances or game theme.

On common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

I think both simple-number "fighting styles" and full-on-maneuver "fighting styles" have a place in the game. I can understand why they stuck with the former for the game's base however; we can get maneuver-styles later, or they can be used by third parties to get their name out there.

I definitely agree with that assessment for how WotC's design team was envisioning the problem. I would counter that I played, & DMed for, many Barbarians in Pathfinder 1E and I never found it to be that big of a hassle to track rage rounds used. It is more bookwork (kind of) but I would argue the "feels bad" of raging for a fight that ends in a round is worse than making a tally mark each round you rage.

I played a ton of PF1e too; I'm not saying tracking rage rounds is insurmountable or anything. But the pillars in 5e are indeed designed around different timescales; given that the goal is for Barbarians to rage outside of combat more often, upgrading it to the next higher timescale makes sense. DMs who want to track rage round-by-round can still do so, just have the most interesting stuff happen within the last couple minutes of the barb's rage and they will need to weigh the cost of another precious usage or SR, vs the benefits (and drawbacks) of hurrying.

[Blatant Beast]

I think both simple-number "fighting styles" and full-on-maneuver "fighting styles" have a place in the game. I can understand why they stuck with the former for the game's base however; we can get maneuver-styles later, or they can be used by third parties to get their name out there.

¿Por Qué No Los Dos?

Why not have Fighting Styles that give both a single Maneuvers and Static Modifiers?
Seems cool to me.

I do think the Druidic and Holy Warrior Fighting Styles for Rangers and Paladins are nice as well.

Rangers have a difficult choice, do you go for the sweet +2 attack bonus from the Archery Style, or Conjure Bonfire from Druidic Warrior?

[Psyren]

¿Por Qué No Los Dos?

Why not have Fighting Styles that give both a single Maneuvers and Static Modifiers?
Seems cool to me.

Sure I'm down... after core.

I do think the Druidic and Holy Warrior Fighting Styles for Rangers and Paladins are nice as well.

Rangers have a difficult choice, do you go for the sweet +2 attack bonus from the Archery Style, or Conjure Bonfire from Druidic Warrior?

Fey Wanderers get a decent amount of mileage out of Shillelagh I'd say.

[Schwann145]

If the goal is to push Rage into being more usable out of combat, that dream will never be realized as long as it remains a low quantity LR resource. :/

[Psyren]

If the goal is to push Rage into being more usable out of combat, that dream will never be realized as long as it remains a low quantity LR resource. :/

It's a LR resource but its also going to be recoverable on a SR now. Between that and the 10-minute duration I expect it to be able to get quite a bit more out of combat use than it did in 5.0.

[Schwann145]

It's a LR resource but its also going to be recoverable on a SR now. Between that and the 10-minute duration I expect it to be able to get quite a bit more out of combat use than it did in 5.0.

Only once though, IIRC?
Also, I think people tend to seriously overestimate how much they'll get out of 10 minutes. If it's chain back-to-back combats, sure, great. But any interruption? Puzzle? Room search? Your 10 minutes is up in a snap.

[Psyren]

Only once though, IIRC?

Once per SR, so if you're getting 2 of those per day you're already at double the amount of rages per LR as a 2014 Barbarian starting out, each of which lasts 10x as long (potentially across multiple encounters or encounter types if they're close enough to one another.) That should be enough to cover at least one non-combat scene if not more.

Also, I think people tend to seriously overestimate how much they'll get out of 10 minutes. If it's chain back-to-back combats, sure, great. But any interruption? Puzzle? Room search? Your 10 minutes is up in a snap.

"Search the area after a fight" and "the tracks you're following lead into the cave with growling sounds emanating from it" and "the fight starts as soon as you climb over that wall" are all reasonably common I'd say.

[Dr.Samurai]

I will point out, that in a rolled stats game, those type of simple stat boosts are golden, because one is not guaranteed the same Ability Score Expressions that a point buy game has.

Many evaluative regimes would rank those simple bonuses highly, because they are static bonuses and not as susceptible as other types of abilities of being negated due to circumstances or game theme.

I'm not saying the bonuses aren't impactful. Just boring and unimaginative, and not really deserving of the label "Fighting Style".

On common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

The thing about complaints is that anyone is free to make them. I mean, I suspect I'm missing the point because... if you don't want to fight unarmed or with throwing weapons... don't grab those fighting styles. But improving your damage die from 1 single point to 1d6/1d8 is quite the jump in damage, greater than Dueling even. Throwing Style gets you the +2 damage from Dueling and also patches your Action Economy.

IMO, a "Fighting Style" should be more like a feat like Shield Master or Sentinel or Grappler (but improved). Something that changes what you can do with the fighting style you choose.

[Kane0]

I think the label might be the main reason barbarians don't get it. 'fighting style' implies things like training, specialisation, focus, practice, discipline. The sorts of things not commonly associated with the default barbarian imagery.
Which i think is dumb, but its a theory.

[Sindeloke]

IMO, a "Fighting Style" should be more like a feat like Shield Master or Sentinel or Grappler (but improved). Something that changes what you can do with the fighting style you choose.

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear. Not Shield Master "you personally just get this benefit when you wear a shield," but rather "Protector Style: you can choose to fail a dexterity saving throw. If you do, all allies in a 15-foot cone behind you automatically succeed. If you have a shield, you don't have to fail the save to trigger this." Now you're encouraged to stand between the dragon and your friends; it actually changes the way you fight.

Or "Aggressive Style: Each time you make a successful attack, you gain a cumulative +1 to damage [capped at a scaling x or w/e]. This bonus falls off if you end your turn without attacking." Now you're encouraged to attack as much as humanly possible. Greatsword, mace, doesn't matter, you have declared that no matter what you're holding or who you're facing, your fighting style is "I hit things until they fall over."

Or "Control Style: If you successfully force a target to move, lose movement, or go prone, they take prof bonus bludgeoning damage, and the next attack against them has advantage." Now you're rewarded for spending your actions on CC, and for doing so by whatever means is available, the way a character interested in CC really would; you can shove/grapple/sentinel feat/throw a grease bottle/set up a pit trap, the method is irrelevant and improvisation is rewarded.

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment." Fighting style is minor here compared to feats (and class features like smite/rage), but it contributes. And two... this is kind of hard to articulate, but if Alhandra hangs behind her shield, carefully side-steps, waits for the perfect moment, and strikes hard, Jane at the table rolls a d20. If Alhandra presses her enemy furiously with a cascade of heavy blows until one gets through... Jane rolls a d20. Whether Alhandra has Duelist or Great Weapon, carries a shield or two-hands a longsword, wears scale or plate, it doesn't matter to how it actually feels to play Alhandra at the table. If you want fighting style to make characters feel different, which I think is the intent of the choice, it needs to affect Jane's decisions, not Alhandra's. Where do you stand, what do you do on your turn, should you heal or attack or shove or use an item.

[Kane0]

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear.

Yeah, seconded.

[Dr.Samurai]

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear. Not Shield Master "you personally just get this benefit when you wear a shield," but rather "Protector Style: you can choose to fail a dexterity saving throw. If you do, all allies in a 15-foot cone behind you automatically succeed. If you have a shield, you don't have to fail the save to trigger this." Now you're encouraged to stand between the dragon and your friends; it actually changes the way you fight.

Or "Aggressive Style: Each time you make a successful attack, you gain a cumulative +1 to damage [capped at a scaling x or w/e]. This bonus falls off if you end your turn without attacking." Now you're encouraged to attack as much as humanly possible. Greatsword, mace, doesn't matter, you have declared that no matter what you're holding or who you're facing, your fighting style is "I hit things until they fall over."

Or "Control Style: If you successfully force a target to move, lose movement, or go prone, they take prof bonus bludgeoning damage, and the next attack against them has advantage." Now you're rewarded for spending your actions on CC, and for doing so by whatever means is available, the way a character interested in CC really would; you can shove/grapple/sentinel feat/throw a grease bottle/set up a pit trap, the method is irrelevant and improvisation is rewarded.

I generally agree but also disagree. I agree that it should change the way you're able to fight. But I disagree that it should be totally divorced from gear. I appreciate the Protector Style example that you give and would probably support this type of "Fighting Style" first because it grants an ability that is simply improved depending on gear selection. I think that's best of both worlds and I like it.

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment." Fighting style is minor here compared to feats (and class features like smite/rage), but it contributes.

I disagree. I like for there to be meaningful choices between gear selection. I think the issue is that those choices have to be mostly equal to each other so there isn't a sense that one style if vastly superior to another. That's easier said than done. But there should be differences between heavy and light armors, and reach weapons and light weapons and shields etc.

[Psyren]

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear. Not Shield Master "you personally just get this benefit when you wear a shield," but rather "Protector Style: you can choose to fail a dexterity saving throw. If you do, all allies in a 15-foot cone behind you automatically succeed. If you have a shield, you don't have to fail the save to trigger this." Now you're encouraged to stand between the dragon and your friends; it actually changes the way you fight.

Or "Aggressive Style: Each time you make a successful attack, you gain a cumulative +1 to damage [capped at a scaling x or w/e]. This bonus falls off if you end your turn without attacking." Now you're encouraged to attack as much as humanly possible. Greatsword, mace, doesn't matter, you have declared that no matter what you're holding or who you're facing, your fighting style is "I hit things until they fall over."

Or "Control Style: If you successfully force a target to move, lose movement, or go prone, they take prof bonus bludgeoning damage, and the next attack against them has advantage." Now you're rewarded for spending your actions on CC, and for doing so by whatever means is available, the way a character interested in CC really would; you can shove/grapple/sentinel feat/throw a grease bottle/set up a pit trap, the method is irrelevant and improvisation is rewarded.

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment." Fighting style is minor here compared to feats (and class features like smite/rage), but it contributes. And two... this is kind of hard to articulate, but if Alhandra hangs behind her shield, carefully side-steps, waits for the perfect moment, and strikes hard, Jane at the table rolls a d20. If Alhandra presses her enemy furiously with a cascade of heavy blows until one gets through... Jane rolls a d20. Whether Alhandra has Duelist or Great Weapon, carries a shield or two-hands a longsword, wears scale or plate, it doesn't matter to how it actually feels to play Alhandra at the table. If you want fighting style to make characters feel different, which I think is the intent of the choice, it needs to affect Jane's decisions, not Alhandra's. Where do you stand, what do you do on your turn, should you heal or attack or shove or use an item.

I generally agree but also disagree. I agree that it should change the way you're able to fight. But I disagree that it should be totally divorced from gear. I appreciate the Protector Style example that you give and would probably support this type of "Fighting Style" first because it grants an ability that is simply improved depending on gear selection. I think that's best of both worlds and I like it.

+1; I like Protector Style as it combines the technique and equipment layers. Accounting for both of these layers is important, for both ludic and narrative reasons; "Aggressive Style" is a great example of what happens when you neglect to do this.

On the surface, it seems to fictionally encourage and mechanically reward a more reckless behavior in combat. But because it works with any weapon type, it's going to be a must-pick for archers, who can reap the benefits of being "aggressive" quite easily as they can constantly attack even if they don't put themselves in harm's way. An archer can benefit from "aggressive style" while cautiously kiting and taking potshots from cover exactly like they would without it - getting the reward without any change in behavior. Hell, you didn't even restrict it to weapon attacks, so a warlock spamming Eldritch Blast - again, like they would be on most rounds anyway - could technically benefit too.

I disagree. I like for there to be meaningful choices between gear selection. I think the issue is that those choices have to be mostly equal to each other so there isn't a sense that one style if vastly superior to another. That's easier said than done. But there should be differences between heavy and light armors, and reach weapons and light weapons and shields etc.

+1 to this as well.

Regarding armor, my only real issue is that (a) there is no Light armor that is as good as Mage Armor or Natural Armor, (b) Hide Armor is basically useless unless you're really strapped for cash (and even if you are, Leather often beats it anyway), and (c) Ring Mail should be base 15 rather than 14. It would also be nice if we could have Bucklers as a light shield category that only granted +1 but left your hand free for certain purposes as well.

[Kane0]

Spoiler: Just going to quietly drop these here

Show

Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons
Blind Fighting: You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet
Cleaving: When you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can apply the same attack to another creature adjacent to the target that is also within your reach that deals half damage
Crippling: When you hit with a weapon attack you also reduce the target’s movement speed by 10 feet until the end of your next turn
Defence: You gain a +1 bonus to AC
Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon
Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands you can reroll the die once, adding the new roll to the result.
Interception: When a creature you can see hits a target other than you, within your reach with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a shield or a melee weapon to use this reaction.
Dabbler: You gain two cantrips of your choice, choosing Int, Wis or Cha as your casting stat. If you choose a spell that deals damage, you add your casting stat to the damage roll
Guardian: When wielding a melee weapon hostile creatures treat your reach as difficult terrain
Harrier: You gain +5’ to your movement speed, and once per turn a creature you hit with a melee attack cannot take reactions until the start of its next turn
Quickdraw: You gain a +2 bonus to Initiative
Scathing: When you miss with a melee weapon attack, your target still takes damage equal to the minimum possible damage your attack would have dealt.
Unarmed Fighting: Your unarmed strikes deal two damage dice (default being 1d4, so 2d4 unless you're a monk). Moreover, when you make an opportunity attack with a free hand you can choose to instead make a grapple or shove attempt

[Sindeloke]

I disagree. I like for there to be meaningful choices between gear selection. I think the issue is that those choices have to be mostly equal to each other so there isn't a sense that one style if vastly superior to another. That's easier said than done. But there should be differences between heavy and light armors, and reach weapons and light weapons and shields etc.

It's not about equality between gear. It's about all of your mechanical capability being tied to one item. If you did the absolute impossible thing of making "shield style + shield feat" and "polearm style + polearm feat" mechanically distinct and yet also perfectly balanced, that still doesn't change the fact that, when your sword and board dwarf fighter discovers the legendary Greathammer of Moradin which is the only thing that can break the Golem of Laudeguer and free his people from the Lost Dwarf's tyranny, you now have a choice between "undermine this awesome story beat" and "lose half of your build resources and have the combat effectiveness of a character an entire tier lower."

The kind of fiction that inspires D&D has a lot of characters who are associated strongly with one weapon, and do most of their fighting with it. Xena has her chakram, Cap has his shield, Legolas has his bow, Heracles has his fists. But when Callisto takes Xena's chakram, she fights just as well with her sword. When Cap throws his shield and lodges it in something, he fights just as well with his fists. When Legolas gets chased into a tunnel, he does "knife-work" and still increases his kill count. When Heracles goes up against an invulnerable lion, he fletches a bow and shoots it in the mouth. A D&D character needs to be able to, equally, say "I love my sword, it is my best friend and I will always favor it, but for this specific vampire, the rogue and I will split the two Daggers of Vampire-Killing between us and I will still get to feel like a badass." If his styles and feats are all tied to an item, though, he might as well keep using the sword, because he's doing half as much damage with the dagger anyway so what does he care about it breaking resistance that his sword can't?

I certainly agree that weapons and armor should feel different from each other, but that should be in the weapons and armor themselves. It shouldn't cost build resources, because then you're locking yourself into the same schema for every fight for the rest of the game.

[Skrum]

It's not about equality between gear. It's about all of your mechanical capability being tied to one item. If you did the absolute impossible thing of making "shield style + shield feat" and "polearm style + polearm feat" mechanically distinct and yet also perfectly balanced, that still doesn't change the fact that, when your sword and board dwarf fighter discovers the legendary Greathammer of Moradin which is the only thing that can break the Golem of Laudeguer and free his people from the Lost Dwarf's tyranny, you now have a choice between "undermine this awesome story beat" and "lose half of your build resources and have the combat effectiveness of a character an entire tier lower."

The kind of fiction that inspires D&D has a lot of characters who are associated strongly with one weapon, and do most of their fighting with it. Xena has her chakram, Cap has his shield, Legolas has his bow, Heracles has his fists. But when Callisto takes Xena's chakram, she fights just as well with her sword. When Cap throws his shield and lodges it in something, he fights just as well with his fists. When Legolas gets chased into a tunnel, he does "knife-work" and still increases his kill count. When Heracles goes up against an invulnerable lion, he fletches a bow and shoots it in the mouth. A D&D character needs to be able to, equally, say "I love my sword, it is my best friend and I will always favor it, but for this specific vampire, the rogue and I will split the two Daggers of Vampire-Killing between us and I will still get to feel like a badass." If his styles and feats are all tied to an item, though, he might as well keep using the sword, because he's doing half as much damage with the dagger anyway so what does he care about it breaking resistance that his sword can't?

I certainly agree that weapons and armor should feel different from each other, but that should be in the weapons and armor themselves. It shouldn't cost build resources, because then you're locking yourself into the same schema for every fight for the rest of the game.

Love your ideas for fighting styles; they are way more interesting and impactful than the boring +1 and +2's that the current ones are.

But I gotta ask - does 5e actually lock characters into a specific weapon/weapon type? I generally say no it doesn't. My longest played character (RIP) was a fighter/warlock who used a morningstar for backstory reasons, but over his career he went from a morningstar to morningstar + shield to longsword + shield to morningstar + shield to dagger + shield and then finally spear + shield. He had the Piercer feat, so morningstars, spears, and daggers all worked just fine for it. But it wasn't like he'd go from attacking at +10 with a morningstar to +6 with anything else.

GWM and PAM do this the most, but even then there's options. They work with categories of weapons, and that makes sense for what the feat is.

[Rukelnikov]

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment."

That's a problem inherent to level based character growth. If you take Polearm Master and end up with the Sword of a Thousand Truths you have to either accept you have a useless feat or a useless legendary item. In a buy points or similar, you could have leveled polearms, and now that you have TSoaTT start leveling swords, sure you won't be making use of the XP you put into polearms earlier but the opportunity cost is incredibly smaller in any of the buy point systems I played compared to that of a feat in DnD.

The only solution for this I've seen in DnD since feats have been introduced are retrain mechanics.

[Witty Username]

The only solution for this I've seen in DnD since feats have been introduced are retrain mechanics.

You can have feat designs that don't lock this in though.

I think 3.5 was better at this, PAM and GWM are more specific than say power attack and shock trooper. But you do still have things like sentinel which is good for more or less any melee build.

You can also get feats like gunner, which has some benefits specific to guns (proficiency and the loading property removal) and non-specific (attacking in melee and +1 dex).

[Rukelnikov]

You can have feat designs that don't lock this in though.

I think 3.5 was better at this, PAM and GWM are more specific than say power attack and shock trooper. But you do still have things like sentinel which is good for more or less any melee build.

You can also get feats like gunner, which has some benefits specific to guns (proficiency and the loading property removal) and non-specific (attacking in melee and +1 dex).

3.5 also had Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, and a bunch of other weapon specific feats, and as a Ftr lvl 1 Weapon Focus was a great feat. They added "Melee Weapon Mastery" in PHB2, which gave boni with all piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning weapons (depending on which you chose), but you still nedeed WF and WS to get it, so while nice in giving boni to a whole school of weapons, you were still incentivized to stick with whatever you took WF and WS to begin with.

Phase 2 3.5 (3.75?) when PHB2 and Tome of Battle came along, tried to remedy this by giving rules for retraining and giving the Warblade basically a built in 1 hour retrain for all those styles of feats. I'm not saying one edition is better or worse than the other at this, I just think its a problem inherent of the growth style of leveling.