Thanks. I've checked the Project Phoenix fighter and it certainly does add a further level of customization.
My intention with the changes I made to the fighter (though bland and weak
) was to add a kind of "template" to the base 3.5 fighter with optional abilities as generic as possible, so as to accommodate any kind of concept without stepping too much on other classes niches (such as the swashbuckler), while being complimentary to them. So a multiclass Light fighter/swashbuckler could be an interesting combination, without being redundant.
*nods* That was my intent too. My
original fighter had four fighting styles, but people pointed out that it didn't fix any of the "acknowledged" problems, so I went back to the drawing board. My second version is on page 3 of the thread I mentioned earlier; I tore apart all the fighting styles, dropped about half the abilities, then made a big mix of general selectable combat abilities along with four tiers of proficiency (more to maintain balance than anything) and added in some specific class abilities to shore up its weaknesses. Overall, I like this version a lot better, and it's a good deal more powerful.
I see your point, and I admit that I basically copied the Open Game Content from the Midnight book
. But it seem to me that changing it for a sneak attack ability would overlap with the Scout ambush ability (that's another thing - I intended to allow optional base classes to my players). Also, the way you propose the ranger to act with a sneak attack ability would benefit mostly those who focused on archery, and leave the dual-wielding rangers a bit high-and-dry, as they would have to rely on their opponents being flat-footed, or have an ally flanking them to be able to deal the extra damage.
I yoinked your Deadly Strike ability, but here's what I did with it:
"Hunter's Strike (Ex): A ranger can strike from ambush, hitting his target before it knows he's there. If the ranger is hidden, concealed, invisible, or otherwise unnoticed by his target, he can make a surprise attack. The target is considered to be flat-footed; the ranger can make a single melee or ranged attack (though he must be within 30 feet). If the attack hits, the ranger deals an extra 1d6 points of damage. If he has levels in rogue or another class that grants sneak attack, the dice of damage stack. This ability cannot be used in combat, but it can be used in conjunction with any of the Bow Mastery abilities. The bonus damage increases to +2d6 at 6th level, +3d6 at 10th, +4d6 at 14th, and +5d6 at 18th."
This a) keeps the flavor you want; b) makes it compatible with sneak attack while keeping them separate abilities; and c) makes it a lot more useful for the ranger.
Uncanny dodge and IUD: I think the fighter should have had those from the get-go. Imagine a moderately experienced fighter, or even a blademaster. He's strolling down the street, looking like he has not a care in the world, but he's actually noting the position and activity of every person in sight, whether or not they're armed (and with what), and what threat level they pose. If he's in a fight, you can bet money he knows full well where everyone around him is, even if he can't see them.
That's what uncanny dodge is.
Does it step on the rogue's toes? No. A fighter's job is combat - he needs to be better at it than anyone. A rogue's job is pilfering, dealing with traps, sneaking around, and conning people. UD and IUD help him be an effective striker, but they won't help him against a fighter. Barbarian? Pfft. Personally, I don't think it should be a class, but it occupies an odd role - a cross between striker and tank. If anything, the barbarian treads on the fighter's toes, since he can do everything the fighter can and do it better. The only advantage a fighter has over the barbarian is feats, and unless you have a broad selection (which you do), that's not much of an advantage. (And you could easily make rage 1/encounter without breaking anything; it's a very simple change that makes them a lot more effective.)
The ranger: The problem with the ranger having two fighting styles is that it steps on the fighter's toes. What I did is let ranger be the masters of ranged combat - they get combat abilities every 4 levels, wherein they can choose from a list of class-specific abilities or a bonus ranged feat. If you want to play Drizzt, play a fighter or a rogue. If you want to shoot someone in the eye at half a mile, play a ranger.
Letting them have druid spells is an idea, but I'd suggest going the other way - give them more unique spells of their own. I plan to do this with the paladin, and I've got a ton of ranger-only spells (see
here).
As far as animal companions are concerned, I think they need to have their role reexamined. I think ACs should serve a supplementary role at best - not a meat shield or even a combat participant in most circumstances, but a "companion" - someone who can carry messages, act as a scout, maybe cover the PC's flank in a fight, but not someone who immediately jumps into a fight except under extreme circumstances.
Balancing martial classes: If you're going to revise all the martial classes, you might as well try to make them more effective in a fight vis-a-vis casters. They'll never be on-par with a caster in terms of pure power, short of a massive revision of the spell system, but you can still boost their power while still keeping them balanced against each other. The important thing, IMO, is to define each class' role and help it to fulfil that role more effectively, while also shoring up its weak points.
