Complete Warrior question

[Hawkeye]

Do the fighter "sub classes" that appear in Complete Warrior qualify for Weapon Specialization feats?

Hawkeye

 

[Rackhir]

Do the fighter "sub classes" that appear in Complete Warrior qualify for Weapon Specialization feats?

Hawkeye

Are you talking about full classes like the Samurai or prestige classes? I don't recall either being mentioned specifically as getting it. So I would suspect no, since it specifically mentions a fighter class level in the description and other "fighter type" classes like paladins and rangers don't qualify.

 

[Hawkeye]

Are you talking about full classes like the Samurai or prestige classes? I don't recall either being mentioned specifically as getting it. So I would suspect no, since it specifically mentions a fighter class level in the description and other "fighter type" classes like paladins and rangers don't qualify.

I was speaking of the full classes, like the Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler etc..

Hawkeye

 

[Infiniti2000]

Do the fighter "sub classes" that appear in Complete Warrior qualify for Weapon Specialization feats?

No. The requirement is specifically Fighter Level 4th. You must be a fighter unless the 'subclass' specifically says something to the effect of, "this class qualifies you for weapon specialization at level X." Don't take away weapon specialization from the fighter, that's all he has going for him.

 

[glass]

Although, the varient fighters (that specifically say they are varient fighters) from Unearthed Arcana would qualify, IMO, unless they specifically say otherwise.


glass.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Do the fighter "sub classes" that appear in Complete Warrior qualify for Weapon Specialization feats?

Hawkeye

No, they don't. They're not really fighter sub-classes, either. They belong to the warrior caste, true, but so does paladin, and we aren't calling paladin a fighter sub class.

 

[Hawkeye]

No, they don't. They're not really fighter sub-classes, either. They belong to the warrior caste, true, but so does paladin, and we aren't calling paladin a fighter sub class.

That is why I used quotation marks around the word(s) "sub-class". They are sort of fighters, but they aren't.

Torqumada

 

[Kae'Yoss]

That is why I used quotation marks around the word(s) "sub-class". They are sort of fighters, but they aren't.

I call these classes warrior-type classes. They belong to the warrior caste. Of course, we now also have a NPC class that has that name, but actually, that is the base warrior:

Strong BAB, good fort save, few skills, d8. The other warrior-type classes expand on that: Fighter gets his feats (and more HP, like most warriors), Paladin gets a host of magical abilities based on his faith, barbarian gets wild abilities, ranger gets stealth and nature themed stuff, and so on.

The other castes are priest, arcanist (magic user), expert (adventurer)

 

[Ranger REG]

I call these classes warrior-type classes.

Actually, WotC called them martial classes (see Complete Warrior). Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger, as well as those base classes in CW are all martial classes.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Actually, WotC called them martial classes (see Complete Warrior). Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger, as well as those base classes in CW are all martial classes.

Who's this WotC to tell me how to call things in D&D?