Limited resources are still resources available to be used. If you want to compare what a class is capable of in a day of adventure, you need to base it on what a class is actually capable of. Not using spells and other abilities in the comparison would be as like comparing fighter and bladesinger performance where the fighter can't use weapons.
Sure, but this thread is focused on feats which are not (generally) limited resources.
There is no real comparison. A Wizard is more capable than a fighter IMO because of limted resources. That is how it is, but that is not a reason to give a fighter more feats.
Give them both more feats. If you want more martial options Allow a fighter 3 more feats at 13th level and allow a Wizard 3 more feats at 13th level. What I am most upset about is this idea that fighters should get more when other classes don't.
I would ask you to explain your reasoning. A Bladesinger needs Max Int, Dex and Con. A Fighter needs Max Str, Dex and Con. Therefore they will have the same Wisdom and Charisma given the same rolls. Both classes have 4 skills from class and background.
A fighter does NOT need max con. With a 10 constitution a fighter has the MORE hit pionts than a bladesinger with a 14 constitution, not equal hit points, MORE hit points. That is the wholepoint!
Further a fighter does not need both max strength and dex any more than a bladesinger needs max strength and dex and even with characters with equal scores a fighter will still generally do more damage with weapons.
So to correct you a Fighter needs maximum Strength and Dexterity to be good at both ranged and melee attacks. To be a near equal a bladesinger needs a maximum strength, dexterity, constitution and intelligence and even with those scores she will be using weapons in melee and ranged that have lower damage!
The Bladesinger can have 4 Int-based skills, each at +10. The Fighter can only have 1 skill at +10, and the other three will probably only be up to +7 at best.
Therefore the Bladesinger is objectively better than an equivalent fighter out of combat without using spells
That is just not true. I assume you are talking about level 13-16 with a +5 in intelligence and proficiency. With the same number of hit points a fighter can have 4 skills with a +10 at 16th AND in addition have another 9 skills that are better than a Wizard with the same number of hit points. For example:
16th level point buy Fighter: S15 D20, C10, I10, W20, CH12
Athletics: 9, Acrobatics 10, SOH 10, Stealth 10, Arcana 0, History 0, Investigation 0, Nature 0, Religion 0, Animal handling 5, Insight 5, Medicine 5, Perception 5, Survival 5, Deception 1, Intimidation 1, Performance 1, Persuasion 1 Total=68
16th level point buy Bladesinger Wizard: S8, D20, C14, I20, W12, CH8 (I think this is the absolute best a Wizard could do for this comparison)
Athletics -1, Acrobatics 5, SOH 5, Stealth 5, Arcana 10, History 10, Investigation 10, Nature 10, Religion 5, Animal Handling 1, insight 1, Medicine 1, Perception 1, Survival 1, Deception -1, Intimidation -1, Performance -1, Persuasion -1. Total=60
In addition to having better scores, more hit points and doing more damage; the fighters higher scores are in more important skills. Athletics is more important than acrobatics, Perception is more important than Investigation, Survival is more important than Nature!
The initial discussion was purely about melee. If you want to shift the goal to ranged combat, I'm pretty sure that 13th level Bladesinger can still absolutely destroy the fighter's performance in a combat encounter if they choose to get serious about it.
I think you are wrong.
A Bladesinger in ranged cobat is casting a cantrip and using a light crossbow .... unless she is in bladesong in which case she is throwing a dagger.
By 13th level a fighter with 3 extra feats is ignoring long range, ignoring cover, getting 3 attacks a round, adding a +10 to damage on low AC enemies, and doing 1d4+2 for base damage. This is assuming they optimized for melee by going with high strength and took GWM and PAM. If they actually optimized for ranged they would blow a bladesinger out if the water.
F13 with 3 extra feats has Sharpshooter, GWM, PAM, Archery, Thrown weapon fighting and 20 strength is doing 3d4+21 damage (29.5) while being optimized for melee. In addition this character ignores cover, ignores long range and her attack roll is at +12. This does not include the +10 from sharpshooter.
Bladesinger 13 on point buy is going to have a 20 in dex and an 18 in intelligence. She will do 1d8+3d10+5 (26). This with an attack of +10 for 1d8+5 and +9 for 3d10 and she will not ignore cover or long range.
If you want to actually put an AC to it(including sharpshooter) :
AC 10: Bladesinger 25.7, Fighter 47.7
AC15: Bladesinger 20.975, Fighter 34.5
AC20: Bladesinger 13.475, Fighter 21.745
Keep in mind, this is with a fighter that is actually optimized for melee!
"Without resorting to spells" - Why should they not need to spend their class resources in the same way that the fighter is spending their class resources?
Because we are talking about martial combat and a fighter is not spending any resources.
As already pointed out to you a couple of times, they do not need the extra feats "to keep up". The entire point of the extra feats is to try to help the fighter "keep up" with the bladesinger and similar classes in overall adventuring performance.
But that won't accomplish this.
If you actaully want to do this you will need to give them spells. Lots of spells!
Otherwise they are not keeping up at all, they are just doing better in melee combat and making the game more unbalanced!
Exactly!Character concept is a thing, you know?
You can play the character you want without giving that chartacter random, unwarranted boons.
The current fighter is perfectly viable as is, is enjoyed by many players as is, without putting in sopme kind of homebrew to give it more capability so it outshines other classes in melee.
Well, this is actually a very good analogy comparing performance at basketball with performance at the challenges a D&D party have to face. You and LeBron James are going to be matched against other teams chosen to be at the same average basketball skill of the two of you.
How much fun do you think you are going to have?
I think most people would jump at the chance to play BBall with Lebron James. I think if I was Lebron James and advertised "who wants to play basketball with me at XXX this afternoon" I would have hundreds show up to play with me.
I think I, and most people, would have a crapton of fun.
Moreover if it was a situation where we were drawing up teams and picking players, I think Lebron James would be the first player I picked on my team. The fact that he was better than me would be a GOOD thing if he was on my team!
Have you ever seen the commercial where kids are picking teams and Charles Barkley is there? This is EXACTLY the situation we are talking about.