Quote Originally Posted by Person_Man View Post
Apparently today is Fighter fix and Viktor Vasnetsov appreciation day on the homebrew forum. Who knew?
We should totally have a Viktor Vasnetsov appreciation day.

Anywho, I'm not a fan of the "Marked" mechanic from 4E, but you do a good job of representing it in 3.5.

But what's the point of having two different Styles, that the player is locked into forever once chosen? Why not just give the Fighter all of the abilities, or a choice among the abilities as they gain levels? I ask not to criticize, but because I honestly don't know the answer. The subclass concept is fairly popular right now with Pathfinder as well (Archetypes), but I haven't heard a good explanation as to how it makes the game or character creation better.
Zaydos said it pretty well. For myself it's not so much about game balance per se (though that is important) than it is about presenting meaningful choices that have both mechanical and role-playing weight. I think about it more in terms of what the choice means for who and what the character is than what the character can do. Both of them can fight - the choice is an example of how (and possibly why) they fight.

Quote Originally Posted by Zaydos View Post
Just wanted to say I really like the knight path (I liked the Marked mechanic and it is a good transition to 3.X), not as sure about the slayer path (I'd have to do more math than I want to at the moment to say much about it... I've been doing math problems all day and I don't feel like looking up monster AC and hp to determine what the chance that you can explode things with a scythe is).
I based the numbers on some very loose calculations about what a Warblade could do damage wise at equivalent levels. Calculations is too strong a word, actually, but figure that a high level Slayer has 4 or 5 attacks a round with a full attack and figure 3 of them hit with one a critical hit counting as an extra hit for a total of 4. That's about 60-ish bonus damage from the Slayer feature while the Warblade has maneuvers that do handfuls of d6's that also ignore damage reduction. Things like Power Attack optimization and magic weapons are stuff that both classes have access to so they don't really need to be considered; just the damage that comes from each classes class features (damage dealing maneuvers versus Slayer damage bonus & Critical Hit features).[/quote]

One critique: They ought to have the Profession skill (Siege Engineer, Mercenary, Bodyguard) and I'd give them Diplomacy and Knowledge (History) at least.
I added Profession so they can choose whichever they want as I don't see it as a big concern. Diplomacy and Knowledge (History) can easily be added as well.

Quote Originally Posted by Belial_the_Leveler View Post
1) For abilities that work on a miss, do they apply to a miss due to high AC or any kind of miss at all such as from blinking, concealment, mirror image, incorporeality and the like?
No, it shouldn't deal damage on a failed attack because of Miss Chance. Added.

2) Do feats that add DR or improve armor get the [fighter] tag?
Probably, yeah. List some and I'll look over them.

3) I never got how some sort of "mark" ability would work for a martial class without it being supernatural. Also, why would such a "mark" be capable of penalizing a target that attacked somebody else but not the fighter itself?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to flavor the ability as suppressive fire? I.e. the fighter being trained in how to force enemies to flinch, get distracted, take cover, overbalance, retreat or overreach with her attacks, instead of imposing some sort of nebulous "mark"?
Also, why make it melee only? If the fighter needs a working tanking mechanic, having it work both at melee and at range would make it functional against all sorts of enemies, not just those engaging in melee. And the "tanking" would be accomplished by the enemy either having to go through the entire fight with a serious penalty whether the fighter is actually dealing damage or not, or with them engaging the fighter to kill them and get rid of the penalty sooner.
What you describe is pretty much what the Mark means. There's no visible Arcane Mark or something that the Fighter tags the enemy with. "Mark" is just a game term to describe a temporary condition imposed by the fighter keeping a careful eye on the enemy.

The idea behind the attack penalty for attacking someone other than the Fighter is that because the fighter is paying careful attention to her enemy she's able to react in the nick of time and interrupt the attack in some way, i.e. slapping the enemies crossbow with the flat of her blade, kicking dust in the eyes of a spellcaster as he casts, etc. When the enemy takes his attention off the fighter she is ready to mess him up.

Mark punishment isn't available outside melee primarily because I think it breaks verisimilitude. Within her reach the fighter controls the tempo of the fight. When enemies are outside her reach it's both literal and a metaphor; beyond her reach the fighter has little impact on others aside from the temporary aftereffects of her putting her Mark on someone (and them then leaving her reach).