1) It's rarely interesting to play characters that auto-attack and nothing else from my point of view.
My point of view is that I would take a barbarian in the party if I thought that he would be powerful enough. My choice wouldn't be based on the number of options he has.
I do see the class as something that should be simpler than the fighter. The fighter often has to choose a new feat among a big list and think about what his best fighting style should be.
Agreed that the abilities can be passive but then we have to determine that the class isn't powerful enough as is.
2) Highest attack bonus? It has the same BAB as other fighting classes.
I mean combined with the Strength bonus from Raging, his total attack bonus can easily exceed that of a fighter.
4) The examples I provided was only to give you an idea what Rage Powers are about - not finite suggestions! If you dislike bite, that's fine, but the concept of rage powers is what's important.
Okay. It's just that when I looked at Pathfinder first, I thought 'why did they make the barbarian, who should be simple, into something more complicated like that'.
5) I hold to the belief that non-casters are underpowered. This is almost a given truth in D&D.
I agree that non-casters are not as powerful when levels increase but I have no problem with this. I see them as having a slightly different purpose in the party. They protect the casters, deal with enemies that resist magic, and they continue fighting even when the casters are disabled or out of spells (which often happens in the early levels).
I don't think that it's possible to have non-casters be as powerful as casters in the later levels.
A Bladesinger may cast a spell quickened a number of times per day, for example. So you could give the Bard the ability to do this once each five levels (5, 10, 15, 20). That is, cast a Bard spell as a free action once per day per fifth level.
Yes, I like that idea.
[death knight smite] But it isn't now... is it? Have I missed something completely?
You're right, I think I confused it with the Cleric's smite ability.

[death knight life drain] You might not (why, by the way?), but I fear Life Drain will be a very bad ability if it isn't altered in some way. I specialize this dude in attacking, it will almost always yield more damage (and offense is often the best defense), so if I'm pressed to use Life Drain it will often be because I've already lost. Making a vampiric touch that takes up my ability to attack seems pretty bad.
Because it's more complicated and because you may kill the target with your single attack before even being able to drain. Otherwise I get your point, but it's a way of healing without calling on the cleric. I suppose it could make the target fatigued on top.
[druid] Up the power of the spell list. How you actually do this is up to you, but I honestly think it's needed
How about simply make all druid summon spells 'free action' and give +1 per level on Call Lightning and Call Lightning Storm.
[fighter feat to reduce death threshold] It is of course your choice, but I would never pick this feat under any circumstances. If my fighter is down I'm already losing. Maybe in an ironman game it would be kindda relevant, but if not, I don't think it would be.
I don't see how fighting in negative HP helps, though. It's more likely to get you killed, with the usual XP and gold loss. Going unconscious would mean that you can be revived with a heal, and no XP or gold loss.
[fighter damage feats] As I said, my suggestions are not a complete solution. If you want I can make one (say, six new fighter feats total)?
Well, I'm not sure.
[remove weapon specialisation] I didn't realise you agreed with that perspective.
I do because less is more sometimes.
[monk stun] the ability as it is now is underwhelming and too random.
Is it though? if a monk deals a full attack and it hits three or four times you end up with an almost 50% chance of stunning the enemy.
[monk pounce] It would make it what it should be; a fast fighter type that can move easily around the battlefield without too many restrictions.
I need to think about this more.
[ranger] You could instead opt for a single Careful Shot with a +2 bonus. That gives you one attack with a +16 bonus.
True, true, but what if you only have a single Death arrow and you need the best chance to hit. Anyway, we can also increase the chance to hit on a Careful Shot.
I think for a rogue, which is certainly weaker than a fighter in your iteration, it would be alright. It's not that big of a win, really, especially considering the low HP of the class.
Maybe a 75% reduction instead. For the sake of the AI

From 10th level, the Rogue may add its Dexterity modifier to damage when it sneak attacks.
Yeah, as an alternative to Death Strike, maybe. But instead of Dex we could make something else come into play. Like Intelligence.