D&D 5E Why play a low-level Fighter when the Barbarian is so much better?

[Quartz]

The barbarian has more HP, better AC out of armour, the same AC in armour (low level PCs can't afford heavy armour), possibly the same unarmoured AC as the fighter in armour, does +2 damage when raging, takes half damage when raging. At low-mid levels the barbarian moves faster, hits harder on a crit. At low-mid levels, the fighter has heavy armour but clanks everywhere, gains 1 feat over the barbarian, and, if a battlemaster, four manoeuvres. Meanwhile the barbarian gets advantage on initiative, hits harder when he crits, doesn't die when dropped, can frenzy for a third attack, gets limited spell immunity, and still takes only half damage from weapons. It's only at 11th level when the fighter starts to draw back with a third attack. But the barbarian is still taking half damage and doing more damage per hit. But, per another thread, many campaigns don't get that far.

What am I missing?

I haven't analysed the Eldritch Knight yet.

 

[Phaezen]

At low levels the fighter has his fighting style, which is a bonus to hit, ac, damage or protecting allies; second wind and action surge. You missed the weapon master gaining the ability to crit more often as well.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Barbarians from Lv. 1-10 aren't exactly raging every single combat, either, assuming the 6-8 encounters/day guideline from the DM basic rules. Even from Lv. 6 with 4 rages/day there's 2-4 encounters where the Barbarian isn't raging, meaning 33-50% of your encounters.

Also you REALLY don't want to Frenzy more than once per day until you're Lv. 9, when the party's Cleric/Bard/Druid gets Greater Restoration. Even then, you'd probably only do it twice at best. Exhaustion is a big freakin' deal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Because the barbarian archetype doesn't appeal to me and the fighter does?

Not everyone plays a PC based on optimization


I feel like I just said this the other day

 

[Juriel]

Barb without Rage is a weak kitten. And the frenzy path with the bonus action attack exhausts you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Because the barbarian archetype doesn't appeal to me and the fighter does?

Not everyone plays a PC based on optimization


I feel like I just said this the other day

Yup. I might want to play a disciplined soldier and not a savage outsider.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As Gladius pointed out, you're missing that you can't rage and/or frenzy every encounter. 5e is balanced around a fairly 'long' 6-8 encounter day. You only get to use a resource like rage in the encounters you decide (at the time) are the most important of the day. So the fighter gets to be better than the barbarian (and casters) when it comes to encounters no one expects to be important or difficult. Some days, that could be most of 'em.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To echo the general sentiment: 5e, like 4e before it, is balanced around the assumption that you will have 6-8 encounters per full rest (though it seems to presume you'll have that in maybe 3-4 hours of play instead of, well, 6-8 hours of play).

For those who have significantly fewer encounters, classes with full-rest-limited abilities (like barbarians and spellcasters) are going to seem more powerful, as they don't ever have to suffer the down time that their ability balance assumes.

I am fairly confident the DMG is going to have guidelines around changing that pacing up, but RAW presumes that classes like the fighter and rouge are consistent, while classes like the wizard, cleric, and barbarian are swingy -- higher highs, lower lows.

 

[Mirtek]

Yup. I might want to play a disciplined soldier and not a savage outsider.

Actually the barbarian class lends itself very well to that. Basically all barbarian abilities can be excellently explained as a sophisticated warrior entering a state of battle-zen.

While they still had the katana as a 2h 1d10 finesse weapon, I had a barbarian in the playtest who was excatly that. A cultured, educated, well spoken wandering swordsmen, who has his special technique of zen which explained all his class abilities.

 

[KarinsDad]

Fighter 1 / Barb 1 / Fighter X probably kicks butt on both straight Fighters and straight Barbarians.

He gets the rage for the big fights (like Dragons), has better AC in the long term, and fighter benefits on average just seem better than Barbarians (e.g. 3 attacks per round at level 12 for the multiclass without the exhaustion of Frenzy).